create |
promote 4 |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Featured list log}} |
{{Featured list log}} |
||
{{TOClimit|3}} |
{{TOClimit|3}} |
||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of accolades received by An Education/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Glee (season 1)/archive1}} |
|||
{{Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans/archive1}} |
Revision as of 23:49, 3 September 2010
- 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [1].
List of accolades received by An Education
- Nominator(s): JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I present to you yet another film accolades list. This time round, I created it entirely from scratch and worked on it off Wiki until I was happy that it met the criteria. I was not aware that the film had received as many awards and nominations that it has, as the table in the film's article was (very) incomplete. I look forward, as always, to your comments. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 00:32, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I gave it a copy edit, made a few minor fixes in the refs, but nothing major. Although my FL experience is limited, as far as I can see, this meets the criteria. Excellent work. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 22:40, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for your help & support. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:42, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. I updated the links to reference 5 and 8 so they point to non-redirecting links. I corrected the win count for one award in the infobox. I found no other problems. From what I can tell it meets all the criteria for a featured list. Great work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 21:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 22:12, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 01:27, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support Courcelles 23:55, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 16:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support nice work, and thanks for addressing my concerns. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you. - JuneGloom07 Talk? 11:30, 3 September 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.
- 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [2].
Hugo Award for Best Professional Magazine
Having finished Novels, Novellas, Novelettes, Short Stories, and Related Works, our Hugo Award journey continues on to one of the original categories, Best Professional Magazine. This is the first category brought to FLC that no longer exists, having been replaced in 1973 with an award specifically for editors. As always, comments from previous FLCs have been addressed here as well. --PresN 20:23, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Comments
Courcelles 20:21, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
- Support Good work. Courcelles 21:49, 19 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support Meets criteria. I found no problems. Good work. --Dan Dassow (talk) 23:07, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support you got the blueprint by now. Sandman888 (talk) Latest PR 08:57, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:44, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 12:14, 26 August 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.
- 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [3].
Glee (season 1)
- Nominator(s): CycloneGU (talk), Frickative (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am co-nominating this for featured list with Frickative because I believe it meets the featured list criteria, has undergone a recent peer review, and was written based on other featured lists such as Lost (season 1) and 30 Rock (season 1). We've worked hard on this and hope it qualifies to be among the best. We will both be watching this and addressing any concerns in the process. CycloneGU (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support (per nom). CycloneGU (talk) 03:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (as co-nominator). The article has undergone thorough editing over the past week to ensure it is up to the necessary standard, and I believe that it is of comparable quality to other featured lists on television seasons. Frickative 03:34, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment–no dab links, no dead external links. By the way, it's not customary for nominators to support: the FL directors are looking for uninvolved support. Ucucha 06:12, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - "The season consisted of 22 episodes, with the first 13 episodes airing on Wednesdays at 9 pm (ET) and the final 12 airing on Tuesdays at 9 pm (ET)." 13 plus 12 does not equal to 22. --K. Annoyomous (talk) 07:25, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note My previous comments can be found at the talk page of this nomination Matthewedwards : Chat 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think it's OK to nom this for FL. While everything Matthew says is true, this is an area where we don't always follow summary style. They jumped the gun a little bit, but Glee has been renewed for a third season already, and the second is only a month away. This is what this article should look like in few months, and a lot of effort has gone into this FL review, so I think you should just review what's here without regard to the other articles. As soon as the second season premiere airs next month, the two parent articles will begin to diverge significantly, or at least they should. I think there's a lot of Glee episode GAs too, but I wouldn't overthink it. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 15:35, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Well that's why I didn't go and AFD it. When the second season airs and if it gets as much coverage as the first, it's likely that season pages will be valid as the series page gives a summary overview of both seasons and everything else. I think you're wrong though, that "this is what the article should look like in a few months". There is so much valuable detail in that series page that is missing here, and when the series page is developed and expanded over the course of the second season, it will likely disappear. Matthewedwards : Chat 15:59, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't actually compared to the articles, and was just speaking in general. If you're talking about FA vs FL season pages, I prefer the FA versions. I think it's kinda silly you can't have a fat production section and then nom for either FA or FL, but whatev. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:06, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Outstanding issue: Perhaps you could rename the DVD and Blu-Ray release section to "Home media releases" which would allow you to introduce the fact that the season was available at iTunes, V-Cast on the Verizon Wireless network, Sprint PCS, Zune for the X-Box, Hulu, etc.
You've done some real good work on this page during this nomination. Most of my concerns are met now. I believe the page has got the right amount of information now, and it no longer serves as a summary of Glee (TV series) (which now correctly serves as an overview of the entire series).
The only thing now is to think about whether this still qualifies as FL over FA. Previously it did. There was the episode list, a cast list, a crew list, a list of DVD info, a list of awards and nominations. The only thing that really wasn't a list was the reception part. Now though, it seems to me to be more of an article with a list. There's a lot more prose and detail in the production section. There's more info in the character section, so it is now less of a cast list in prose form. The award section is still listy, but they usually are. I don't mean to say that it shouldn't be listed at FLC any more, just that it could be listed at FAC and its something to consider. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I guess it depends whether you regard FAC higher than FLC, or whether you think our readers do, and if you want to have the chance of it appearing on the main page. Matthewedwards : Chat 18:08, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I would disagree Matt, primarily on the basis of how the info is presented. The "cast" section is really just a list of who appeared on the show, and not really a prose of casting information about selecting actors, how those actors characterized their roles, etc. When you look at WP:MOSTV, the article would get caught up in a debate on comprehensiveness. The production section is largely a broadcast history and less a production history. It does do well with the info on musical information, but there is other stuff going on with the show (storylines, character development), which are largely absent. Some of the music in "Production" also seems more relevant to the "Music" section under "Reception". Because it talks about the release of 5 CDs, which has nothing to do with the production of a show. Given that this show is about singing and dancing, and the production section doesn't cover the latter, it wouldn't meet the FAC criteria. I think if the production section was more developed and spent more time talking about actual production of episodes and not broadcast history and the release of records, it probably would be a good candidate for FA (over FL) because the rest of the page is great. It's just, when I read the "Production" section....if I removed the info that isn't really production, that section would probably only have the 3rd and 4th paragraphs left, with everything else needing to be either placed somewhere else, or dropped entirely (i.e. the first paragraph is redundant to the episode table because you're just listing people who wrote and directed episode...which the table does already...there's no context as to why that was important enough to be separated on its own). BIGNOLE (Contact me) 21:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your comments, both of you :) Matthew, I'm really glad you feel that most of your concerns have been addressed, and I'll try and fix up the home media section asap. Re: FL vs. FA - I've given the current season FAs a careful read through, and my gut feeling is similar to Bignole's comments. I think this article would fall down on broadness of coverage because of the "Production" section. The existing FAs have very detailed sections on "Writing", "Filming" (and "Effects" in the case of the Smallville/Supernatural articles), and while there are multiple good sources available on the "Music" element of Glee, I believe the former two sections are sparse on coverage at the present time. My instinct is to continue with the article at FLC at present, and if, in the future, there is information available with which the "Production" section can be expanded, perhaps try for FA at a later date. Frickative 22:29, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I tend to have a slight difference in opinion here. I agree that the Production section is our biggest obstacle here. The thing is we don't have good sources regarding the filming of Glee; even a search for "filming in Glee season 1" brings up "They started filming Season 2!" and other similar results (I also tried "conception of glee"), and nothing about production of the show itself. I did find a fantastic picture of Britney Spears playing Maude on the show, however (too bad it's a blog). The writers, I think, tend to talk more about the music and discussions of future plots and twists, but there is no detail on a lot of the normal production information you'd expect in these articles. My point is that just because we don't have any real information on things that normally would be in a television season article shouldn't detract from whether the article is well-written. If the information isn't available, we can't say it, and a section will appear bland in comparison. We've still provided all of the information we DO have, even if it is music; once again, music is a heavy element of the show's production more than anything else. CycloneGU (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- But you have to show that the information isn't available. Given that a simple Google search cannot prove a negative, you'd need someone with a LexisNexis account to be able to search a much broader searching field. Plus, I still think the lack of info on choregraphy and other dance elements is a big deficiency. The show is about character development, singing, and dancing. You got the music covered, but nothing else. Now, the individual episode pages seem to have more true production info, but you cannot duplicate what's there to this page because it would mean that those pages are unnecessary. That's the Catch-22. You can fill this page out more by putting more info on individual episodes here, but then that would negate the need for those individual episode pages because they would otherwise create the same problem that Matt brought up originally---multiple pages saying the exact same thing. The difference between this page and other FL seasons with the few FA season pages we have is that those "article" pages don't typically have more than a couple episode articles. The rest of the episode info is on those season pages. You'd have a hard time meeting criteria for comrehensiveness when you have 22 episodes to cover on this page and you don't really cover any. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Point noted. But we can't simply move the information to the Season 1 article from the episode articles because then we'd be having a detrimental effect on the episode articles. We probably could add some information on special locations for filming (such as in April when they filmed the finale to an audience of Gleeks from Twitter and Facebook), but there isn't a lot we can put in without simply copying the other articles. How much coverage would be needed to make it comprehensive? CycloneGU (talk) 23:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Compare the page to Smallville, Supernatural, and Parks and Recreation (which are the only 3 series I know of that have "articles" for season pages). My fear is that, it sets a principle that "comprehensive" doesn't actually mean comprehensive in the future. If the info is on the episode pages, that's perfectly fine. This page does not need to be FA, it can be FL (though some things probably need to be eliminated because of redundancy in this article alone, let alone across multiple articles). When you look at this production section, it's largely non-existent. Only two paragraphs really talk about any production related information, and they aren't really lengthy paragraphs at that. It's just missing a lot for coverage. There isn't truly a lot of info on the music for a 22 episode series, nothing on any dance routines, and for a show that deals a lot with human drama there's really nothing as far as that goes either. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 23:50, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry I am replying late to this. I do agree that this page lacks information on dance routines, production, and so on. You refer to this as the Catch-22, and I fully agree; we can put that information here, but it then could make one or more episode pages unnecessary. Perhaps we can cover information on some of the more memorable routines, for example, and maximum of one per episode, but it would clutter the page unnecessarily to have 22 dance routine discussions on the article, so that is out. Maybe two or three of the more memorable ones could be used, and this would tie into production, but the question is which ones we can cover best in the article to give the detail that would meet the criteria.
- On another note, I have seen two opinions from other editors off of this page supporting this article as a potential FAC, not just an FLC. Dabomb87 and DocKino have both made such comments (the former comparing it to the first time I took it to FAC without a peer review), and while I don't intend to copy their comments to this FLC or start long discussions on their talk pages, it does show one of the great things about a community such as Wikipedia in having a great group of diverse people with diverse opinions, and we all have the same goal of making this such a great wealth of information for free for everyone. CycloneGU (talk) 03:21, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think just a couple of routines wouldn't be enough, because a couple of routines can be covered in a couple of sentences and the section is lacking by more than just a couple of sentences. Personally, I think given what appears to be a huge critical response for each episode (the reception sections are rather fleshed out compared to most episode articles) I wouldn't try and trim any episodes. You have three options when it comes to the production info. You can either remove it from certain/most episode pages and place it here, which would flesh out this page closer to comprehensiveness; or you can copy and paste leaving it on both. If it's on both, then it makes it redundant on one of the pages and this page would most likely be deemed the unnecessary one given the strong critical reception each episode gets. As such, the third option is to not change anything and leave this page as a list. I'm not sure why there is a push to force this page to be an article when it doesn't seem to naturally flow in that category. There is nothing wrong with it being a list (which is actually the most common form for season pages, especially when episodes are so well discussed in the media). I think, unless there is significant coverage on production info for the season that isn't directed at specific episodes (e.g., see Smallville (season 9) or Smallville (season 10) to see how info can be established on a more general scale in significant depth), then I wouldn't try and create bigger problems with multiple pages by trying to pick and choose what to snatch from episode pages and then either be left with diminished episode pages or redundant material (which was an issue this page had at the start of this FLC). I think it fits the "list" category better right now (though it certainly has a strong reception section than any season list or article), which is what I support for this page. BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not saying anything is wrong with being an FL over an FA. I'm just saying that the article is on a fence. My requests of the editors in question were to simply give a straight opinion without review on which category it better fits, and I linked to them for that reason only to include them since another comment appears below this string here. My main thing to take away is that if some people think it fits FA, then it likely fits FL as well in their opinion.
- As for why I'm coming up with ideas to get more production info in, it's only for completeness purposes. If you think having more info on musical numbers would fit the article/list well, then we should try to include it. With or without it, if it doesn't still qualify for FA, then we still have a very good FL candidate here and I think we'll both be proud of that, pass or fail (and for me, my first that I've helped spruce up, even if only as a minor contributor). =) We've been debating running the page for FA again, but we'll let this run its course first and determine the best action after that, pass or fail. CycloneGU (talk) 03:57, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I was asked to look over this to weigh in on if it's better fitting as a list or an article. Doing a read-through, I can say this: This is essentially a slightly more prose-driven season list than others. That being said, everything structurally and comprehensively is equivalent to that of a season Featured List. Just with more prose than usual. So, I'd say this is definitely better suited for FL and not FAC. The Flash I am Jack's complete lack of surprise 03:16, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- support Sorry. Been away for a few days and didn't get chance to follow up. As I've said before, I haven't reviewed the episode summaries at all because I don't want to be spoiled for when the DVDs come out next month, but with regard to everything else, I support this becoming a FL. I feel it meets the criteria and all other WP policies and relevant guidelines. Nice work on getting Summary Style and article hierarchy sorted out. Matthewedwards : Chat 02:27, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
Until the DVD image is removed or a much, much better rationale written, I must oppose. Courcelles 16:16, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
- Support If and only if the non-free content stays out. If you reinsert it, please contact me to examine the FUR you write for it. Courcelles 13:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- I don't know if this was mentioned, but could the production be moved under the episode list? I doubt it would make or break the FA status, just wondering. ChaosMasterChat 23:41, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Sure thing. The only reason "Production" leads at the moment is because having "Episodes" first would have left a large whitespace when there was an ibox image. Now the image is out, there's no reason not to shuffle the sections, so I'll change it now. Frickative 23:53, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - In case it wasn't clear in the long winded reply above. I also support the page with the DVD cover art, because that is the standard practice of ALL season pages (whether articles or lists) right now and if someone has an issue with this page then they need to bring it up at WP:TV to change it across the board and not simply trying to change a single page. (i.e. I'd put the image back in) BIGNOLE (Contact me) 03:54, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:57, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments (sorry if they've been covered/discussed above, a little TLDR for me) - just a few that I found on a quick read.
.*"Australia,[103], Ireland,[88]" spare comma after [103].
|
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
- 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 promoted by Dabomb87 23:49, 3 September 2010 [4].
2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans
- Nominator(s): TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am nominating this for featured list because I have reformatted this identically like 2010 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans and feel it is equally high caliber.TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment—dab links to Center and Jeff Teague, and a dead external link to http://www.kansascity.com/news/breaking_news/story/1089222.html . Ucucha 18:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- dabs fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- dead link fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:30, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 10:50, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments
The Rambling Man (talk) 20:00, 12 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
|
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
Comments –
|
- Support – Meets FL standards. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 12:03, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments- It looks good to me and I would support this nomination (but I just did a quick review of the article). I generally prefer the template going below the references section, but that is not a big thing. Remember (talk) 14:36, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- New comment - I would suggest changing the following sentence in the lead to read as follows (insert in bold): The 2009 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans is an honorary list that includes All-American selections from the Associated Press (AP), the United States Basketball Writers Association (USBWA), the Sporting News (TSN), and the National Association of Basketball Coaches (NABC) drawn from the 2008–09 NCAA Division I men's basketball season. Thoughts?Remember (talk) 14:45, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I just noticed this one.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
*Oppose
|
- Blake Griffin is the only player with anything worth mentioning in the notes column for the by player chart? Considering Hansbrough won all/most the awards you list for Griffin two years prior, you can do better here.
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Capped the rest, leaving this one out for the moment. I was using Hansbrough as an example, surely there are interesting things to say about most- of not all- of these players? Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I will call WP:WPCBB and WP:NBA and get opinions on whether they would prefer to have things like Conference POYs and first overall draft pick added. I would prefer not to add conference POY. Not averse to national statistical champions or number 1 draft.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:20, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Capped the rest, leaving this one out for the moment. I was using Hansbrough as an example, surely there are interesting things to say about most- of not all- of these players? Courcelles 09:24, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
---|
;Jrcla2 thoughts re: Notes column
That's all I can think of for the moment. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply] |
Support. Sorry I forgot to add my !vote. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:12, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the major National awards (Cousy, Freshman of the Year, Defensive POY, etc.) as well as NCAA Tournament MOP should be noted. Only other special case could be if the player received the honor posthumously. like Hank Gathers or Wayne Estes - but that's obviously a pretty rare and extreme case. Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curry led the nation in scoring and Griffin led in rebounding. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. I will add sources to all these later. Also, keep an eye on 2010, which I am also changing to mirror this. Off the top of my head, I knew Wall led in assists, but was not sure who led in points or rebounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wall didn't lead the country in assists - he was third. If you ever need them, the top 5 in all major individual stat categories are listed on each season's page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 15:35, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, Wall didn't lead the country in assists - he was third. If you ever need them, the top 5 in all major individual stat categories are listed on each season's page. Rikster2 (talk) 14:16, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Added. I will add sources to all these later. Also, keep an eye on 2010, which I am also changing to mirror this. Off the top of my head, I knew Wall led in assists, but was not sure who led in points or rebounds.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:06, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Curry led the nation in scoring and Griffin led in rebounding. Rikster2 (talk) 13:58, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Done--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:33, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I just took another look - I think the position key should be no more than 5 positions - PG, SG, C, PF and SF. If a player played more than one position, it can be noted as "PF-C" or "PG-SG" without having to note things like "swingman." People can figure it out and the key will be short and sweet. Rikster2 (talk) 01:30, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I copied the legend from 2010 where some of the combination positions are necessary. Now fixed.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:14, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, I think the "By Player" list's default sort should be by Consensus points vs. starting with the AP team as the first five. People can always sort by the various granting parties if they are interested. Just my opinion on this one. Rikster2 (talk) 01:36, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Fixed the default order.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:12, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I know this was feedback from this or the 2010 nomination, but I am not a fan of listing the Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans. These lists are less All-American teams and more the finalist lists for these awards. I think the information is intresting and notable, but probably should reside on the pages for thos awards. This might take an overhaul to those pages to fit it cleanly, but my opinion is that would be the place for it to go. Also, I would recommend a deparate discussion about the format of these on Talk:WP CBB before we get too far along on converting the 70+ pages. I think good feedback is coming in as these are nominated as FLs, but we should have a WP:CBB POV on what info should be in vs. out, formats, etc. - especially when we look at what info is scalable to All-America lists from 40+ years ago. Probably would require inviting in all the regulars since not everyone checks the project page that often. Rikster2 (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I think the thing to do is to call all concerned parties here and settle it now. Then implement it on the two lists currently in the FL domain. Whatever is agreed to here will probably be the default format for 2011 and years forward. Not so sure how much historical improvement is likely outside of the WP:CUP. I am going to post a notice on the talk page noting the disagreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 16:20, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- OK, then here are my suggestions to get the ball rolling. It IS important that the historical lists in the same format over time - this is the right thing to do to enable ease of use for readers and is frankly one of the reasons you have Wikipedia projects. I don't mind doing some of the work, but considering I did 98% of the work getting the 1939-2008 articles in the current format, I kind of feel I've "done my time" on them and would like to concentrate on new material:
- As content, each list should include the consensus teams, individual teams and Academic AA teams. The new sortable list of all players is also helpful.
- Only the teams used to determine the consensus teams should be included - this is a clear standard on what to include and not include and matches what the NCAA record book officially tracks. IE - no Wooden teams, Lowe's teams, ESPN.com teams, etc.
- Use only the 5 positions on the court to show what position players play - SF, PF, C, SG, PG. I'd even be comfortable limiting it to three (G, F, C). Use dashes or slashes to show a player logged time at more than one position.
- Keep the Academic All-Americans but only wikilink those with current Wikipedia articles. These guys are not necessarily notable due to their basketball achievements and articles don't need to be created (and in most cases shouldn't be created)
- We need to decide on if we should keep the AP honorable mention list. I think it is interesting information and is often noted on mid-major star players' articles, but it's just a really long list and the format is ugly (I created it so I have no problem admitting that). However, showing the team as a big vertical list gives the topic way too much real estate in the article. The issue gets worse once you start to document the HM AA's from the 80s - where the lists are sometimes close to 100 players.
- Might be interesting to add the AP Preseason All-Americans so the pre- and post- season selections can be compared. These started in the 1986-87 season. Others need to weigh in on this idea.
- I think we should keep all players included on lists by all-selectors regardless of whether they contribute to consensus. Thus, HM as well as 4th and 5th teams should be included.
- I will repeat my assertion that every player does NOT need to be cited on these articles to their University player pages. To me, the citing should prove that the teams are who the article says (or that any notes about honors are legit or that any statements in the lead are valid) - NOT to prove the players exist or that they played for the team listed. This info is confirmed in the All-American releases and is linked at the individual Wikipedia player pages - which are all just a click away from the All-American article itself.
- I just think these refs give quick access to the performance of the players on the page.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The table abbreviation keys for the consensus teams and player lists are too big and obtrusive right now. Can the font be made smaller, the items listed in something other than a purely vertical table, etc.
- Notes on the player table should only cover major awards tracked by the NCAA record book. IE - no Athlon, FOX, ESPN, etc Player of the Year awards. Again, a clear standard vs. confusion on what to include vs. not.
- I have no problem. Either all-national in scope or all included in NCAA record book. Either way is O.K.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:53, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I am sure there are many discussion points we could have, but those are good starters before project team members go off and try to retro-fit the existing articles. Rikster2 (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say if you're not going to list the Wooden and Lowes' All-Americans, then all mention of such things should be totally expunged from the lede. Though what makes it worth getting rid of those, and yet keeping the Academic lists? Courcelles 18:05, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because at least first team Academic All-Americans over time are also recorded in the NCAA Record Book - whereas Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans are not. The Wooden Award and Lowe's Senior CLASS award themselves ARE tracked, just not the lists of finalists that constitute their "All-American teams" Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem limiting the article to All-American lists mentioned in the NCAA record books. We could do what WP:CFB does and include all All-American teams considered to be produced for a national audience, which would include ESPN, Wooden and Lowes. I can go either way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one else has an opinion on Wooden and Lowe's I will remove them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to keep them, though I wouldn't oppose promotion over it. (Since they're here, how are we really improving the list by removing them?) However, it they go, then the sentences in the lede really ought to go with them, since the article will no longer discuss them in the body. Courcelles 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd prefer to keep them too. I am looking for people who want to suppport this article. Thus, I am hoping you want to keep them enough to support. I don't see you having any other issue with this list. We are sort of getting to decision time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, Support in present condition. Courcelles 20:36, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I'd prefer to keep them too. I am looking for people who want to suppport this article. Thus, I am hoping you want to keep them enough to support. I don't see you having any other issue with this list. We are sort of getting to decision time.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd prefer to keep them, though I wouldn't oppose promotion over it. (Since they're here, how are we really improving the list by removing them?) However, it they go, then the sentences in the lede really ought to go with them, since the article will no longer discuss them in the body. Courcelles 13:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- If no one else has an opinion on Wooden and Lowe's I will remove them tomorrow.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't have a problem limiting the article to All-American lists mentioned in the NCAA record books. We could do what WP:CFB does and include all All-American teams considered to be produced for a national audience, which would include ESPN, Wooden and Lowes. I can go either way.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:48, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Because at least first team Academic All-Americans over time are also recorded in the NCAA Record Book - whereas Wooden and Lowe's All-Americans are not. The Wooden Award and Lowe's Senior CLASS award themselves ARE tracked, just not the lists of finalists that constitute their "All-American teams" Rikster2 (talk) 18:10, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Tony, I'll surprise you and support as well. My issues don't have to do with the quality of the article as an FL candidate, they just have to do with general WP:CBB POV. That's why I suggested a discussion there as opposed to on this nomination. I think there are a lot of policy issues to figure out for the project and this nomination just surfaced some of them. Rikster2 (talk) 11:59, 1 September 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.