Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Lester Patrick Trophy

< 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 01:38, 15 February 2008.

Lester Patrick Trophy

edit

Yes... another hockey trophy article. This one's different though, it's associated with the NHL and is included in the NHL template, but not strictly an NHL trophy. I noticed this was rejected when we where planning the featured topic, so I picked it up recently and fixed it up, read for an FLC. All comments/concerns etc. will be addressed in a timely fashion. Maxim(talk) 13:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk)
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • Wikilink to ice hockey in the lead so non-experts don't get confused between this and field hockey.
    •  Done
  • " It honors the then-recently deceased Lester Patrick, who was a general manager and coach " . clumsy English.
    •  Fixed
  • Lead says, "It is considered a non-NHL trophy since it may be awarded to players, coaches, officials, and other personnel outside the NHL.", History says "Players, coaches, referees, and executives (within the league or within respective teams) are eligible to receive it." - I'm no hockey exper and I find this confusing, perhaps even contradictory.
    •  Fixed - the lead has the better-worded and correct info
  • " member of the Hockey Hall of Fame Builder's section" - again, I'm no expert but is this simply someone assigned to increase the number of people in the hall of fame? Builder in British English is someone who makes houses!
    •  Fixed, this is more of a specialist article, I don't expect too many Brits would be interested about US hockey. I gave a link to an article, but to shortly summarize, someone who has built the game of hockey. Link executives.
      • Specialism is irrelevant - that's why I'm reviewing US articles, this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia! All featured content should be accessible to all English speakers. Glad you've linked it. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "member of the committee changes annually expect for the NHL commissioner, who is presently Gary Bettman." - "expect" - typo.
    •  Done
  • There is an article at United States at the 1998 Winter Olympics which could be used (it needs expansion but linking it can only help).
    •  Done
  • Why did Granato win it nine years after the Olympics?
    • checkYBecause she won both with her team and as an individual.
      • But why nine years later? Just because? The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Probably coz she was judged worthy to receive irregardless whether she has won it previously with a team. Probably just because. :D
          • Perhaps. Because I'm asking the question, it may be worth trying to answer it, especially as she's a special case having won it with the team several years before. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • You should merge the rows which have multiple winners so the years appear once only for each trophy win.
    •  Not done See NHL Plus-Minus Award; this way, sortable works, and there's kinda of a style to do this upon which this is modelled.
      • Ah. Pesky sortable template. Not sure I'm concerned with the "modelled style", if it sucks, it sucks, regardless of previous articles. However, I won't go to town on it. Plus sortable templates can be fixed using the {{sort}} template, even with empty cells. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would make sense to have the images in chronological order and, if possible, the same width.
    •  Done for both
  • Consider expanding the widths of the columns in the table a bit, it looks really cramped right now.
    •  Not done I appreciate your concern, but I have no clue how to. If you know, feel free to try it. :-)
  • "2004-05 NHL lockout" should use the en-dash.
    •  Done
  • General references are bulleted, specific references are enumerated, why the difference?
  • Is the {{NHL}} template really relevant to this article?
    • checkY Style convention.

So, slight oppose for now until the queries and suggestions above dealt with. Hope they're of use. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Replied to all separately. Maxim(talk) 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Replied again. Maxim(talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK. Is this still an oppose? Maxim(talk) 22:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • There still seem to be a few outstanding issues above. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought they were all resolved. What issues do you still wish to try to resolve? Maxim(talk) 21:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why did Granato win it nine years after the Olympics?
        • General references are bulleted, specific references are enumerated, why the difference?
        • Ah. Pesky sortable template. Not sure I'm concerned with the "modelled style", if it sucks, it sucks, regardless of previous articles. However, I won't go to town on it. Plus sortable templates can be fixed using the {{sort}} template, even with empty cells.
        • The Rambling Man (talk) 22:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've tried to reclarify the Granato part in the article. For the references, the bullets and number is just a form of presentation; some quotes require a direct citation, and other stuff requires a citation as well not covered by general reference. The general refs cover, for example, the list itself. As for the table, what do you wish to be done? You've already stretched it, and personally, I disagree with that. Maxim(talk) 22:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if you disagree then by all means unstretch it. In my opinion, tables which have expand to fit columns are ugly as the data looks wedged in. But either way, it's not a big problem. I'll review it one last time and get back to you. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support we'll probably have to agree to disagree about the finer points of formatting this table but it's a fine list and well illustrated. The Rambling Man (talk) 12:32, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object Expand the text. It's mostly pictures and a recipient list. Only three refs too. OOPS, I thought it was an article. — Rlevse • Talk • 21:51, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as per the other hockey trophy lists. Resolute 00:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose and speedy close User:Maxim tried to promote his own nomination while disregarding WP:FLCs guidelines. Since the List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks failed because of the actions by its nominator, so does this one.--Crzycheetah 03:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While I disagree with Maxim's actions (I have closed my own FLCs before but never prematurely), I think it's unfair to fail the list solely because of that. -- Scorpion0422 03:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • At first, I thought it was unfair to fail the List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks. It was failed because of the actions of the nominator, though; therefore, this one should be failed, as well. Right now, it will be unfair if we do not fail this list.--Crzycheetah 03:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That was a different situation. It was a list that failed, then renominated even though the editor had made zero edits to the article between noms. It was not FL ready. This is a page that is basically FL ready and one vote away from passing. What are we going to do, bar Maxim from ever nominating it again? -- Scorpion0422 04:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't see any big difference, really. During the New Orleans nomination, people were opposing because User:Bole2 nominated that list right after it was closed by stating that he should wait for a couple of weeks or so. Here, this nomination was promoted prematurely by the nominator, which should be acted upon. I suggest to close this nomination and re-nominate it in two weeks. Again, it will be very unfair if we do not close this nomination, now.--Crzycheetah 04:51, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure opposing on an editor's behaviour is what this is all about - it's about whether the article meets the criteria and has sufficient support. Maxim was wrong to promote his own article after such a short time and with such limited support, but it's been reversed now. Opposing, in my opinion, is a little too pointy. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You certainly weren't thinking about being too pointy when you failed to provide any constructive criticism at List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks, were you? You were among others who created a precedence that allows such lists to be failed because of the actions of the nominator. I am simply following that precedence here. OR maybe there is a double standard around that I don't know about? Yes, that must be it then. The New Orleans nomination was made by a simple user User:Bole2, who could be just bullied around. This time, User:Maxim is an admin and no one should dare to go against him, right?--Crzycheetah 19:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You can't compare them because they were different situations. It's rare here, but articles at WP:FAC have been speedily closed because the nominator renominated it without making any changes. However. what's the point of failing this list though? That list was questionable, but this one is FL material. If we fail it now, he'll just renominate it and in 2 weeks it'll pass, so I'm not sure why failing it would do so much. -- Scorpion0422 20:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was not any concerns raised at the New Orleans nomination, it was closed simply because the nominator re-nominated it to receive feedback. He didn't receive any feedback that he could work on, he just received several speedy close votes that didn't make any sense. That list was FL worthy, as well, so what's the difference? The only difference I see is that User:Bole2 was given 2 months before he can re-nominate it. I think 2 weeks is fair enough. Renominate this list in two weeks--Crzycheetah 20:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are you out of your mind? What good will that do? I'm in half a mind to ignore the rules and reverse your reversal. So what if I closed this a bit out process? There's no harm done, and there's absolutely no point in letting this wait for two weeks. Maxim(talk) 20:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're getting into personal attacks now, huh? Yes, you're right, I forgot you are the admin around here, you can do whatever the fuck you want, right? That's called abusing your powers!--Crzycheetah 20:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter whether I'm an admin. And I can do whatever I want irregardless of whether I can delete/protect page and block users to make the 'pedia better. Maxim(talk) 20:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Going against the consensus makes Wikipedia better? How? You basically said a big "FUCK YOU" to everyone who opposed your rule change! Yes, that made Wikipedia better, sure.--Crzycheetah 21:01, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was no consenus there for the rule change in the way I proposed it. But I counted Rlevse's comment as a support, you don't. I think you're right on that one. But, shut up and go have a cup of tea. Maxim(talk) 21:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good Job! Thanks for caring about me, I appreciate it.--Crzycheetah 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, never anticipated such a personal attack. The claim that I "failed to provide any constructive criticism" is interesting. I said "can't see any differences from when the previous FLC closed. Perhaps consider a peer review?" and "Sorry Buc but as I've said, a peer review can do no harm. Be constructive and humble - ask the community to spend their time helping you get this article up to scratch. A good PR and this will fly through FLC, just look at what happened to Leeds United A.F.C. seasons with the help of WP:FOOTBALL.." and "Okay, perhaps I can clarify. You need to take this article to a peer review where the community will discuss what they expect to see. It precludes an individual from making an article their own and helps to produce an article which everyone will support. Does that make it clearer?" - at what point do those comments constitute "you failed to provide any constructive criticism"? The Rambling Man (talk) 00:53, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't attack you personally, I don't know where you got that from. I just asked whether you were trying to make a WP:POINT at the New Orleans nomination. The last couple of days, I noticed you were giving "constructive criticism" to almost every nomination(which is great). At that time, though, you didn't tell him what was wrong with the article. You just kept saying that the nomination should be closed and the article should go to the peer review. At least, you could have mentioned what was missing in that article.--Crzycheetah 05:39, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Are we all done? Back to the subject in question, are you still strong opposing this? The Rambling Man (talk) 11:07, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So, the double standard does exist here, sorry to hear that.--Crzycheetah 19:45, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gah. I asked User:Bole2 to consider a peer review. Maxim tried (and failed) to self promote the article to FL. What double standard are you talking about? Why not answer the question, are you opposing the article or the editor? Mountain = molehill? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, incidentally, statements like "Since the List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks failed because of the actions by its nominator, so does this one." hint that you think you own this process. You don't. I may be new around WP:FLC but your opinion isn't final by any means, nor was Maxim's. Move on and judge the article on its merits, not on the actions of the proposer. Thanks. The Rambling Man (talk) 20:05, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, that's enough. While I disagree with what Maxim did, I don't see any point in failing this nom. I am promoting it because the FL criteria does not say anything about failing a list as punishment for a nominators actions. You keep bringing up the New Orleans Saints draft picks list, but I still think it was a different situation and I did oppose it, but I did not do so simply to punish the nominator. This discussion is getting far too heated, so I'm closing it, so if you wish to continue it, do so elsewhere. It has enough support so this list will be Closed as Promotion. -- Scorpion0422 21:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support - great article. Maxim did a great job. The article meets all criteria as far as I can see.Mitch32contribs 13:45, 16 February 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/Lester_Patrick_Trophy&oldid=1147973118"