Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year/archive1

< 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 04:11, 5 June 2010 [1].

Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year edit

Atlantic Coast Conference Men's Basketball Coach of the Year (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Jrcla2 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC) and Remember (talk)[reply]

I am re-submitting this for FL consideration because the last time I made it a candidate (a few months ago) there was no consensus due to lack of participation. Jrcla2 (talk) 04:45, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I"m finding a peer review for this list, but I'm striking out finding a prior FLC. Was it under a different title then? Courcelles (talk) 18:23, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought, maybe I never did submit it (?). If I did, it happened between March 20–30, 2010, so maybe it's worth looking in the archives during that time period. If I didn't I apologize because I thought I had. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:20, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • The lead is complete unreferenced. Of primary concern is the first paragraph.
See the peer review for explanation.
I agree with the peer review. You don't need to cite anything that is covered by other citations in the table. Which is why I singled out the opening paragraph. Nowhere in the list does is mention the award goes to the "most outstanding" coach as voted on by the members of that media association. Nor does it say that the 1953-54 season was the first of the ACC. These are examples of content in your lead that is not covered by the list and need to be cited.—NMajdan•talk 19:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As of 2010, the award has been given 57 times in 57 seasons. - Since the award is given out yearly (and you state this), I think this sentence is redundant and pointless. Now, if it had been given out more or less times than the number of seasons, then that may be worth noting, but not this.
Revised. Remember (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The lead is a little on the short side. I especially don't care for the two-sentence paragraph. Can it be expanded or combined with another paragraph? To expand the lead, it might be worth noting that Bobby Cremins is the only coach to have won the award with a losing season.
  • I'd like to see the Nat'l COY column sortable. Just have it where those that won awards are grouped together.
Revised. Remember (talk) 17:30, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the lack of relation between Gary and Roy Williams needs to be mentioned. At the very least, if it stays, it needs to be cited.
Revised (footnote removed).
  • Refs 3 & 8 seem to link back to the Wiki page.
Nothing can really be done about that, it's part of the way the references are (automatically) formatted.
I'm not talking about the formatting. Clicking the link should take you to the source. It does not.—NMajdan•talk 19:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All I'm saying is that the links are automatically put on those references via the way the references are set up. To more easily understand what I mean, go to the article and try to edit it yourself. You can't just de-link them because they are referring to the general references. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:57, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see what its doing. Those are referring to references in the general references. Typically, references are either in general or specific, not both. Using the method you are, why isn't the ACC Coach of the Year references in general as well?—NMajdan•talk 20:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many other lists utilize it that way. One FL for example (here) uses basketball–reference.com as a general reference and then uses each specific player's page on basketball–reference as a citation. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:35, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the link needs to be fixed on the specific section. The actual reference can stay, but the link should not reload the page, it should be removed or go to the external source.—NMajdan•talk 14:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I just have no idea how to fix this (I tried and failed). If anyone knows how, please let me know. Remember (talk) 18:57, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not familiar with the Harvard referencing templates, so I cannot help either. But it does need to be fixed. If you are not able to get help, I suggest converting to plain text instead of templates. No point in using templates if they are used incorrectly.—NMajdan•talk 20:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the links; since there are only two general refs they are hardly necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This still seems to be an issue (references 5 & 10 now).»NMajdan·talk
I removed the links so there should not be any more issues. Remember (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Need to either wikilink or describe what a pick-up game is.
  • 1999–00 - This is usually listed as 1999–2000 since the change in century.

Hope that helps.—NMajdan•talk 16:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • Content question: would it be a good idea to mention in the lead how many of these award winners won national championships in the same season?
  • Spell out NCAA as the publisher in the general reference. Also, I believe "Stating" should be de-capitalized if possible. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:13, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Revised. Remember (talk) 02:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With the second comment, I meant spelling the NCAA out as the publisher of the reference, not changing the initials in the title of the linked page as seems to have been done. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:17, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide an update for the directors' sake, I'm neutral as long as an issue exists regarding the fair-use image. If it is resolved one way or the other, I'd be inclined to support. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 02:09, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 08:33, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Is the "most outstanding" thing a quote? if so, it should be in quotes.
    • Revised phrasing.
  • Don't put the ACC in bold, particularly when you reuse the expanded version straight away, put it after the second instance.
    • Revised.
  • Not at all keen on the single-sentence middle "paragraph". Can't you find an elegant way of merging it? Or better still, expanding?
    • Expanded, let me know if it's enough.
  • "ACC Coach of the Year Award" is repeated a few too many times for my delicate eyesight.
    • Fixed (maybe?)
  • "Miami (FL)" - do we really need (FL) here?
    • Rationale: I see where you're coming from, but I strongly say yes it's necessary. The reason is because there is a Miami (OH) men's basketball team. And while this may be the ACC article, that doesn't mean that any normal person would intuitively know that "Miami" is referring to Florida. Much of the country (e.g. the midwest) thinks of Miami (OH) first when they hear of Miami sports. Like other college basketball articles, the (FL) is needed to differentiate an ambiguous school title.
      • Okay, as I'm sure you're aware, the rest of the universe assumes Miami to be in Florida, and I would expect a piped link to be sufficient. What do you reckon? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just feel that since we're building an encyclopedia, we should assume the reader knows as little (e.g. nothing) about the subject at hand and therefore they shouldn't have to find out which Miami it is by clicking on it (they might assume it's for Florida, but you know what they say about assuming...). I think that incorporating "(FL)" gives an immediate and definitive answer to the possibility of an ambiguous title.
          • FYI - it is common in NCAA sports world to say Miami (Fl). Just check out [2] for an example. Remember (talk) 18:43, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Ah. Well I can change the (FL) to (Fl) if that's what you're getting at. Not sure if you care enough to make me change it or are just pointing it out so I know for the future. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:47, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • Being blunt (and forgive any rudeness), I couldn't care less what the "NCAA sports world" says. This is English Wikipedia, not "American Collegiate Wikipedia", and we have to remember that we're talking to a universal audience. Why should the world know what (FL) means? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • I am confused by your objection. We don't assume that people know what Miami (FL) means, that is why we have a link to explain the term. As for the argument that we shouldn't use Miami (FL) because somehow this is a universial encyclopedia and that is not the way that you would name this thing to a universal audience, I would respectfully disagree. The accepted termonology for referring to the University of Miami when discussing it in the sports world is commonly accepted as "Miami(Fl)" or "Miami(FL)" so as not to confuse it with "Miami(OH)." If you don't like the accepted terminology that people have adopted to talk intelligently about this area, that is fine. But I don't agree that the fact that this encylopedia would use the accepted terminology to help clearly inform the public on an issue about this institution makes it less universal. Remember (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Okay, the bottom line for me is that a wikilink is fine. Adding (FL) is just confusing to non-US readers. I'm sure "terminology that people have adopted to talk intelligently about this area" is fine in the US, but why should FL mean anything to anyone outside of your intelligentsia? Frankly, it's a minor point, I just get tired of US lists being US-centric and not realising that this is English Wikipedia, not American Wikipedia. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:13, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                  • Truthfully, this is not a big point for me so if the consensus was to go against my position, so be it. But I object to the notion that this is some US bias. There is a fundamental problem that there are two institutions with very similar names (i.e., University of Miami, and Miami University) and the same abberviation (i.e., Miami) and this similarity causes confusion. To resolve this confusion most people put the term (OH) or (FL) after the name to clarify. I know that probably no one out of the United States would assume that when you say Miami you would be referring to anying but Miami, Florida, but this is just because they don't know about the other institution. If all the Brits, Auzzies, and Kiwis started debating the merits of the University of Miami versus Miami University, they would adopt a similar solution as well. But like I said, whatever consesnus is then I am fine with it. Remember (talk) 19:29, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Is there a possible compromise by using the full name of the university, wikilinked? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:37, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                      • How about adding a footnote next to where "Miami (FL)" is in the list, then briefly explain the difference between the University of Miami and Miami University. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:45, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • The EL you provided uses "(FL)", not (Fl) like you said, so now I'm even more confused at your point. I don't mean to come off as rude because that's not my intention, I am just unclear as to what you're looking for. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • My only point was to back you up that most people say Miami (FL) or Miami (Fl) to describe the University of Miami Hurricanes. Not that your capitalization was incorrect. Remember (talk) 19:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • —Oh sorry, I assumed it was Rambling Man who put that. I didn't see it was you, which now clears up the mess haha. Whoops. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:04, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Wolfpack would finish the season undefeated at 27–0 but were never given the opportunity to compete for the national championship." (1) why not "finished" and (2) is this referenced?
    • Revised.
  • General ref date format different from specific ref dates...

The Rambling Man (talk) 16:42, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sorting conf W-L, (and I've been shot here before so forgive me), I would expect 14-0 to list as "better" than 14-2. This kind of sorting is common in cricket lists...
    • Reply: I do see what you're saying once again, but IMHO the column doesn't read "Win %", it reads "W–L", as in total accumulated wins, not total win percentage.
      • No, you're right, it's not % col, but if a coach had won 37 and lost 169, and another won 37 and lost 0, would you really list it the way it current goes? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:33, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll see what I can do. I've tried fiddling with it, but I'm kind of at a loss at to how to sort this list the way you want it to be done. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • For a good example, see some recent cricket FLs. They use the SortKey template really nicely to get this kind of intelligent sorting. Have a look at List of international cricket five-wicket hauls by Wasim Akram for instance. In cricket, a bowler who gets wickets for fewer runs is considered better, so when sorting by the "wickets" column, the better bowler on tied wickets will have fewer runs against his name. Check out the {{SortKey}} usage here and see how you go. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Same would be true for the overall W-L - a coach who won 37 and lost 2 should be considered better than one who won 37 and lost 3, surely?
    • See reasoning on point above.
Ok. I think I fixed the sorting issue. Let me know if this is not what people wanted. Remember (talk) 15:07, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I believe all issues have been addressed. Are there any remaining issues?Remember (talk) 17:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support and I very much appreciate you taking the time to (a) understand my sorting issue and (b) fixing my sorting issue. Good work. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
I'm not sure the use of non-free content on this article is warranted. I think cropping the legs of of Dean Smith's photo would be as good in the lede as the NFC. Gary Williams photo could then be added to the body... or vice versa.
  • Reply: The reason I used the ACC logo rather than a picture of Gary Williams is because the infobox is about the award in general. Yes, it mentions the latest winner, but it's an ACC award and I think that an ACC logo is appropos here. Also, not that it would be a terrible hassle, but changing the photo every single year to match the newest coach would be annoying (besides, it's not guaranteed the latest winner would even have a pic on Wikipedia). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that as of the closure of this FLC, the non-free image has been removed. Dabomb87 (talk) 04:11, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Courcelles (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:"Four coaches have won during the same season that they have also coached a team..." Do we need the also?
Pedantic, but I think you need citations for Krzyzewski and Williams' induction year into the Hall of Fame.
  • Added HOF entries as citations. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:49, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth mentioning that Greenberg's win was in VT's first year in the Conference? (And has that really been six years ago? I'm getting old.)
  • If this is make or break for you I'll add it w/a ref or two. Otherwise I'm inclined to leave it out. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Pedantic again, but your source doesn't state that South Carolina is now part of the SEC.
The subject is clearly American, so why do you use "Commonwealth" date formatting- date month year- in the referencing instead of the U.S. standard of Month day, Year?
  • Reply:That's just the way I've been citing my references' dates for a little over a year now. I find it to be quicker and easier to type. Just a personal preference really, no further thought goes into it (I'm probably the only American English Wikipedian who uses that date formatting haha). Jrcla2 (talk) 19:28, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I tend to use the Commonwealth style, too, despite being resident in the U.S.... and frequently have to correct myself. In this case, I think the MOS needs the dates in American format. Courcelles (talk)
Refs 1 and 8 come from the same website, yet are shown with different publishers.
Refs 2 and 16 appear to be the same document- consolidate. Courcelles (talk) 14:46, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Capped everything but the NFCC concern above. Courcelles (talk) 17:49, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Mostly good, just found a few issues, most of which were the same as Brad's above. I have one extra one though:
    • North Carolina State uses "NC State" in its own article, and that seems to be the common use, so that's how it should be in this article. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 20:03, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Wizardman Operation Big Bear 03:11, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support - looks good to me.—Chris!c/t 22:01, 3 June 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/Atlantic_Coast_Conference_Men%27s_Basketball_Coach_of_the_Year/archive1&oldid=1140103736"