Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Edmonton Oilers seasons/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates‎ | Edmonton Oilers 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 21:35, 15 April 2008.

Edmonton Oilers seasons

edit

I'll withdraw this and come back after I fix everything below. Thanks - Milk's favorite Cookie 15:40, 12 April 2008 (UTC) I have worked hard on this list. It is well referenced, well written, the lead looks good, and is very informative. It overall looks like a good featured list. Thanks. - Milks F'avorite Cookie 22:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose No major issues with the tables, but the lead contains some language more suited to a magazine than an encyclopedia, and overuses the passive voice.
    • What does "charter member" mean? (I'm pretty sure I know, but it is unclear to the general reader)
    • upstart WHA - something of a colloquialism, and has a slight feel of POV. Cinderella run is another example.
    • known as the Alberta Oilers for their first season after their Calgary counterparts were unable to play. Who are these Calgary counterparts, and what relation does it bear to the name Alberta Oilers?
    • Passive voice - phrasing such as They would quickly find success and the Oilers would achieve what is generally regarded as the last dynasty is cleaner and clearer when the simple past tense is used; They found success quickly, the Oilers achieved what is generally regarded as the last dynasty.
    • Edmonton fell to the Winnipeg Jets. They lost. No falling was involved.
    • The 1990s was dominated by playoff failures "Dominated" is inappropriate here.
    • In the tables, division names could do with wikilinking upon the first mention for context. Oldelpaso (talk) 11:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)
  • "This list documents the records and playoff results the Oilers 35 year history " missing some part of the sentence here?
  • Per Oldelpaso, the are a few phrases which need de-journalising and re-encyclopaedia-ing.
  • If you use WHA and NHL then at least explain them as abbreviations so the first time you say National Hockey League, put (NHL) afterwards.
  • Don't like the way the reference cells come and go.
  • You could merge both tables and then make the result sortable.
  • Split the Finish column. What does "5th, Canadian" mean to a non-expert?
  • Interesting you include the Alberta Oilers while the Carolina Hurricanes seasons is very dedicated to not include anything other than that specific franchise.
  • So, oppose until these are resolved. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 23:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Good work so far, but I have to say I agree that the table should mimic the other NHL articles for consistency. Also, I'm not sure inline citations are necessary in this list. A general references section would be sufficient, and is cleaner. Resolute 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • *Interesting you include the Alberta Oilers while the Carolina Hurricanes seasons is very dedicated to not include anything other than that specific franchise.
    • That would be because it is the same specific franchise. The "Alberta Oilers" and the "Edmonton Oilers" were the same incarnation of the same franchise, simply renamed. Akin to the Mighty Ducks of Anaheim and the Anaheim Ducks. Same franchise, same incarnation, just a simple rename. Resolute 02:39, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So the NHL season lists are confusing I'm afraid. To you puck happy fans this is all obvious but featured content has to be accessible and understandable to non-expert readers. Telling me that the MD of A and the AD are the same equals the Alberta Oilers = Edmonton Oilers makes no sense. The first franchise is a rename of the franchise, not a "relocation", the second is the same name of the franchise, just a different location. How confusing for non-experts. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:00, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Actually, no the second is not a different location either. Edmonton is in Alberta, and the team always played in Edmonton, and only Edmonton. As was noted above, this needed to be clarified better in the article. My argument was that this is not comparable to the Carolina Hurricanes list. Resolute 14:37, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll agree with you that there needs to be some uniform consistency established in this regard, but there needs to be some clarification: The Albera Oilers were based in Edmonton, and after the first season renamed themselves the Edmonton Oilers. Part of the confusion is that this was done in the WHA, which in itself was a rather confusing experiment in the history of hockey. Kaiser matias (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not really sure why its so difficult to understand that when a team is in a different location it is a very different situation from a team in the same city with a different name. -Djsasso (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
When the team moved, did it take all the players, managers, behind-the-scenes people, or did they all lose their jobs and the team rehired new everybody. A location change coupled with a name change doesn't change the fact that the team is the same -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A location and name change certainly do add up to a legitimate place to split an article. Because the most important thing changed. The fans. And I am not saying they aren't the same team. I am just saying that it became the consensus in the past to split articles at the point where they changed locations. (ie Montreal Expos/Washington Nationals in MLB. Winnipeg Jets/Phoenix Coyotes in hockey) -Djsasso (talk) 19:44, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the fans were the most important thing, why doesn't Fans of Edmonton Oilers exist? And did not one single fan follow the team when it moved? It's also not the consensus across all sports: Manchester City, Wimbledon F.C. and Tottenham Hotspurs, Wigan Warriors, though these are English teams, granted. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:36, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I meant that comment as in, the people who are going to look up the page are less likely to care about the history from when the team wasn't in their city etc. and if they do they can follow the well placed link to the other incarnation's page. When pages get too large you are supposed to split out parts of it at places that make sense to seperate out. The most obvious place to do so in sports franchises is when they move locations. -Djsasso (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

  • lead english needs to be improved
  • lead should specify what oilers are, e.g. professional ice hockey club
  • title should be 'List of Edmonton Oilers seasons' per WP:SAL

Alaney2k (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't really edit these articles myself. But I believe these articles aren't considered stand alone lists. Which is why Calgary Flames seasons was featured without being List of. That being said I see you just went and moved them all without checking the reasoning for the lack of List of in the title. I believe this falls under the timelines exception on WP:SAL. -Djsasso (talk) 20:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stand-alone means an article on its own, embedded is within an article. Alaney2k (talk) 20:10, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you read further in the sentence though it says that consists of a list of links. These pages do not mearly contain a list of links. They contain prose and information as well. -Djsasso (talk) 20:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Team Name seasons is the standard across all sports for how these pages are named. See New York Yankees seasons, New York Jets seasons and Los Angeles Lakers seasons for example. -Djsasso (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stand-alone lists and "lists of links" are Wikipedia articles that contain primarily a list. The list usually consist of links to articles in a particular subject area, such as people or places or a timeline of events.

I think that applies to this article, which has links to articles of Oilers' seasons. As for your second point, it may pre-date the WP:SAL and is easily cleared up. Alaney2k (talk) 20:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SAL has been around since 2003. Not likely that it predates it. And it doesn't primarily consist of a list of links. It primarily consists of statistical information. -Djsasso (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An equivalent might be List_of_social_networking_websites, mentioned on WP:SAL Alaney2k (talk) 20:36, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see that as an equivalent as it is still just a directory of links. This is more than a directory of links. -Djsasso (talk) 20:37, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are links and info. Like the Oilers one. And why would WP:SAL not be higher precedence than sports convention? Sports is in every-day life, not a high-ranking category. Alaney2k (talk) 20:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again because this is closer to an article than a list. The example you showed was links with names for the links and the purpose of the page was the links. This page is about the statistics, not about the coincidental links to other pages. The purpose of this page isn't to make a directory for the season articles. These pages were split off from the main team pages to save on the size of the main team pages. -Djsasso (talk) 20:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is –far– more info in the particular season pages. There are two purposes to Edmonton Oilers seasons. 1. Link to season articles. 2. List of seasons as a whole. The info is anecdotal. Smells like a stand-alone list to me. :-) It's not a prose article at all. It has a lead, and that is covered in WP:SAL. Alaney2k (talk) 20:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Unlike the Carolina Hurricanes season article up for FL, this one does include the WHA years and should be applauded for having it there. It is not the standard for WP:HOCKEY though why couldn't it be the standard for WP:HOCKEY? Alaney2k (talk) 22:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because the WHA days of the Whalers/Hurricanes franchise is contained within Hartford Whalers seasons. The Edmonton Oilers have had a continuous history in one market since the team was founded. Resolute 23:44, 9 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/Edmonton_Oilers_seasons/archive1&oldid=1171454063"