Ahh, glad to be back on FLC. During April, I noticed how I haven't had an FLC nomination since October, which made me want to make an FL. I believe this list meets WP:FL?, and was why I nominated this. There may be some grammar mistakes, so just point them out or DIY if you like. Thanks! --K.Annoyomous(talk)20:26, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Couple of quick drive-by comments: you have at least two uses of the verb "to defunct", which, in British English at least, does not exist, it should be "to become defunct" - I haven't changed this myself in case it is a legitimate usage in American English. Oh, and the key shows yellow colour and an asterisk for the active teams, but the asterisk is not used in the table -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:51, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've searched the word defunct online, and looking at most of the websites, they do say "to become defunct", so I fixed the usage, plus I added asterisks in the table. --K.Annoyomous(talk)00:34, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Statements like "The Barons are the only NHL franchise to merge operations with another franchise." and the entire last paragraph of the lead lack references. Also the current number of teams needs a reference (the statement that NHL is a professional hockey league is about the only fact that can be left unreferenced). Generally, the entire lead is underreferenced.
The Barons sentence is referenced from NHL history via the book references on the References section. The last paragraph is partly referenced from the "Team" link from the NHL. The locations of former franchises is purely referenced from the whole history of the NHL, also via the books. --K.Annoyomous(talk)00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ref 3 says "Is the oldest trophy competed for by professional athletes" while the article says "the oldest professional sports trophy in North America". The rest of the sentence also needs a ref.
The table needs an introduction and a key (preferably in prose form). While tooltips are nice add-ons, they cannot replace a written explanation. Articles are used in many different ways, including on paper and instances where moving a mouse over an area is not possible or tedious. It is also a lot more time-consuming to move a mouse over multiple points than to read straight prose.
Most featured lists have their lead also as their prose. I prefer it to stay like that just because it gives a better flow to the lead, plus lists have small proses, so having everything altogether IMO is better. This list is my first list where I used Template:abbr, so I thought I'd give it a try. Changed it to key form. --K.Annoyomous(talk)00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Center-alignment, particularly of text, makes a table significantly harder to read. The reader's eye is forced to re-align for every line, and it is much more difficult to get an overview of multiple rows.
I actually think center-aligning makes the table easier to read, because there are spaces to the left and the right of the word/phrase. I'd prefer to keep it the same. --K.Annoyomous(talk)00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I completely disagree on this issue; after searching far and wide in professionally set books and publications, I still haven't seen any tables set with center-aligned text. Center-alignment can work for text where all cells have the same length, for instance it looks fine in the Win% column or for years, but causes problems in text and varied-length digit cells. As stated above, the center-aligning causes unnecessary "reading power" to be used aligning the eyes rather than reading, which slows down the process and moves efforts away from comprehending the contents. I will leave the issue for now, because a large number, particularly of sports-related FLs follow this mishap, but it is still detrimental for readability. Arsenikk(talk)22:32, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I made the list to align left, and after looking at it, I truly think centre-aligning the text is more visually appealing, and in no way makes me use my eyes more. I think some people like the text to align left, while others like it centred. Personal preference I believe. --K.Annoyomous(talk)02:04, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the huge space occupied by the map, it is nearly impossible to read the names of the teams. If a larger font was used, it would make it much more user-friendly.
Tables are not subject to the ban on repeated links, particularly in sortable tables. Linked terms, such as 'Great Depression' should therefore be re-linked for every row.
The layout within the references section is confusing. Of the top five unnumbered refs, the bottom three are fine, but what do the top two links actually reference in the article, or are they simply external links?
The first one references all the statistics on the table, while the second one, which I just realized, only references the location of current franchises. --K.Annoyomous(talk)00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"There have been 18 defunct ..." you mean "There are 18 ..."? And is it worth quantifying "relocated"? For instance, in English football, clubs relocate from stadium to stadium, usually only a mile or two, of course there are exceptions (e.g. MK Dons) but the concept to Brits is very odd.
The relocations were included before I revamped the article, so I decided to keep it. I think readers would like to see relocated teams also. --K.Annoyomous(talk)04:34, 10 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I added a note above the table to tell readers what a considered a relocation. Telling readers how far the relocation was feels like a random thing to do, and isn't really important, so I decided not to include those statistics. --K.Annoyomous(talk)22:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have time at all and it isn't really my problem. I'm not even sure I know what you mean by "request it for me". The point is, a map of that size really should be clickable. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:11, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The difference between a franchise and a team is not explained. What is the difference? Should the article be titled "List of defunct and relocated National Hockey League franchises" to match the NFL?
I wrote that the two terms are interchangeable. I really don't know how to reference that, since it's just the nature of the words. The title will remain the same, because it lists the teams, and two teams can be in the same franchise, like Winnipeg and Phoenix for example. --K.Annoyomous(talk)04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The California Golden Seals article indicated that the team suffered financially which caused the move. Was the team just moved because the minority owners wanted a team in their hometown? I'm guessing there was a bigger issue that caused the move.
I couldn't find anything about the team itself having financial trouble, but I did found that the majority owner Swig had his own financial trouble after the move. That was after, so it doesn't mean that Swig had financial troubles before the move. --K.Annoyomous(talk)04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Minnesota North Stars reference is from Norman Green, the owner who moved the team. Is that an appropriate primary source? The Minnesota North Stars article, Dallas Stars article and Green's own essay appear to indicate he bought the team with the intention to move.
I couldn't find a reference where it was his intention to move the team when he bought it. I just added an SI reference to back-up the current source. Green even negotiated deals to have the team stay, but those deals were deemed "not good enough". I don't want to give a detailed reason because it is on a table. --K.Annoyomous(talk)04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Winnipeg Jets reference says "December 3, 1955". Were the investors looking for a team for 40 years?
The Winnipeg Jets article and Phoenix Coyotes article indicate the Winnipeg Jets suffered financial difficulties causing the sale. Would a more appropriate summary be "Financial struggle; sold to a Phoenix-based group", similar to the Denver summary?
The team was actually bought by a group of investors, one from Minnesota and one from New York. They intended to move the team to a bigger market, which was Phoenix. --K.Annoyomous(talk)04:38, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
" Jerry Colangelo, owner of the NBA's Phoenix Suns and MLB's Arizona Diamondbacks, along with Phoenix businessmen Steven Gluckstern and Richard Burke and a local investor group bought the team with plans to move it to Phoenix for the 1996–97 season." Is this information wrong? Was there a financial struggle or why was the team sold? Some of the explanations explain why they were moved to the location but not why the decision to move was made. ie California Golden Seals and Colorado Rockies
I don't really understand why a team would be relocated. Could this be explained in the article? I find it hard to understand moving a team or selling a team unless their was some financial impetus. Can someone just buy the Montreal Canadiens and move them to a small town in the middle of nowhere or do they have to have some type of approval? I have a feeling most readers don't understand the reasons behind moving a team. Crunk Cup (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relocations of different teams have different reasoning for them. Some move just because their home team does not have an NHL team. Others move for financial gain. I've added how the NHL approves relocations of teams. --K.Annoyomous(talk)22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've minimised things to make things clearer and so I can summarise things.
By changing the column title from "Reason for relocation/disbandment" to "Main reason for disbandment/relocation" the column has done the opposite of allowing readers to interpret the reason for relocation and made the decision for the reader. The column lists a reason for relocation and many of the refs do not support the idea that it was the main reason for relocation.
The sentence "The NHL Board of Governors review and approve the relocation of any franchise." leaves much to be explained. I had to look up who the NHL Board of Governors are and I doubt many readers know who they are without a wikilink or explanation. "Do they just rubber stamp decisions? What criteria do they consider before approving moves? Have they ever rejected a move?
In the lede of the California Golden Seals article it mentions financial trouble but there is no mention in the table. This appears to be a glaring omission. You stated you "couldn't find anything about the team itself having financial trouble". I found this this (page 83) on Google Books after two minutes. Is this information incorrect?
The Colorado Rockies articles states the team tried to moved to New Jersey in 1978, four years before McMullen purchased the team. It's pretty easy to guess that something was wrong in Colorado for a team to try and become the third franchise in a metro area and that it wasn't just McMullen making the move.
For the Winnipeg Jets move it's stated that the team was sold to investors with the intention to move. The Phoenix Coyotes article states: " Jerry Colangelo, owner of the NBA's Phoenix Suns and MLB's Arizona Diamondbacks, along with Phoenix businessmen Steven Gluckstern and Richard Burke and a local investor group bought the team with plans to move it to Phoenix for the 1996–97 season." Is this information wrong? Was there a financial struggle or why was the team sold? Some of the explanations explain why they were moved to the location but not why the decision to move was made. ie California Golden Seals and Colorado Rockies.
Object. I'm checking from mostly a hockey perspective, and I don't feel the article is complete. I think that possible to write a section about the history of franchise troubles in the NHL. There's more stuff on this in the History of the National Hockey League articles. For example, the Wanderers didn't fold just because there weren't enough players... it was triggered by their arena burning down (and their owner had a history of his arenas burning down, too). The Hamilton Tigers part implies the league responded to a strike by removing the franchise (which wasn't exactly like that). You should look through the series of the articles on NHL history... the 67-92 mentions how St Louis was almost moved to Saskatoon. These are just examples of what could be added: other, broader, ideas would be the money troubles that teams had, commentary on the Original Six era... Finally, there's nothing about recent events (troubles for Phoenix and Atlanta). I think that mentioning them would make the article more comprehensive. Maxim(talk)21:50, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For the Reasons column on the table, I only listed the main reason because it is a table, and I don't think having a prose in a table is good for the table. I believe that the history of franchise troubles should be on the History of organizational changes in the NHL article, since having a huge prose for the history would make the list into a true article. I renamed the column into "Main reason for disbandment/relocation" so that readers can interpret that as there are more reasons for the relocation. Readers can read more about the potential NHL expansions at the Potential NHL expansion article. --K.Annoyomous(talk)22:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me. Just make sure to keep a close eye on the article given this Winnipeg Thrashers speculation. Maxim(talk)23:19, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"During their time in the NHL, the Senators and Maroon have both won the Stanley Cup championship multiple times". First, Maroon should be including an s at the end. Second, this implies that they're both still in the league; to fix this, remove "have".
What I mean is that the slash there is unspaced on one side and spaced on the other. It should either be fully spaced or fully unspaced, shouldn't it? Not sure what MoS dictates for slashes, to be honest. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've never personally seen any sportswriters refer to it as "the MLB". Also, note a doesn't make any sense if it's correct grammar. That says "the Pittsburgh Pirates of Major League Baseball", which I think is correct. It wouldn't be called "the Major League Baseball", and MLB is just an abbreviation. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 23:09, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
