Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
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 The Rambling Man 14:30, 4 December 2009 [1].

List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame[edit]

Nominator(s): —Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Dabomb87[reply]
Toolbox

Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.—Chris!c/t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Staxringold
  • Oppose Why is there no table for Players, Coaches, etc, etc? I understand the are included at those sub-pages, but a list of lists with no table info is rather dull. Maybe at least include the most recent class or something? Staxringold talkcontribs 14:10, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly include the most recent class if you want. But I will wait and see what others think first?—Chris!c/t 19:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent class would be helpful, but according to WP:Summary style, just having a "main" link here is insufficient. A paragraph summarizing the "main" article is also required under each subheading (and I think that the 2009 class should be shown in addition, preferably as a transclusion rather than a copy and paste table). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
These are both good ideas. Chris, if you can add in the tables, I'll write the summaries. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Tables are done, I think. For contributors, the most recent induction in 2008, so I just put the 2008 class instead.—Chris!c/t 00:32, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get it - why are all the refs and teams listed but only a tiny fraction of the other categories? The lead says "The following is a list of people who have been enshrined in the Basketball Hall of Fame" but gives no explanation as to why, for example, only 3 out of 200-odd players are listed. And why those 3 in particular? -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really confuses me to. I understand that the tables would be big, and I understand that you guys (I assume) are trying to work towards a FT on this subject. However look at List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, a current FL (at FLRC, but mostly for sourcing which is being added). It's long, but a list of HoF members should really list the members. Staxringold talkcontribs 14:40, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also think that having only the latest class looks weird and does not summarize the whole list adequately. I don't see any reason why the latest class should have special treatment and be listed in the main page above the other members, which I think is as important as the latest class. I'm suggesting the following idea: List all the members in the main article without the achievements column, while the sub-pages retains all the details including the achievements. The main page would be long, but it would have a complete list of all the members. If you do that, the teams and referees sections should have their own sub-pages to make them consistent with the other categories. Therefore the main article would fulfill the WP:FL? criteria 3 for comprehensiveness, while the sub-pages can also be retained with little concern of content-forking. Other suggestion is to merge all the list into the main page similar to the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. Just ideas to think about. Cheers. — Martin tamb (talk) 05:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, this is why I do not like placing the latest inductees on the main page, either. But I also dislike the idea of having several unnecessary content forking sublists that largely duplicate the info on the main page. That is why I suggested to follow the FL precedent above: have a brief summary that describes the sublists (see List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford).—Chris!c/t 23:02, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments on my oppose In answer to the three questions above:
1. Yes, if they include information such as a sub-list article like List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base.
2a. The same as is at Rawlings Gold Glove Award which includes all information at positional lists such as List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base.
2b. I would support the list even if it was long, but as I said to 2a I wouldn't merge so much as have separate lists (easy FT for WP:NBA, by the way). See List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame. That's a proper FL of HoF members (recently majorly reworked to save it from FLRC) with 300 references and lots and lots of data.
  • I apologize for opposing this still, I always like to resolve my comments and end up supporting, but I really don't see how a list of NBA HoFers can literally have no HoF players listed on it. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:39, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well I am sorry, but I must say that your request is not actionable. No disrespect to you, but I have a feeling that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria. The Wikipedia:Featured list criteria never requires a list to have all items.—Chris!c/t 21:51, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criteria 3a reads "It comprehensively covers the defined scope, providing at least all of the major items and, where practical, a complete set of items; where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items." It's most certainly practical to include a complete list of items, that's already done in similar lists like the baseball one. And even barring that, this makes absolutely no provision for the biggest ground of all the players. Even if you are set on doing things in the style of the Jesus College list, the Players section has 2 sentences and a redirect. Look at those Jesus College lists again. The List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford: Law and government gets two big fat paragraphs at List of alumni of Jesus College, Oxford and another one in another subsection. Here the players, the largest and arguably most important aspect of the Hall, get 2 sentences. That's hardly "providing at least all of the major items." Staxringold talkcontribs 22:05, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So more comprehensive summary paragraphs for the sub-listed tables would meet your concerns? Geraldk (talk) 22:07, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would far prefer full lists, but yes this is clearly an accepted style when lists start getting large so if the summaries are expanded to reasonable length per Jesus College I'd support. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:08, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think Stax and I can agree on this, which is why I haven't supported yet. Section leads for the sub-listed articles should be more comprehensive, in the nature of mini-leads themselves. Geraldk (talk) 22:10, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I am willing to expand the paragraphs to meet Staxringold's comment. But I don't think I can satisfy that within this nomination period, I will consult with Dabomb first before withdrawing.—Chris!c/t 03:30, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I may be wrong, but I don't think that'll be an issue so long as you're actively working on it. 30 Rock (season 3) had plenty of kinks to work out, but we pounded em out. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:32, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I add some more. Is it enough? If not, what or how much should I add?—Chris!c/t 04:36, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Using Jesus College as a baseline, I would say more. What's the breakdown by position? Other countries? Most represented/least represented teams? Largest class? Etc, etc. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:29, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I add a lot more to the paragraphs. For the players, I didn't include position breakdown because it is unclear for some regarding the position they played.—Chris!c/t 21:44, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabomb asked me to stop by, as I'm the major contributor to the group of Jesus College lists. Initially, there was only one list – "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" – and that got the FL star. As more articles were written and added, the list had to be split into various sub-lists: at one point, the template limit had been reached on the page, breaking the citations, and the page regularly exceeded 200kb in total; it's still 190kb+ even with four offspring lists. I hope that it's a good way of doing things where the length of sub-lists means that combining all the names on one page would result in a list that was very difficult to load and edit; looking at the HoF lists, I think that would be the case here too. Another perhaps more relevant precedent, approved by FLC rather than edited this way later, is List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign / Wikipedia:Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign - a FL (and lead list of the FT), which links to 8 sub-lists (all FLs) in simple fashion. So I don't agree that this list has to contain all the names in each sub-list in order to be comprehensive, with further details being given at the sub-list. That seems unnecessary duplication. Personally, I wouldn't even have a table for the most recent recipients - it looks odd to me to have such a short table (which hardly need to be sortable), as on first glance it makes it look as though these are the only recipients, and it would help to distinguish between the sections which are complete (e.g. referees) and the summaries if only the complete sections had tables. Far better, I would think, to summarise the sub-list, and mention the most recent recipients in the text. In the Jesus lists, the summaries follow the leads of the sublists, but I think that the summaries here need to be longer and mention more names, as the leads of the sub-lists are quite thin. So, at present, I think the "coaches" section summary needs to be expanded somewhat, and the "contributors" and "players" have no summary at all. Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've started to revamp those sections according to your advice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them. List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b? Giants2008 (17–14) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.—Chris!c/t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.—Chris!c/t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, the numbers of Basketball Hall of Fame induction and Baseball Hall of Fame induction are almost equivalent. But the reason why Basketball Hall of Fame get split up in the first place is because it is too long. No disrespect to the editors who worked hard on the Baseball list, but I think it is too bare bone compared to this list. It merely lists all inductees without providing much description about them. I have absolutely no problem with you opposing, but I feel that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria in WP:FL?. And I am not sure what I can do to satisfy your request.—Chris!c/t 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can definitely try to expand the lead, but don't think I can make it as long as the one on Baseball Hall of Fame. It seems to me that the long length is due to the complexity of the induction and selection criteria. The criteria for induction here is much simpler.—Chris!c/t 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:13, 14 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I understand and on balance agree with the splitting of players and coaches from the main article, but contributors seems like an odd split to me. WFCforLife (talk) 01:27, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that?—Chris!c/t 01:54, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
All of the divisions (including contributors) are official Hall of Fame categories; Chris and I did not divide the individuals ourselves. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:44, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know they're the five categories, but it just seems odd that contributors has been split off into its own list, rather than a section in this list. The only reasons I can think of for contributors being a stand alone list are the section's length relative to referees and teams, and the fact that it lies alphabetically between coaches and players. I don't think either of these are particularly good reasons to split a list.
Consider the proportion of readers who would consider seeking out hall of fame players or coaches alone, compared to the proportion of readers who would consider seeking out hall of fame contributors alone. WFCforLife (talk) 01:08, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I guess you are right. But since it has been split, I think it is counter-productive to merge them again.—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it shouldn't be done for the sake of it on my say-so alone, but I disagree that it would be in any way counter-productive. Assuming there was consensus, it would be a simple copy-paste, and a redirect to the parent article. WFCforLife (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from WFCforLife (talk) 01:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seperate to the discussion above, my only queries are:

  • "Renato William Jonesis the only inductee to be enshrined as a contributor." Firstly the minor typo, secondly it's not obvious what "enshrining" means. I originally thought the inductees were all enshrined into the hall of fame.
Fixed—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could teams be included in the final sentence of the second paragraph in the lead, or is there a reason not to do so? From what I can tell they are inducted on an ad-hoc basis at the committees' discretion.
Added—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's no need to create the article, but I just thought I'd check whether Orsten Artis would qualify for an article at some stage in the future?
Yes, I suppose—Chris!c/t 03:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm unsure whether List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (contributors) is a content fork or a necessary and logical split, and can't support without further discussion for that reason. I think it passes all of the other FL criteria. WFCforLife (talk) 12:55, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merged now, although I don't agree with it.—Chris!c/t 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:

  • 2a. If yes to 1, what information about players and coaches would you expect to see here, while still making those articles meaningful and useful additions?
  • 2b. If no to 1, are you saying that the length of a merged list would not prevent you from supporting the list, if other concerns were met (for instance the player achievements column was completed)?

Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re WFCforLife: I appreciate your attempt to help restart the discussion. There seems to be a deadlock about this issue.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To opposers: I echo WFCforLife's comment. Please respond below to keep discussion unfragmented, thanks.—Chris!c/t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • To the first question, I would say that, in their present format, they could be seen as meeting 3b; in fact, I believe I supported the coaches list when it was at FLC.
    • I would expect a very basic table, without the extensive achievements notes since those are a critical factor in the seperate lists meeting 3b. If the seperate list needed to be beefed up further, perhaps a team column could be considered as well.
    • One more note: I feel better about this list now that the contributors have been merged in. To me, it now feels more like a list in its own right, rather than something that primarily redirects the reader to other lists. Even in Bencherlite's example, the main list has plenty of content on its own without the split-off sections. The merge that happened brings this list closer to that standard. Giants2008 (17–14) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: I've asked User:Staxringold to revisit. Hopefully he will response soon.—Chris!c/t 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • The format of the list is still not my cup of tea, but the work during FLC has improved it a bit, so I'm switching to neutral. Fair enough? Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, I guess neutral is better than oppose. :) Thanks.—Chris!c/t 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 09:23, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • Lead says 56 contributors, Contributors section says "In total, 49 individuals..."
  • Heading should be "inductee", not "inductees", as each row contains only one inductee, right?
  • Any chance of denoting when Stagg was "active"?
    • Done. There were no definitive years, but I gave approximate periods. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:13, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • " for 3 decades" - three decades.
  • "last-built, molded basketball" what does "last-built" mean here?
  • "5 New England" - five.
  • What does NABC mean?
  • Link Globetrotters.
  • What's NAIB and NAIA?
  • 7 terms = seven terms.
  • What's NIT?
  • 3-time, 2-time - words.
  • What's WNBA?
  • What's NHL?
  • Olympic Games is linked in the players section but you've mentioned olympics in the coaches section already without linking it...
    • Olympic Games is not in coaches section, I think. —Chris!c/t 00:04, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • One table achievements are centrally aligned and next table they're left aligned. I'd be consistent.
  • What's SEC?
  • Sortable tables means that linked items should be linked every time, e.g. the Helsinki olympic games.
  • What's NIT?
  • What's ABL?
  • "Have played .." no need for "Have..."
  • "25th anniversary tour is highlighted" - was highlighted?

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:15, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from KV5

I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:

  • I see some undefined abbreviations; AAU jumps out at me right from the start. Further down in the list, I see this: "National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB)/National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA)". Maybe it would make sense to key all abbreviations at the top of the list and then remove the written-out names from the tables. This especially makes sense because sortability could easily cause a single written-out name to occur after an abbreviation.
Not sure if a key is a good idea. There are 20 or more abbreviations used, done AAU.—Chris!c/t 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other shortened names that aren't explicit are "Trotters" and "Rens".
    • Done, after edit conflict 3 times. :(—Chris!c/t 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Big 8" - the name of the article is Big Eight Conference, and MOSNUM would agree that it should be written out.
  • "7 Big Ten titles during late 19th century and early 20th century (Chicago)" - what school is this? A link may be helpful.
  • "having coached the Kansas Jayhawks (college) and the Detroit Pistons (NBA) to championships" - should be consistent: either (college) ... (professional) or (NCAA) ... (NBA)
  • "As of induction of the Class of 2009" - date?

Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (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_members_of_the_Basketball_Hall_of_Fame/archive1&oldid=1143881022"