Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Pittsburgh Penguins first-round draft picks/archive1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.
The list was not promoted by Chrishomingtang 20:17, 6 November 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): Grsz11 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
I feel that this list meets all of the featured list criteria. It has substantial and quality lead (#1) and prose (#2). It is comprehensive, covering all of the individuals, as well as further methods of categorizing them (#3). The table is usable and sortable (#4). It is consistent with the Manual of Style and uses color (#5). It is and will remain stable, with the list only needing updating once a year (#6). Grsz11 03:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment You need to explain what 'Selections by country' documents. There is only one US player selected, but it lists two in the table. Alaney2k (talk) 15:52, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are two. Brooks Orpik 2000, Ryan Whitney 2002. Grsz11 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Although I am pro-table, I feel the "Selections by country"-, and to a lesser extent, the "Selections by position"-table are redundant here. The main table is sortable, so it's easy get an overview of the different nationalities.
- The tables could instead be converted into prose, something like;
- "...of the 38 players drafted in the first round by the Penguins, there are 13 centres, 12 wingers (7 right and 5 left), 8 defenders, and 5 goaltenders. The majority of the players come from Canada, 27 in the number. Czechoslovakia, Russia, Sweden and the United States all have two drafted players, while Belarus and the two now constituent states of Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, each have a single player drafted."
- Comment Although I am pro-table, I feel the "Selections by country"-, and to a lesser extent, the "Selections by position"-table are redundant here. The main table is sortable, so it's easy get an overview of the different nationalities.
- Another issue regardless of the one above, is to consider whether or not the two players from Czechoslovakia, should be listed by their nationality, or by the name of the country as when they were drafted? In the first scenario, since both players grew up in the Czech part of the union, and consider themselves Czech, they should be added to the total of the Czech Republic, making it three Czechs. The other scenario would result in leaving it as it is. lil2mas (talk) 23:10, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- We always list such things by the name of the country at birth or for a page like this the country at the time they were drafted. To avoid the arguements of what people actually are. Its pretty standard for sports articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, it's country when drafted ie Czechoslovakia until post-1993. I've wavered between country and nationality, I'm not sure what the preferred use is. Grsz11 18:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC) Posted before DJSasso amended, the point is still the same.[reply]
- We always list such things by the name of the country at birth or for a page like this the country at the time they were drafted. To avoid the arguements of what people actually are. Its pretty standard for sports articles. -DJSasso (talk) 18:13, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment There are two. Brooks Orpik 2000, Ryan Whitney 2002. Grsz11 19:09, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Some comments to start with:
- The lead could use some merging, lots of short paragraphs right now. Staxringold talkcontribs 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- All those notes on traded picks need references. The Hockey DB list shows they didn't pick in the 1st round, but doesn't say why. Actually, looking at the Press Guide I see that that lists the trades, but more specific refs sure would be nice nonetheless.
- Is Hockey DB considered a Reliable Source? I've never done hockey lists, so I could use a more experienced hockey editor's voice.
- I like the style of List of Calgary Flames draft picks a lot, I really think career statistics would add to this (and give additional information for the lead, first-round draft pick with the most goals, saves, etc, etc). Staxringold talkcontribs 21:40, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment
- If each trade note needs an inline citation, I will add it, but it is covered under the general reference list. Yes, hockeydb is generally considered reliable. Pretty much every hockey featured article uses it. As for adding career statistics, I'm not on either side. It could be useful, but this is a list of drafted players and there future performance is largely irrelevant to this list. Grsz11 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think it's required, but forcing someone to dig through a 20+ megabyte press packet (and I always worry about PDF refs that they'll get renamed or rehosted or deleted and just lost) for some info that has to be available elsewhere. As for the stats, I definitely think it's worth including. Why mark Lemieux's HoF status if their future performance has no bearing on this list? Staxringold talkcontribs 22:14, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The only problem is that besides 2008, they're 25+ years ago. Finding a different reference for thos would likely be impossible. Grsz11 22:43, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If each trade note needs an inline citation, I will add it, but it is covered under the general reference list. Yes, hockeydb is generally considered reliable. Pretty much every hockey featured article uses it. As for adding career statistics, I'm not on either side. It could be useful, but this is a list of drafted players and there future performance is largely irrelevant to this list. Grsz11 21:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose Am I missing something, or was this article created only the day before it is nominated as a featured list? That doesn't mean the list is "stable" per FL criteria. Also, why do we even need this content fork of List of Pittsburgh Penguins draft picks? Why not work on that article for featured list status instead? I think this list should be listed at AfD instead of FLC, to be honest. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 21:34, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I have to admit, if this is the only 1st-pick list that's a little less good. MLB has them because the draft is so insanely long the lists would be unbearable. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:05, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose 3b - I am not convinced that it meets the requirements to be a stand-alone list; this is a content fork and could reasonably be included as part of a related article (List of Pittsburgh Penguins draft picks)—Chris!c/t 01:15, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First-round picks are always considered another level of notability. See also the 18 featured lists of NFL first rounds. The NFL and NHL drafts are nearly the same size. Grsz11 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference, in that the NFL has choosen not to do full draft pick pages. So these lists are their draft pick pages. They don't do both. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's probably a much better idea. Entire lists of picks aren't particularly notable, and why they exist for hockey I don't know. If anything this list is more appropriate than a larger one, especially considering drafted football players are much more likely to play in the NFL than drafted hockey players are in the NHL. Grsz11 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree there. Far too many second, third, fourth, etc. round players who end up as all-stars, HOF, etc. These lists would lose too much information if they were limited to first round only. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why have a number of NFL lists been promoted with that same reasoning. Grsz11 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer that those lists were also more comprehensive. But I suppose that was a WP:NFL project decision to impose a first round cutoff, whereas WP:HOCKEY has gone a different direction. What is your motivation in trying to trump our project consensus here? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps to create a relevant list of notable individuals. Project consensus doesn't dictate what can and cannot become a featured artile or list. Grsz11 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But project consensus ought to be respected to determine how articles in a series (team articles, season articles, draft articles, etc.) are consistently presented. And your "relevant list of notable individuals" already exists on another page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that consensus is discussed and achieved where exactly? Grsz11 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I think a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ice Hockey in advance would have been more constructive than creating this content fork, self-nominating it as a featured list only 9 hours after you moved it into main article space, and then initiating this kind of discussion on the FLC comment page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:27, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps you might make a section on the project page for "Current Consensus" so everybody isn't expected to know everything ever discussed there. Grsz11 19:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Or you could spend a few minutes asking fellow project editors about their opinions (you know, in a cooperative, collaborative way) before you spend a lot of time on something like this. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:36, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that consensus is discussed and achieved where exactly? Grsz11 19:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- But project consensus ought to be respected to determine how articles in a series (team articles, season articles, draft articles, etc.) are consistently presented. And your "relevant list of notable individuals" already exists on another page. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 19:06, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Perhaps to create a relevant list of notable individuals. Project consensus doesn't dictate what can and cannot become a featured artile or list. Grsz11 19:00, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I would prefer that those lists were also more comprehensive. But I suppose that was a WP:NFL project decision to impose a first round cutoff, whereas WP:HOCKEY has gone a different direction. What is your motivation in trying to trump our project consensus here? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Then why have a number of NFL lists been promoted with that same reasoning. Grsz11 18:55, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Disagree there. Far too many second, third, fourth, etc. round players who end up as all-stars, HOF, etc. These lists would lose too much information if they were limited to first round only. — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 18:52, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- And that's probably a much better idea. Entire lists of picks aren't particularly notable, and why they exist for hockey I don't know. If anything this list is more appropriate than a larger one, especially considering drafted football players are much more likely to play in the NFL than drafted hockey players are in the NHL. Grsz11 18:40, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- There is a difference, in that the NFL has choosen not to do full draft pick pages. So these lists are their draft pick pages. They don't do both. -DJSasso (talk) 18:37, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- First-round picks are always considered another level of notability. See also the 18 featured lists of NFL first rounds. The NFL and NHL drafts are nearly the same size. Grsz11 18:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose per 3b. Being "another level of notability" does not require a fork. Resolute Lest We Forget 18:26, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Withdrawn Grsz11 19:17, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.