Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons/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 16:03, 2 February 2010 [1].

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons edit

Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

After working and getting List of Texas Tech Red Raiders football seasons to FL I'm starting to understand what it takes to get to FL status. I couldn't find a FL basketball season list so I combined elements from the football season FLs and List of Akron Zips men's basketball seasons to make it in my opinion FL worthy. NThomas (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Resolved comments from NMajdan
Quick Comments
  • Unfortunately, I see the number of red links in this article as being a big hurdle in passing FLC. Prior FLCs have shown that at least 75% of the links should not be red.
  • The purpose of redlinks is to encourage article creation. Delinking those redlinks or redirecting them to one article defeats the purpose of the redlink criterion (especially since these potential articles would definitely be notable). Dabomb87 (talk) 00:58, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Makes sense. Every championship season will have its own article soon but others like the 1989-90 season, Tech went 5-22 overall. That would be one of the last articles started so some like that would be red links for a long time to come. NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm pretty sure the Big 12 is not separated into divisions in basketball, just football.
  • They aren't divided into divisions like football but for scheduling, B12 South teams play each other twice a season but only play B12 North teams once a year. I thought about adding something like that into the lead but this is about the entire history of the program. If it was just about Big 12 basketball then I'd think it would be a necessity. What do you think? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've noticed this too but unfortunately we can't make the assumpution that there is a "division" unless a reliable third-party source confirms this. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about adding a referenced footnote after Division in the lead? NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Added reference from the Big 12's website. NThomas (talk) 23:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Texas Tech won two more consecutive conference championships the two following seasons. Seems redundant.
  • I'm thinking this might work: The following two seasons, the Matadors won as many conference championships. I replaced Texas Tech with Matadors to flow into the next sentence about the moniker change from Matadors to Red Raiders. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No need for the 2009-10 season row yet.
  • Because the article isn't "List of completed Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball seasons", I feel as long as the parameters aren't constantly being changed after every time a game is played and having In Progress solves that problem instead of empty parameters. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually fairly consistently applied across sports season FLs that play more often than once a week (the NFL, with one game a week, usually doesn't create a problem, but basketball and baseball teams, which play more often, tend to be kept at a stable point). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As KV said, leaving the current season's row off is general practice. Go through the current FLs that would have a similar row and you will see that they do not. It needs to be removed. Good job on the creation of the season articles.—NMajdan•talk 17:30, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I really believe the current season belongs on the list. When I read KV5's comment, I took that as it was common on non-football FL season lists. I'm not wanting to get into WP:WAX but, three of the four NBA FLs have the current season in the table. Since this will be the first NCAA basketball seasons list, we're breaking new ground here and the most similar FLs are the NBA FLs. The current season is still a season right? If the current season is not to be included on this list then I propose all season lists be moved to List of completed <team name and sport> seasons. Thanks about creating the seasons. That was really the hardest part but, only one more section to go! NThomas (talk) 18:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having the current season in the list removes a component of stability, inviting vandalism, edit wars, edit conflicts, and other unpleasant things. I know that the general practice for baseball lists, since they play pretty much every day is to either wait until the season is completed, as per my current practice at the List of Philadelphia Phillies seasons, or use stable points in the season for updates, meaning ends of months (not preferred) or the All-Star Break. I would recommend applying the same standard here. But that's just me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:52, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Having the all of the parameters covered by In progress would solve any problems for constant updates and though. I even included an editors tag about not updating the stats until the season was completed.
  • I suppose we can probably live with that for now, though I would consider leaving the list at a stable point once the end of the current season is reached. That's generally the progression that I follow with lists of this type that are nominated in-season. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:56, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I feel this individual comment is finished right? Or is there still opposition to the In progress column for the current season? After all, it is stable and will be until the end of the season when the two final polls are released. NThomas (talk) 06:32, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assumed that it was resolved per my last comment, but didn't mark it because it's not mine originally. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I figured it was but just wanted to make sure. I left a message on NMajdan's talk page to close this comment if everyone, including Nmajdan, was satisfied with the outcome. NThomas (talk) 07:54, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still don't agree with it being there, but it is not a big enough issue to keep me from Supporting.—NMajdan•talk 15:48, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

—NMajdan•talk 16:58, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for a quick response and comments. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from KV5
Comments from KV5
  • Not a big fan of the redlinks either. I suppose we do have to consider WP:SAL, which says "Each entry on a list should have its own non-redirect article in English Wikipedia, but this is not required if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group, and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the future." I would be more comfortable passing this list if, during the course of this FLC, some of those redlinks turn blue and it's obvious that progress is being made.
  • See my reply to Nmajdan's same comment in his first sentence. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a thought, though stand-alone lists are supposed to bring together related articles, and all of those redlinks should necessarily become articles at some point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the most held by a Border Conference member." - links to a football article?
  • That shouldn't be in there. Excuse: lack of sleep. It's been removed. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Red Raiders had not receive a bid" - should be did not receive
  • "received bids five postseason bids six years to four NCAA tournaments" - wha?
  • It should have been received five postseason bids in six years to four NCAA tournaments. I fixed it but that still doesn't sound great. Any ideas? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about During Knight's six-year tenure, Texas Tech received five postseason bids, participating in four NCAA tournaments and one National Invitation Tournament (NIT)"? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Much better! Thanks. That sounds really good. NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "then ever previously" - then should be than, but "than ever previously" is really bad grammar. Consider a re-word.
  • Reworked the entire sentence to The Red Raiders won the third place playoff in the 2003 NIT Tournament, the farthest a Red Raiders men's basketball team has advanced in postseason play. I think that sounds much better. What do you think? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really difficult to distinguish what on earth the "Conference Tournament Champions" designator is supposed to be. I would suggest using an asterisk, since none is used in this article.
  • I'd rather not change it but if that becomes the difference in yay or nay, for support, I'll change it. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NIT and NAIA are used without explicit definition.
  • In the lead, i added a the NIT abbreviation to National Invitation Tournament and National Collegiate Athletic Association's NCAA abbreviation is in the first sentence. Both are abbreviated in parenthesis the first time both organizations are mentioned. I have a feeling that's not going to cut it thought, right? NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • NIT and NCAA are just fine being abbreviated in the lead; it's just NAIA that I'm concerned about now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added this to the second paragraph Texas Tech received their first postseason bid in 1942 to the National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB) tournament. The NAIA was called the NAIB before 1950 so the existing abbreviations were changed also. NThomas (talk) 03:31, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hope these comments help. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:23, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for the comments. All the help I can get is appreciated. NThomas (talk) 23:45, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support from KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:16, 20 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:40, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • I'm no expert but the ALT text is a little weak. You haven't described that they're seated, that there are folks in the background or what the main guys are wearing.
  • This is what's there now: A middle-aged man is turned talking to a man in his thirties who holds a pen and paper in his hands. How about this instead? In the background, two men are seated in front of a crowd, one with a headset, the other with a fist in front of his mouth, _________________. In the foreground, two men are seated, a middle-aged man who is turned talking to a man in his thirties who holds a pen and paper in his hands. I just don't know what to put in the blank spot for the first sentence maybe: ...looking off into the distance.? NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "were known as the "Matadors"" no reference.
  • Nor the replacement of the name.
  • "where it experienced similar success as it had in the" very awkward English.
  • How about replacing it with they? NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "began an annual conference tournament known as the SWC Classic" no reference.
  • Added ref & corrected tournament name. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "until the conference ceased operations in 1996 " no reference.
  • Big 12 Conference is overlinked.
  • Notes are unreferenced.
  • You have refs for the results in the 70s, 90s and 00s. What about all the other decades in this table?
  • Those are only for the NIT tournaments. They really don't even need to be there as the first reference encompasses all the team's postseason results. I just added it as an additional reference. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The months and days need leading zeros in the accessdate fields.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • There are four people in the image, the caption says (left) and (right) - not what you mean..
  • I originally played around with cropping the picture but it didn't look as good. The only other thing I can think of is "Center right" and "far right." Any suggestions? NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed! NThomas (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "received their first postseason bid" what does this mean? do you mean they made it to postseason?
  • Yes. It's a bid because not every team that is given a bid accepts it. There's a few articles here about automatic bid and the NCAA tournament's selection process involving bids but since the bid in question is about the NAIB bid and not the NCAA, a link to that article isn't appropriate. NThomas (talk) 23:26, 7 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added bid to help clarify. I'm by no means an expert, just a jargon expert. NThomas (talk) 23:48, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments –
  • "competes in the National Collegiate Athletic Association Division I". Should be "Association's", I believe.
  • "Texas Tech won two more consecutive conference championships the two following seasons." Feels like there is redundant phrasing here, but I'm having a tough time fingering it. Perhaps "more" should be dropped?
  • I trimmed and combined two of the sentences to get the same information across in a more efficient style. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the Southwest Conference held began...". One of the last two words needs to go.
  • Comma needed after "the Red Raiders did not receive a bid to postseason play until 2002". Also, Coach should be de-capitalized.
  • Thanks. I would have never realized the comma belonged there. NThomas (talk) 07:39, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reference 5 should have the publisher in italics, since it is a printed work.
  • Table: In the Preseason / Postseason heading, de-capitalize Postseason since it isn't a proper noun. Also, I'm pretty sure it says somewhere in the MoS to avoid using slashes in text. Maybe try a dash of some kind instead.
  • In most seasons list FLs, the postseason column shows the team's actual results in playoff or bowl games and series. Why shouldn't a prospective college basketball seasons FL do the same? I'd at least expect to see who Texas Tech lost to or beat in the final round of each event. This will take some work, but it strikes me as worth doing.
  • There has got to be a better way then what you're talking about. The NBA FLs list every game in the playoffs but with college teams, there's preseason, postseason and conference tournaments.
Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
:I really think a link to the season and the tournament is enough and doesn't overwhelm the rest of the list. I know the other season by season lists include the results to the playoffs, but there's a potential for three tournaments in every season and it overwhelms the rest of the information. Including only the last game won't solve the problem either, it just adds information more appropriate for the individual season and tournament articles when the name of the tournament and wikilinked result convey the the information just as well. I propose this list and future college basketball FLs only include the final result similar to how playoffs are handled in NCAA football (see:List of Appalachian State Mountaineers football seasons). NThomas (talk) 07:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In the list you linked to, the bowl games and championship-winning playoff games are spelled out, but the regular playoff appearances aren't. Are you saying that you would show the championship game result if Texas Tech ever wins an NCAA or NIT title, or is that style the one you want to use throughout regardless? I'd be interested to see if anyone has further comment on this. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:15, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. In my opinion, I would just continue the same style used in the conference tournament. Look at the 1995–96 season's conference tournament, Texas Tech made it to the finals and won against the Texas Longhorns so it is just labeled as "Champions." If Tech were to win a NIT, NCAA, etc. tournament, I would have it labeled with "NCAA Champion^" in the Preseason and postseason category and the season would be colored with a new symbol. NThomas (talk) 22:59, 19 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a great idea. My only concern is that full conference tournament results, in addition to the others, could make the page overly long as you fear, but it's hard to say without seeing the size of a table. If it becomes too much for one page, you could always split the results into their own list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 16:10, 21 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I started the conference list offline and "show previewed" it... It doesn't look good either. I estimated the conference results alone are the same size of as the season list. The only other thing I could think of is creating conference championship articles (my preferred choice) or, according to naming conventions, what would a separate list of tournament results be titled? List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball tournament results? NThomas (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I was going to tell you to test it and see how it worked. With that in mind, I think the title you gave is fine. At the very least, I can't think of a better one at the moment. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anything else you can think of for this list? I had no idea I was breaking new ground here with this one. I'm kinda hoping things here in the FLC will wrap up soon and then I'll tackle the tournament results list. NThomas (talk) 23:31, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Seems to meet FL standards now. I'm not that fussed about the tournament results, knowing now how many of them there are; in fact, I'll be interested to see what that list is like. While I'm here, can the table be capped? I haven't been able to do it properly. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 21:20, 26 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Capped? You mean like a totals at the end of the list? I'm confused. NThomas (talk) 03:58, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think he was referring to this FLC page (the table doesn't fit in the {{hidden/FC}} template properly); I moved it to the talk page of this FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco (talk · contribs)

General
  • Links, contributors, alt text, and dab links all check out fine.
Lead
  • Texas Tech has played its home games at United Spirit Arena in Lubbock, Texas since its opened in 1999 -- you mean since it opened in 1999.? or since its opening in 1999.?
  • The team's first season of conference play, Texas Tech went undefeated, winning the first of three consecutive Border Conference championships. -- In my opinion, it would sound better as in the team's first season...
  • Before withdrawing from the Border Conference in 1956, the Red Raiders won five conference championships and one co-championship. -- what is a co-championship?
  • Its a shared title. Two teams have the same results regardless of head-to-head match ups. I had the same question come up during the last list I had in FLC.
  • The university remained in the SWC until the conference ceased operations in 1996 when the Red Raiders ended the 1995–96 season ranked #8 in both the AP (Associated Press) Poll and Coaches' Poll. - comma after 1996
List
  • The only thing I see that catches my eye is why do some of the columns have no columns, and later on they have columns with dashes. Does this mean that the award of whatever did not exist until the dashes columns?
  • That's exactly right. I feel that is the best way to convey the message that there was no possible entry for that category where the dash means it was possible but not achieved.
  • Can you note that somewhere? I just feel the reader should know this beforehand.--Truco 503 03:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added notes in the header of the table explaining the conference wins, losses, & final standings, and the dates the polls began being published. NThomas (talk) 20:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
References
  • I don't know if its possible for you to have the link of the university appear in all the refs, such as in ref # 2? In addition to the link to the Big 12 in ref #1?
  • Done. The refs all have been wikilinked. NThomas (talk) 20:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

--Truco 503 03:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support -- Previous issues resolved; now meets WP:WIAFL.Truco 503 01:36, 2 February 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/List_of_Texas_Tech_Red_Raiders_men%27s_basketball_seasons/archive1&oldid=1207849381"