Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster/archive2

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 17:31, 16 January 2010 [1].

Charlotte Bobcats all-time roster edit

Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t, Geologik
Toolbox

I am nominating this for featured list because I think it fulfills the FL criteria. I am not the major contributor, but have permission from contributor to nominate.[2][3] —Chris!c/t 01:39, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 14:22, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • With 59 elements, I see no benefit in subdividing alphabetically whatsoever, it makes a nonsense of the sortability of the tables in any case.
Well, since the franchise is still pretty new, not many players have played, so subdividing alphabetically seems useless right now. But as the list grows to 200+ items, I think subdividing alphabetically will be useful. For example, see other all-time roster lists.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with this. I would even have a problem with breaking up those longer lists. It would be nice to sort the whole list by various schools, numbers, etc.—NMajdan•talk
List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NFL Draft has nearly 350 entries and maintains sortability, FWIW.—NMajdan•talk 14:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, one list, no subdivides please. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No images?
There are images of individual players, but would it gives a particular player more weight if his image is used over another?—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. These are great examples of how to use images in this list. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not "wowwed" by the lead. I know the team and the players appear to have not achieved a great deal but there seems to be a focus on that fact...
I know it is quite boring, but since "the team and the players appear to have not achieved a great deal", there is really not much for me to add.—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have G, F, C in your key, what about PG, PF, SG, SF?
Just use G, F, C based on refs.—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. If you have a key, it needs to cover all the abbreviations. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What I meant is that I didn't use PG, PF, SG, SF in the list anymore because they aren't verified by the refs.—Chris!c/t 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I still see a SG. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:13, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure the heading colour scheme aids accessibility.
That is the team color. I agree that it has nothing to do with accessibility, so should I remove then?—Chris!c/t 19:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the present colour scheme is helpful. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Removed—Chris!c/t 02:12, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "present" seems to mess with the sorting of columns it appears in.
Fixed, I think—Chris!c/t 04:42, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 13:35, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from NMajdan
Comments
  • The second sentence seems a bit too wordy - too many commas. Can it be clarified or broken up?
Assuming you mean the 3rd sentence, done—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • fifty-nine past and current players Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this a situation where you would simply say 59?
Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • who has appeared have appeared.
Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • 3 column references is generally discouraged. I recommend changing to 2 columns.
Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merely a suggestion, might be worthwhile in the long run to archive your sources using WebCitation. It will prevent link rot and hopefully spare you or someone else some work if those links die. (Mainly for the non-basketball-reference.com link.)

—NMajdan•talk 22:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • I think the table would be much stronger and more interesting if some basic statistics were included. Items like points, rebounds and assists per game would make great use of the sorting, and a few facts from these categories could also help spice up the lead.
  • What is citing the part about the Hornets relocating to New Orleans?
  • "The Bobcats are the only team to have never advanced into the playoffs." This is true regarding the 30 current teams, but there are defunct teams that never made a playoff appearance. The reference confirms this.
  • "with Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, being the first foreign-born player to be drafted by the Bobcats." The "with... being" structure isn't great, and "drafted" is used in a repetitive way. How about "; Alexis Ajinca, drafted in 2008, was the first foreign-born player to be selected by the Bobcats."
  • Looking at my sentence proposal above, it still might be confusing to non-NBA fans who don't know what the NBA Draft is. In addition to improving the structure, I'd like to see a specific mention of the NBA Draft for clarity's sake.
  • In the table headings, decapitalize Club as a non-proper noun. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done all—Chris!c/t 05:53, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Question Why is Raja Bell listed as 2009-2010, and others are listed as 2009-present? Also some players are listed as having joined the team in 2010. --Pgp688 (talk) 10:34, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, this is based on the source. And it listed the year as the last year for a season. Since Bell was traded in November 2009, which is the 2009/10 season, the year is listed as 2010. I will add a note about this.—Chris!c/t 20:39, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Can you remove the "width=80%" part from the table? It messes up the layout in my browser.
Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Statistics should be as of the last day of the previous season. the way it is now, it requires constant updating.
I agree, but this is almost impossible for me to change since the source used is constantly updated and I add the stats during the middle of the season.—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done—Chris!c/t 20:13, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • The years in the "from" and "to" columns are confusing. It's better to use the two-year format(ex. 2005-06) or just link the years to the season it indicates(ex. 2005).
Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Cheetah (talk) 01:03, 3 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • Why is there no table of contents and no section header for the table proper?
Added although I don't think this is required—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Abbreviations in the table that aren't covered in the key: No. (although that might be considered common knowledge, it might be important to explain why some players have two), Pos, Pts, Reb, Ast. Also, if Ref. and No. have periods, then Pts., Reb., and Ast. should too.
Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Image captions:
  • "Since drafted in the 2004 expansion draft, Gerald Wallace has been the longest serving Bobcats player." - two changes, should be Since being drafted (or perhaps Since being selected might be better to reduce redundancy of the word "draft"), and longest-serving is a compound adjective.
Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Raymond Felton was selected to the All-Rookie Second Team in 2006" - complete sentence, needs a period/full stop
Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Adam Morrison was selected to the All-Rookie Second Team in 2007" - complete sentence, needs a period/full stop
Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a reason why some players are "C/F" and others are "F/C"? Might be worth explaining.
Done—Chris!c/t 21:39, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with all of Crzycheetah's comments too.

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. Awaiting an answer to Wizardman's question. Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:30, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done.—Chris!c/t 04:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I find the use of defaulting to the end of the season for the purpose of the list confusing. Mainly, if someone doesn't check the footnotes, then they're thinking that the team started in 2005 and had no players in 2004. It doesn't have a good feel to me. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:16, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed.—Chris!c/t 18:57, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks better. Ideally the first and last games would be an exact date, but that would be very difficult to find and modify, so I won't ask for that. For the purposes of whether or not to promote, this can be considered a support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 16:43, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Charlotte_Bobcats_all-time_roster/archive2&oldid=1143879452"