Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Charlotte Bobcats draft history/archive1

Add links
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 20:12, 11 May 2008.

Charlotte Bobcats draft history[edit]

I think this article now meets all the FL criteria. And a note: this list is short, but it is comprehensive in that it covers everything it is supposed to (all the draft picks). Noble Story (talk) 14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The table is too short to be comprehensive. Nominate this in 5-6 years. A precedent can be found here.--Crzycheetah 19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is comprehensive (or at least, I'll trust Noble Story that it is indeed a complete list), and I think your objection is therefore inactionable. The precedent you mention was that the list was redundant with another list. I don't know if that's true of this list as well or not. But I don't think there's a consensus for a minimum length for lists, and length is not mentioned in the criteria. Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Crzycheetah, you say that there should be at least ten entries in a list. Number one, as was pointed as out, there are other FLs that have less than that. Number two, this article has eight entries. What is the difference between 8 and 10 entries? Third, can you show me exactly where in the FL criteria there is something related to the length of the list? Noble Story (talk) 02:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are basically 3 years of picks listed here, which is just a stub and therefore should not be featured. The criteria is irrelevant here, so just WP:IGNORE it. I don't see how stubby lists such as this improve the collection of Wikipedia's best works.--Crzycheetah 03:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stub- "An article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". This article is not a stub. And again: what is the difference between 8 and 10 items, which you previously said was the minimum for an FL? And what about other FLs that are shorter than this list? Noble Story (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Currently, I see picks from 4 drafts, and I'd like to see picks from at least 10 drafts. This objection is actionable; just wait for 6 years. Other FLs that may be shorter than this may never get any longer while this one can and will become longer over time.--Crzycheetah 03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • First of all, I find it hilarious that you say "wait 6 years", because in six year, I might not be here, you might not be here, and Wikipedia might be gone (although I hope not). Plus, I would say that 10 years is a rather arbitrary number. No offense, but I think there should be a third opinion on this. Noble Story (talk) 03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see why the number of drafts is relevant - if you think there should be a minimum of ten items on the list, fine, but requiring them to come from a specified number of separate events is silly. And the criteria is not irrelevant - if you object, you must cite which criterion you're objecting under. I also don't think "wait six years" is an actionable objection, because there's nothing that can be done to fix it. It will eventually fix itself, but that's different from being able to be fixed. Tuf-Kat (talk) 20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Then, let me ask you this, what is the difference between 10 items and 10 drafts? Why do you think having 10 items is fine? The criteria is irrelevant here because this list does not exemplify our very best work. According to WP:WIAFL, one has to make sure that a candidate is an example of our best work first, then the list of criteria applies. Right now, I am not sure that this is an example of our best work, so I am not even going to discuss the criteria here.--Crzycheetah 21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • A list is made up of items - I don't think there should be a minimum, but there is a modicum of logic in you believing there should be, so I said it's a reasonable concern. Requiring that those items come from a specified number of events is nonsensical. I don't see why this can't be considered an example of our best work; short lists are (or can be) perfectly useful, informative and well-made. What other criteria do you require for something to be among Wikipedia's "best work"? And I think you're wrong regarding this process - A featured list is an example of our best work, and the criteria are how we decide if something is our best work (and therefore, a featured list). If you think it's not our best work, the only acceptable reasons are those spelled out in the criteria. Tuf-Kat (talk) 22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I don't find this list useful at all because of its small amount of information. The table available here could be more useful in the Charlotte Bobcats article instead. Again, the information can be presented in a better way than this; therefore, this does not exemplify our best work. I am saying 10 drafts because then I think there will be enough information for this list to be informative and useful. I don't know, maybe information from 7-8 drafts will be be just enough as well, but right now I am positive that this information taken from only 4 drafts is not enough. --Crzycheetah 22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Okay, that is an actionable objection then. I'm not sure I agree that a merge is necessary, but that's what consensus-building is for. (I disagree that small amounts of information can be useful, because readers are generally looking for only a small amount of information, I think, and small narrowly-targeted content meets their needs nicely) Tuf-Kat (talk) 02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Let's not get distracted by the length. This list is comprehensive; and besides, we do have FLs with fewer list items (see List of counties in Rhode Island.) I do have a couple suggestions for improvement, though:
  • Could the qualifiers like (from Los Angeles), (from Milwaukee), etc be placed in the Pick column, instead of the Player column? Technically, the Bobcats didn't acquire any of those players from the other teams; they only acquired the draft positions in which to select those players.
  • The note about Jahidi White should probably clarify that he was selected in the expansion draft. (Speaking of which, could we say something about the expansion draft in this article? I know it's separate from the actual NBA Draft, but it's definitely related.) Zagalejo^^^ 05:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've moved the notes to the Picks column (although I think it looks a bit ugly). I've also clarified the note about White. However, if you really want me to add something about the expansion draft in the lead, exactly how do you propose I add it? I really don't think it's that relevant to this list, actually. Noble Story (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry if if looks a "a bit ugly" now, but clarity comes before aesthetics. Maybe we can tweak the list so that it looks more presentable; I'm not sure.
  • Re the expansion draft: I think many readers would consider that to fall under the scope of this article. It is a draft, after all. Couldn't you just mention it at the end of the first paragraph? Just say that they had an expansion draft two days before participating in their first regular draft. Zagalejo^^^ 17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • NBA's 30th team perhaps?
      • Done
    • The entries in the list need referencing. I can't see anywhere a substantial reference to verify each entry.
  • That's all I can see. Peanut4 (talk) 22:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nice one. As far as I'm concerned, this now meets the FL criteria. There isn't much more to say or that can be added. I'm not sure of the below suggestion, because that's what the individual entries are for. However, whether on length reasons, it can be made featured, I'm not sure. Are there any real guidelines, to say it's not long enough to be featured, apart from WP:IGNORE? Peanut4 (talk) 18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • List of dinosaurs is long enough to get away with having little or no of info about each dinosaur and no table. I think for this list it should be the opposite. Maybe some info about each player drafted instead of just a table. That should make up for the short length, if the short length is actually a problem. -- Coasttocoast (talk) 04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Charlotte Bobcats didn't trade Brandan Wright, they traded the rights to Brandan. When you are saying that they actually traded Brandan, you're basically implying that he was a Bobcats player, but he never signed a contract with them. --Crzycheetah 20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - though I can't comment on the sports-side of things, I think this is a very nice little list without any flaws. I believe it meets all the criteria (per my above discussion with Crzycheetah). Tuf-Kat (talk) 23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - A good comprehensive list that's as correct and up-to-date as possible. Nice job goes out to Noble Story for expanding the article (even if I did create it ;) Geologik (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Crzycheetah that such a small list does not really represent Wikipedia's best work. -- Scorpion0422 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Charlotte_Bobcats_draft_history/archive1&oldid=1145608329"