Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Carolina Hurricanes seasons/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Carolina Hurricanes seasons
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 15:50, 14 April 2008.

Carolina Hurricanes seasons edit

I *believe* this is a FL. I have reviewed other FLC and fixed most of the mistakes. I do believe it needs a picture, but I haven't found a free photo yet. This can be added later. PGPirate 14:11, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as nom
  • Comment You need more refs in the lead - one is nowhere near enough. You might (note the emphasis) want to include the results for the other two incarnations as well, because the list seems very short at the minute. weburiedoursecretsinthegarden 16:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was told that information in the lede only needs to be sourced if not mentioned in the list itself. PGPirate 17:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment Pirate, you are correct. WP:LEAD states that no information should be included in the lead that is not in the main body, and a reference should be in the article if the peice of information is not included in the lead. Also, you might want to consider moving it to List of Carolina Hurricane seasons. Juliancolton The storm still blows... 19:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • All sports season list I have dealt with use this form.

comments

  • Oops.. I expected this to be about hurricanes in The Carolinas, sorted by winter, spring, summer and fall!
    • Sorry about the confusion. Some aspects of that list would be short. I can only think of one hurricane in the winter.
  • Is there an image to go in the lead? Perhaps a stadium photo or something?
    • There isn't one on wikipedia, that I have found yet. I am going to look on flickr for a free image.
  • Wikipedia:LEDE#Citations says that cites aren't needed if the rest of the article cites it, however, I see no further mention of them being called New England Whalers or Hartford Whalers
    • In the references section, there is Carolina Hurricanes Franchise Timeline which mentions it. Should there be a inline citation as well?
  • Finally, and this is the reason that I oppose, the title suggests it's a list of all seasons not just NHL seasons, and as this list is very short anyway I feel it would be better if it was merged with that of New England Whalers' and Hartford Whalers', which would give a complete season-by-season coverage. And also, even if they were using a different name, aren't they essentially the same franchise? -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I believe they are different teams. And I would believe most Hurricanes/Whalers fans would think the same thing. Also, Calgary Flames moved from Atlanta, and has two different seasons articles (The Flamers seasons is a FL): Calgary Flames seasons and Atlanta Flames seasons. The only rebuttal with this is the Flames has about 20 more years more in Calgary.
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  •  Done Don't use the small fonts in the key, what's the point? Just makes it more difficult to read.
  • "35th for the Hurricanes franchise" but only nine seasons in this list? It's incomplete per Matthew's comments. You could easily split the table into the various named teams. Or you need to modify the name to state clearly what I'm going to see. Either way there's a discrepancy which non-experts will find confusing.
    • I change the sentence to this "The 2007–08 season represents the 10th in Raleigh." Is that OK?
  •  Done Don't overcapitalise - Regular Season and Post Season, just season is fine.
  •  Done What is "² " next to the 2005–06 season?
  •  Done Why is 2007–08 season bold?
  • Notes should have full stops.
    • Notes should be full sentences?
  •  Done "in parenthesis. " parentheses.

So, as per Matthew, I have to oppose primarily over concerns with this list not actually being what it says it is. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Would it be ok if I take out most of the Whalers information in the lede to make it a Hurricanes specific list?
  • Support Doesn't say it is supposed to cover the Hartford seasons. It is fairly standard to split the incarnations of franchises into seperate articles. This article is well written now and more than meets the standard of other such FLs. -Djsasso (talk) 15:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Absolutely nothing "standard" about this. All seasons should be merged here with redirects where appropriate. NFL lists do that. Take a look at Washington Redskins seasons which is also an FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:27, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Montreal Expos and Washington Nationals. Calgary Flames and Atlanta Flames, Colorado Avalanche and Quebec Nordiques. Numerous times this has come up and numerous times it was consensus that when a franchise moves it should have a seperate article. -Djsasso (talk) 15:36, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well it seems odd that you'd do that while the NFL guys have it differently. And their lists are complete. Especially useful when you have fickle franchises who move every few years, I'm sure you'll agree. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:40, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • The idea is usually that each team has its own history and is often considered its own team albeit linked to the old location. Another reason it is often brought up is that there is no reason to try and cram everything onto one page when it can quite succinctly be seperated into two pages to stay under the page size limits. Now the old incaration will obviously not grow anymore. But the new team will continue to grow and eventually the list will be too big and the two teams will be split anyways. -Djsasso (talk) 15:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Unless the franchise moves? Sorry, not convinced. It should be on a franchise basis per the NFL seasons which are good, complete, not misleading. Featured lists which are English football club season articles exist with over 100 seasons, they're just fine. I don't think you need to worry about your list becoming too big. Especially compared to the NHL player lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • How is it missleading? The title is Carolina Hurricanes seasons. Not Carolina Huricanes franchise seasons. Its not Hartford Whalers seasons. Its quite clear that the seasons are for the team called the Carolina Hurricanes and not its franchise. It even says it in bold in the first line. Your arguement against the FL smells pretty heavily of WP:POINT because people who edit hockey articles are objecting to one of your soccer lists. -Djsasso (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • No not at all. I don't understand why you'd split the franchise. The NFL guys don't, the NHL guys do. Why? And you didn't respond about the length, you won't have a problem with that. As for WP:POINT, I find that accusation a little rude. Until the whole "100% complete list" is resolved, I'm not budging. I've said this at the List of Medal of Honor recipients so don't take it personally. I want to understand what is and what isn't acceptable. An attempt to make a football list acceptable it was suggested it was moved to "...who have made 100 or more appearances". Thus removing the subjectivity. It was rejected. What can we do? I don't know. But if the NHL and the NFL are doing it differently then something's wrong. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I would note, that not all of those were NHL teams. Some were professional baseball. NFL actually seems to be the exception to the rule. We never objected to the renaming of the article, we actually supported that idea. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • But the community didn't, so that's that. Until a "general" consensus is achieved, I cannot support partial lists. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • But this isn't a partial list, its a complete list of seasons that a team named the Carolina Hurricanes competed in. -Djsasso (talk) 16:02, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Which says in the lead that the "Carolina Hurricanes franchise was founded in 1971" and I believe the list should contain the seasons for the franchise. Otherwise it's the list of seasons for when the franchise was known as the Carolina Hurricanes. It should be per the NFL lists. Chicago Bears seasons deals with different leagues as well. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ok I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I personally think the sentence This list documents the records and playoff results for all nine seasons the Carolina Hurricanes have completed in the NHL since their relocation from Hartford, Connecticut in 1997. More than covers the ambiguity. -Djsasso (talk) 16:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Indeed we will! I look forward to the day someone submits a FLC for an NHL franchise which moved to a new location for a single season. Even nine seasons here is pushing its luck as a list when both NFL and English football seasons sometimes deal with around 100 seasons... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:13, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What did I do?:) PGPirate 17:56, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What should I do now?
      • I think if you're happy just having the current franchise then do nothing and I'll oppose. If you decide to go the NFL route then I'll support and, I would guess, Djsasso will oppose. Hope for more interest so these minority arguments don't carry so much weight! The Rambling Man (talk) 18:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To me, just because a team/franchise in any sport has changed its name or moved to a different stadium (albeit in a different city), doesn't mean they are different. Their histories can all be traced back to the same event at the same point in time, and if it were not for the New England and Hartford Whalers, I doubt the team would exist in the same capacity as it does today. I'm still inclined to oppose, even if the response you get from WP:HOCKEY is that they're different, as they mightn't see it from an outsider's perspective.
I'm not a football fan, but as an example, Manchester City was originally known as "St. Marks (West Gorton)" and then "Ardwick A.F.C." when it moved to Ardwick. Then they joined the Football league, then changed their name to Man City. Are these three different clubs? I don't think so, and Manchester City F.C. seasons, a Featured List doesn't present it as such. Spurs is another one with name changes and location changes, and their statistics include the earlier named clubs'. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:07, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Name changes in the same location we tend to keep one article. It's the change of cities that we tend to have seperate articles. When pages get larger you are supposed to split out sections into sub articles, as such a natural place to split out part of an article would be when it moves cities. I suppose this is more for the main team articles than lists associated with the team. But I don't see why the lists couldn't follow the examples of the team articles. -Djsasso (talk) 19:11, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to give my thoughts on this conversation. As a Hurricanes fan, I personally do not care about the Whalers seasons. I believe most fans only care about the team while they are at a specific location. I do not think many New Yorkers would/do follow the LA Dodgers or SF Giants (Both moved from NY) or Baltimore with Indianapolis Colts. Yes on the technical sense, all have lineage to previous locations, but I do not think they are the same team by any stretch. PGPirate 19:46, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an interesting debate, and one I went through on my nomination for Calgary Flames seasons. Rambling Man, I also believe this to be comparable to our debate over the FL status of List of Arsenal F.C. players. Specifically, the need for completeness of a data set. As I argued in that debate, even if the set is split over multiple articles, so long as they are clearly interlinked, and the data set is complete, then each article should be judged worthy. In this case, we have Carolina Hurricanes seasons. What we need is Hartford Whalers seasons. That would complete the set. I'll look to create that article later today. As far as the contention that we should be following the NFL wikiproject's lead, I would respectfully disagree. There is no policy or guideline that argues each project has to mime that of others. WP:HOCKEY has consistently split articles along franchise iterations, and in that vein, lists such as this should follow their parent articles. This article defines itself as being a list of Carolina Hurricanes seasons. The Carolina Hurricanes have only existed since 1997, so this list contains the complete history of seasons for the Carolina Hurricanes incarnation of the franchise. This specific incarnation is obviously closely linked to the New England/Hartford Whalers, and those links should be noted and completed. Beyond that, however, this specific article stands on its own merit. Resolute 20:25, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment interesting reading. But your franchise view of the world is bizarre to us who have the same club for 140 years. Are you suggesting that a franchise who exists for one year is entitled to a FL? I think the NHL project needs a rethink and needs to consider the history of the franchise, not individual instances of it. You guys are pretty different, as far as I know only Wimbledon F.C. (out of around 100 English clubs) has "franchised". As such most English clubs have 100+ years of history and seasons. The seasons are played in different leagues, the leagues have different names, but the English football articles cope. Why can't the NHL articles? As I said, if a franchise lasts a year, you seriously think a FL is appropriate? If so, why? If not why not? The Rambling Man (talk) 23:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Obviously not, simply because there isn't enough history. We've seen this already with other types of lists, such as Mark Messier Leadership Award and List of Nunavut general elections, both of which are part of featured topics, though neither is capable of becoming a FL. Specific to this article, I believe the ten year history of the Carolina Hurricanes is sufficient for FL status.
      • I'm not sure how the disposition of European football clubs is relevant to that of North American clubs. It is fairly rare for a team to switch leagues, and especially so at the major league levels. Teams operate as part of the league, and as such, are considered franchises of it. while the Whalers/Hurricanes franchise as a whole has a continuous history, even the franchise itself tends to treat each iteration as a relatively independent part of the whole. i.e.: The Hurricanes this year wore a commemorative patch on their jersies celebrating their tenth year in Carolina. That it is the franchises' 35th year has been completely ignored. This reflects the common view of such teams, as expressed above by the nominator: While someone who follows hockey will be aware that the Hurricanes existed previously as the Whalers, when they think about the Carolina Hurricanes, they are thinking of the team that has existed since 1997, not the franchise that was founded in 1972. Resolute
  • A minor detail about the NFL and their version of relocated franchises, more a point of personal annoyance but relevent just the same: The Cleveland Browns were relocated to Baltimore in 1996 to become the Baltimore Ravens. Popular opinion proved to be very against this in Cleveland, and so the NFL created a new team in Cleveland, but allowed it to be a reincarnation of the old Browns. This new team got to keep the original Browns history, records, etc, while the Baltimore Ravens are listed as an expansion team.

In short, it proves that the NFL is not exactly uniform when concerning its relocated teams. One team moves and acts as an expansion team, while a true expansion team gets to pretend its been around for 50 years. If anything, this helps to explain that relocated teams are in effect different than the former team it was. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. An image would be ideal, but not necessary. Hopefully someone can get a picture of the Hurricanes Stanley Cup banner, as that would make an ideal image. Resolute 02:42, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Irrespective of the points of view, it would be a better article to be like the Redskins season article (IMHO very good) and have the Whalers info. As is, it seems 'not whole', not very strong, missing info. It was a club move, not a 'reinvent', a clear succession. That said, it is what was done with Calgary Flames seasons, per WP:HOCKEY, and it seems weak for that reason too, although they've been around longer. Was that a good precedent? Hmm. Cleveland? That is a special case with negotiated legal terms to govern that special case. Alaney2k (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's pretty simple really. The main pages are separate so the sub articles should follow suit. -Djsasso (talk) 00:14, 10 April 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/Carolina_Hurricanes_seasons/archive1&oldid=1136457482"