Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/All-NBA Team/archive1
- The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by Dabomb87 17:49, 16 January 2010 [1].
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this for featured list removal because it seems to be far less user friendly, lacks in-line citations, and lacks illustrations in comparison to some other featured lists which I have visited.Barkeep49 (talk) 15:45, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly what part of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria did this list violate? The lead has in-line citations and illustrations are not required. So, I am not sure why you think this list should be removed.—Chris!c/t 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- WFCforLife far better stated what I was trying to get at.Barkeep49 (talk) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from WFCforLife
- I don't think the table should be sortable, but "user friendly" certainly does fall under criteria 4. A compact TOC linking to the start of each year would help navigation, such as the one in Premier League Manager of the Month.
- Positions should be added, given that they are part of the selection criteria. This could be done in numbering format for the most efficient use of space (1 for point guard, 2 for shooting guard, etc), and would only need to be done once per row (i.e. point guards are always listed first, shooting guards are always listed second, etc). The key would need to be amended accordingly.
- May I suggest that the table is split into 1946-47 to 1954-1955, 1955-56 to 1987-1988, and 1988-89 onwards (same article, but three tables). This has no bearing on whether this meets the FLC standards, but indirectly I think it will be a huge help:
- On the assumption that the table isn't sortable and isn't going to be, it makes no difference to the user.
- It allows for paragraphs explaining the most obvious changes in slightly more detail, in the most appropriate places.
- Splitting the first ten seasons from the rest of the table makes it easier to create a standard format for positions, as explained above. For the first ten seasons you would probably have to create a different format, where a player's position is listed next to his name.
- While pictures are not required, it is generally understood that they should be there unless there is a good reason. At the moment there is a good reason- the width of the table. But splitting the table has other benefits, and a side-effect would be that we're getting rid of the obstacle on this front. From what I've seen of other lists there's no shortage of NBA pictures to choose from. By mixing and matching from various other lists and articles, you should get away with not having to write much of the alt text. Where alt text is missing, you can write alt text once and yet two articles will get the benefit!
- Bold shouldn't be used to signify MVPs. Consider using italics.
- "active" should be changed to either "have competed in the 2009–10 NBA season" or "are contracted to an NBA team for the 2009–2010 season".
There's quite a lot of basketball participation on FLC, so I believe that this can and will be saved. Feel free to drop me a note if you're stuck on anything though. Regards, WFCforLife (talk) 00:41, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fair enough. I can see the benefits of splitting the tables.—Chris!c/t 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The table is split. Since all players are listed according to positions in the 2 forwards, 1 center and 2 guards order, so I don't see the point of adding an additional column. As for the TOC, images and all other issues, I will deal with that tomorrow.—Chris!c/t 05:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, fair enough. I can see the benefits of splitting the tables.—Chris!c/t 05:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What's the status on the above issues? Also, a dead link needs to be fixed; check the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:26, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I believe I fixed everything. The dead link is not dead. I don't know why the toolbox says it's dead.—Chris!c/t 23:01, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree there has been substantial improvement to the list.Barkeep49 (talk) 23:39, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep – The reference is showing up as dead because .html hasn't been typed in. Otherwise, I see no major issues that would cause a failure to meet FL criteria. I'm not in love with the United States and Canada links (really common subjects that aren't closely related to the topic), but the rest of the lead seems reasonable. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 03:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Link fixed; both United States and Canada delinked—Chris!c/t 03:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Sorry for the late reply. WFCforLife (talk) 16:19, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Lean keep Barkeep49 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.