Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft/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 Giants2008 22:05, 11 April 2012 [1].

List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft[edit]

List of Connecticut Huskies in the WNBA Draft (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I based this new list on the current FL List of Oklahoma Sooners in the NBA and WNBA Drafts. I also pulled from the NFL draft FLs as well as my previous FL Huskies of Honor. I believe this list fully meets WP:FLCR and invite your review. Note that unlike this Oklahoma list this is a list of only women's basketball players; I believe 23 draftees is plenty for a stand-alone list. I plan to build List of Connecticut Huskies in the NBA Draft subsequently. –Grondemar 02:02, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 07:41, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • After the lead image, don't force the sizes of other images, just thumb and upright where appropriate.
  • Tables need row and col scopes per MOS:DTT for WP:ACCESS.
    • I added the column scopes, but I'm unsure how to apply the row scopes. I could apply them to the first column, Year, but that isn't really a "primary key" for the table. Should I add another column, such as a count of the draft picks, to be that primary key? –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • You could make the player name the row scope since this is a list of the "Huskies", that column would appear to be the most appropriate/significant element of the table. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:02, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • I added the scope = "row" attribute to the player name column... let me know if this was correctly done. –Grondemar 03:09, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ref should be Refs as all have multiple refs.
  • Refs don't need to be sortable.
  • Note 1 says "her", perhaps make this more "the player's" or something similar.
    • I think "her" works here since, by definition, all of the players in this list will be female. Let me know if you disagree. –Grondemar 03:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, I prefer to ensure footnotes are stand-alone, i.e. in this case "her" could relate to any specific player, as opposed to players in general. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:36, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note 2 needs referencing.

The Rambling Man (talk) 10:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose – Criterion 3b. Sorry, but I don't see any reason why this shouldn't be included as part of a combined NBA and WNBA Draft list, like Oklahoma's. I just checked how many men's draft picks Connecticut had, and the number is actually one fewer than the Sooners. We're talking about a net difference of 11 players from Oklahoma's list to what a combined Connecticut list would contain. I don't think that's enough to support two lists. Giants2008 (Talk) 01:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per Giants. Goodraise 12:01, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I strongly disagree with the rationale behind the two above opposes. I will provide a full response later today. I request patiences from the FLC delegates until I can post my full response. –Grondemar 17:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to the above oppose rationale provided by Giants2008 and concurred with by Goodraise, I object on the following grounds:

  • It proposes merging two different subject areas into a single list: men's basketball and women's basketball. While basketball is indeed a single sport with a common set of rules, there are significant differences in both the rulesets and the style of play between men's and women's basketball at both the collegiate and professional levels. Among the differences at the collegiate level include length of the shot clock (35 seconds in men's, 30 seconds in women's), location of the three-point line, and certain violations such as ten-seconds-in-the-backcourt. Similar rule differences exist between the NBA and WNBA. The style of play between men's and women's basketball is even more of a apparent difference: men's basketball is characterized by "above-the-rim" play with slam dunks while the women's game plays more "below-the-rim" as in general women do not dunk.
  • It is not consistent with how reliable sources treat the subjects. Reliable sources treat men's and women's basketball as two independent sports. ESPN, as an example reliable source, has separate pages for men's and women's basketball at both the college and professional level: [2] [3] [4]. You will be hard-pressed to find any reliable source that simultaneously discusses both the NBA and WNBA Drafts. The two drafts occur months apart. While the WNBA is still managed by the NBA, most of the WNBA teams are now independent of NBA teams. The NBA and WNBA are separate entities drafting from different sets of players. It does not make sense to insist on the merger of men's and women's basketball content in featured lists when no reliable source organizes itself that way.
  • It is not consistent with how other Wikipedia articles are structured. In general, the format for university athletic department articles is to have an overview article at UNIVERSITYNAME NICKNAME such as Connecticut Huskies or Oklahoma Sooners. These articles then if needed per WP:SUMMARY have subarticles on each sport, such as Connecticut Huskies men's basketball and Connecticut Huskies women's basketball. You'll notice that Connecticut Huskies basketball is a disambiguation page, not an article about both programs. If there is any university that has a common article for both their men's and women's basketball programs I would be interested in learning about it. This draft list exists as a stand-alone list rather than an embedded list because merging it into Connecticut Huskies women's basketball would be WP:UNDUE. The standard for whether a stand-alone list should exist should be whether it would overwhelm its parent article, not whether it could be merged into another list with another defined scope.

I am very interested in your response. Thanks, –Grondemar 01:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose struck. Connecticut Huskies basketball being a disambiguation page is the argument that convinced me. In my opinion, the nominated list does not presently violate criterion 3b. Goodraise 01:05, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Mine is too. I'm still a little shaky on the list based on the minimal increase in size from an already featured list, but the argument that the two teams each have subarticles is a strong one. I'll probably end up refraining from supporting after a more thorough review due to my concern, but I won't oppose over it. Giants2008 (Talk) 02:21, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you for your reconsideration. –Grondemar 05:42, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • In the second paragraph, the hyphen in "win-loss record" should be an en dash.
  • Alt text for the images would be a nice luxury.
    • After all of the debate on alt text over the years I notice that WP:ALT isn't labelled a policy, a guideline, or even an essay. It would be nice if there was some kind of consensus to include alt text and of what that alt text should consist. For now, I added "refer to caption" to the alt parameters of each of the images. –Grondemar 23:16, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the Notes column, I don't believe the "Champion" in "WNBA Champion" warrants the capitalization.

Giants2008 (Talk) 00:14, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • One thing: Could you add wikilinks to the names in the captions of the images?
  • Other than that, Support -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 01:37, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - with comment. "three players—Taurasi, Charles, and Moore" - there are two Moores in the list, so you'll need her first name here. Good job on archiving all of the references- means I get to skip my spiel here, though note if you care that if you add |deadurl=no to the reference, then the current page will be listed first, not the archived version- super-optional, though. I have no problems with the WNBA list being separate from the NBA list. --PresN 19:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have addressed all of your comments. I did not know about the deadurl parameter and will make use of it going forward. Thanks for the review! –Grondemar 00:01, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Comment some double full stops in the refs e.g. 37, 39, 45, 47, 49... need to be fixed, and I think since you have "Center / Forward" and "Forward / Center" (I guess meaning the first is the usual position but can play the second?) you should have a note to explain why you have this. I don't think Notes need to be sortable either. But other than that, I'll support. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:47, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • I fixed the first and last points above. Regarding the ordering of positions, these were generally based on what the sources said rather than any kind of editorial judgement, so I'm not sure what I can say here. Thanks for the review. –Grondemar 02:13, 4 April 2012 (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_Connecticut_Huskies_in_the_WNBA_Draft/archive1&oldid=1089080400"