Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches/archive1
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 Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009 [1].
- Nominator(s): —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Toolbox |
|---|
After getting List of Oklahoma Sooners head football coaches promoted to FL, I began tackling this list. I originally had the men's and women's coaches separated into two lists but after reading a discussion on the FLC talk page, I began questioning whether the women's list could stand on its own so I made the decision to combine the two. I believe the list meets all the criteria for FL. —NMajdan•talk 17:15, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - Too many redlinks for my liking. Also, the "†" and "*" symbols in the women's conference championships column aren't explained in the legend. Do you need both a color change and a "†" symbol to represent a coach in the hall of fame? It would seem one of the two is enough (I'd prefer the color). Finally, I am concerned about combining both the men's and women's teams to one list. There are separate categories and articles for men's and women's teams, I don't see why the head coaching lists should be combined. Would the women's list be able to stand on its own? I'm not sure, but I don't necessarily think the solution is to combine it with the men's list. VegaDark (talk) 23:28, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to throw my two cents in: I would prefer to have two separate lists for coaches (one mens, one womens), but if others like the combined list better than I am okay with it. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think this is guaranteed to split off. I think the men's and women's basketball programs at a university are closely related enough to justify combining them in one article. In addition, there are featured lists that contained hundreds of rows, so I don't think this article will ever reach the point where it needs to be split due to length issues. Regarding red links, I need to create two articles to get 75% so I will work on that tomorrow or Friday. I'll probably create the articles for the two coaches with the most games coached.—NMajdan•talk 03:37, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- The other option, of course, would be to simply not make a list out of the women's coaches until there were enough entries to justify one. Perhaps leaving them combined until that occurs would be the better option, perhaps not. I don't particularly like the idea of making a list (and promoting one to featured status in particular) where it is almost guaranteed to eventually split off into two different lists. I'll also note that the discussion you cite only pertains to a minimum number for a featured list, not a list in general, so the small number of entries would only prevent it from becoming featured (if the participants agreed with that discussion, of course), which is something I can live with. As for WP:COLORS, I was unaware of this, although it now makes sense when thinking about disabled users. I was going to cite past NCAA football season pages as an example of featured lists with this, although I see now that they have a tag at the top identifying this issue with the pages. As for redlinks, I know a list I created (and nominated for FLC by someone else) was opposed for too many redlinks, and at the time over 65% of the links were blue. If you created an article on the coach who is linked in the lead, that would be 2 redlinks down right there; I think 75% of the list members would probably be fine. VegaDark (talk) 02:50, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- 13 of the 20 coaches have links. I don't know what the established threshold was but I figured 2/3rds had to be enough. I can add a couple more if that gets it past FLC. I am also confused on your question regarding colors and the dagger. Per WP:COLORS, you can't just use a color to indicate something. I removed the extra astericks and daggers in the Women's table although I may readd them tomorrow but I will indicate their meaning in the legend. Regarding having both in one article, I am not too concerned about the effect of categorization. I would think articles come first and then you figure out how best to categorize them. There was a discussion recently at FLC regarding the minimum length for a list (here) and after reading that discussion, I began to question whether the women's list with eight coaches could stand on its own as a separate list. If you don't like them combined, but also agree the women's couldn't stand on its own, what is the other option?—NMajdan•talk 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
| Resolved comments from Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
|---|
Comments –
One more thing I saw just now: reference 4 shouldn't have the title in all caps. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply] |
Support – The list is down to a pair of red links, and I have no issue with the mix of men's and women's coaches; I see it as akin to having managers and general managers in a baseball managers list, and the lists would be short on their own. The rest of the various comments have been addressed. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:10, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
- Should you mention that both teams play in Division I of the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA)?
- I'll see if I can help make some of the articles for the red-linked coaches in return for all of the help you have given me. Remember (talk) 14:02, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- One last comment - who is the coach "died before ever coaching a game". Can you add a footnote explaining who this was because it is sort of a mystery with the way the article currently is. Remember (talk) 14:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - Remember (talk) 18:44, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support - looks good—Chris!c/t 18:40, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Consider adding Category:Oklahoma Sooners men's basketball head coaches and Category:Oklahoma Sooners women's basketball head coaches to the list (also, make sure that they are fully populated). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:48, 28 November 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.