Wikipedia:Featured and good topic removal candidates/National Hockey League awards/archive1

National Hockey League awards[edit]

This topic on the surface appears to be complete, but I think it is in fact lacking in several ways:

NHL Foundation Player Award was added to this topic as an audited article of limited subject matter, but now the list is 11 items long, so it should be able to become a featured list
Lester Patrick Trophy, a featured list, is inexplicably missing from the topic
NHL Lifetime Achievement Award, a new award as of 2008, should have long ago been peer reviewed and added to the topic
I would be inclined to add List of Stanley Cup champions (a featured list) to the topic (though this quibble is relatively minor to nos 1 and 3)

There was a previous discussion about the Foundation Player Award which resulted in a rebuttal I didn't agree with. No previous discussion about NHL Lifetime Achievement Award has occurred but I would have hoped that the topic maintainers would have been able to work out for themselves that if a new award article is created, it'd need adding to the topic.

So yeah, all in all, this leads to a failure of 1.d) and 3.a) - rst20xx (talk) 13:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The list item minimum is a rough guideline, and it doesn't take into account a general lack of content. Considering that no WP:HOCKEY member was even aware of the existence of this trophy until after the drive was finished, it shows just how little there is about this award.
That's an easy one, it's not an official NHL trophy. It's just an award usually presented to former NHLers. For example, note that LegendsofHockey.net includes it in the non-NHL trophy section.
I was planning on sitting on this one until the 2009 ceremony and see if they actually bring it back before trying to add it to the topic. In fact, I was considering merging it with the main trophies list. -- Scorpion ⁰⁴²² 14:15, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This request is utterly pointless. For #1, if you feel strongly enough about it, nominate it for the bronze star. For #2, I believe the reason for the omission was mentioned in the promotion discussion. For #3, we honestly have better things to do than peer-review one-sentence stubs. I personally would support merging it into the main awards page. For #4, again, if you feel strongly about it, nominate it. Don't waste our time with such a pointless removal nomination, and if you're ever going to go through this for a second time, get the league name right—it's the NHL, not the NFL. Maxim_(talk) 15:07, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, I disagree that this discussion is "utterly pointless" as there are some things to be considered here. Personally I would oppose the "NHL Foundation Player Award" being a FL as is. If there is sufficient information to expand its lead, provide some history etc. then that is another matter, and it should be expanded/FLCd/included. The "NHL Lifetime Achievement Award" should not have its own stubby article. It is mentioned in the main page table, so maybe just an extra line in the lead would suffice for now. According to the Lester Patrick Trophy article it "is considered a non-NHL trophy because it may be awarded to players, coaches, officials, and other personnel outside the NHL", so I guess that sorts that one. As for "List of Stanley Cup champions" possibly include it, as "Stanley Cup" is included but does not have a section for the winners. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Full disclosure: I should probably point out I know nothing about NHL, am a regular at FLC and set up WP:PRIZE. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 15:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Maxim: Well I'm sorry that you feel this is utterly pointless, but reading what you wrote there was a bit of a theme of "if you think it's wrong in this way, you should fix it". How is it my job to fix it?!? Why should I nominate an article I've never worked on for FL? That's not my job, that's yours. Why should I be the one to merge the Lifetime Achievement Award into the main? That shouldn't be my decision, it should be yours. Topics require maintaining, just like articles, and what you've just done is the equivalent of accusing someone who nominates an FA for FARC of not fixing the article up themselves. These are decisions you've failed to make, and so here we are.
(Having said that, to get back to #2, my inclination would still be to include it in the topic, because official or not, it's still an NHL award, and it's not like any extra work would be required to add it, what with it already being a featured list... but whatever. Also contrary to what Maxim says, #2 wasn't discussed in the promotion discussion. And to get back to #3, maybe it should be merged instead of PRed, but in that case it DOES need merging) - rst20xx (talk) 15:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- "because official or not, it's still an NHL award", Using that logic though, why not include any award or honour that an NHL player can win? Like an Olympic Gold medal, the Triple Gold Club, or even the list of members of the Hockey Hall of Fame? The topic should be limited strictly to awards/trophies done solely by the NHL. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 16:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The Olympics are ice hockey but not NHL. The Triple Gold Club as far as I can tell does not have an actual award associated with it, but is just a term. However generally speaking you do have a point though, so I guess I wouldn't oppose if you guys decided not to include it. Having said that, to make a different case for its inclusion, Lester Patrick Trophy is presented by the NHL, which sets it above any other non-official award, so I think including it would not mean you have to include any other non-official NHL awards - rst20xx (talk) 16:10, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Wrong. If you care about the bronze star so much, you should nominate it, instead nominating for removal. Or have you never nominated anything for promotion before? Trust me, especially with lists, it's not that difficult. I don't mind improving articles, but I mind doing this pointless exercise. Maxim_(talk) 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I share Maxim's frustration, but for a different reason: there was no reason at all for this to go to topic removal. Seriously, did you ever even consider bringing your concerns up on WT:HOCKEY first? You know? Collaboration? Next time, try discussing concerns first if you want to be treated with any kind of respect. Reso lute 17:57, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now, as to the concerns: 1) 11 items in the list does not change the almost complete lack of history and prose that can be added. It remains too short to become featured. 2) is not an NHL award. It is, in part presented by the NHL, but it is not related specifically to NHL play. If you had read the discussions on that one, you would know that consensus was that it was not a fit for the topic. And 3) If it is a brand new award, it takes time to build. You might even have tried doing that yourself. Reso lute 18:03, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll help out with the NHL Foundation Player Award and List of Stanley Cup champions articles, and I hope I could nominate NHL Foundation Player Award if the main contributor(s) let. I'll try to finish both by today. For the NHL Foundation Player Award article, I could just add some sentences about the list, add more columns onto it, and I'll try to find some history about it. For the List of Stanley Cup champions article, I'll just fix it up. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 20:16, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Foundation player award needs substantial prose expansion, and I'm not too sure if there's a lot of info on that. The Stanley Cup list's an FL btw. Maxim_(talk) 20:49, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed the paragraph. I don't preview, :(. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 21:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I finished re-writing the NHL Foundation Player Award article. I right now have one question. Why is this considered a NHL trophy? The award is not on [1], and it also isn't on [2]. Hmm... -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:27, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I further expanded SREKALs work, it looks like it could pass FLC now. Wanna co-nom this with me SREKAL? As for not being an NHL award, it's technically an NHL Foundation award, a branch of the NHL. Probably why it isn't listed, but still given out by an organization owned and operated by the NHL. – Nurmsook! ^talk... 23:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL. I just asked if you would like to co-nom with me and Scorpion0422. i of course accept, since I asked you. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:38, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What happened to retention periods? At the very least, a notice about the perceived gaps could have been left at the nominators' talk pages about a week beforehand. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:46, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree especially since maintaining a featured topic takes a lot of effort.—Chris! _ct 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, of the four issues, issue no 1 was always realistically the only one that might result in the topic's removal. Scorpion0422, one of the people who built this topic, has been aware of this potential issue for several months now. He wasn't aware that I was considering noming the topic for removal, but as can be seen, he rejected the idea that anything should be done about the issue, as have the other people who worked on the topic and have now come to this nomination. So I'm far from convinced that notifying people would have made a difference. However, I concede that perhaps more notification may have been merited, and would happily oppose this FTRC if a consensus is built that this topic should go under retention, with NHL Foundation Player Award having 3 months to get to FL - rst20xx (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You made an assumption that nobody would respond, so you chose not to bother? I'm sorry, but that is simply pathetic, and a complete and utter failure to assume good faith. You should have expressed your concerns at WT:HOCKEY, and if no response was met, then proceeded with a FT review. Bad form on your part. Reso lute 01:57, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I assumed that Scorpion0422 would pass on/had passed on the message to the rest of you. Look, you clearly said above "11 items in the list does not change the almost complete lack of history and prose that can be added. It remains too short to become featured", backing up my logic that notification would have been pointless, but despite this, I also clearly said "I concede that perhaps more notification may have been merited". So yes, absolutely I messed up, but your coming in here and attacking me is getting us nowhere. If someone nominates something for FAR without forewarning, do you have a massive go at them? I guess you point out to them that they have mishandled things, and they should have given forewarning, but ultimately no, you assume good faith that they messed up in not doing this, and you get on and fix it. You have now had a massive go at me, when all I wanted was to see the topic undergo the improvements it has now undergone. Complete failure of WP:CIVIL on your part and I'm not going to say anything more on the matter - rst20xx (talk) 02:20, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Has the snow melted yet around your area after the massive snowstorm? Maxim_(talk) 02:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...there's still the odd lump here and there, that used to be a snowman, but it's been largely gone since the weekend. I've never known anything like it! :P rst20xx (talk) 02:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...actually looking at the FTRC procedure again and considering that NHL Foundation Player Award is now up for FLC, I think this should probably just be kept open until the FLC finishes - rst20xx (talk) 02:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think it should be clear that List of Stanley Cup champions should be included in the topic, since Wikipedia:Featured topics/National Basketball Association awards does include List of NBA champions. Anyone disagree? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 23:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would support such an addition, especially since the list is already featured. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Concur—Chris! _ct 00:22, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moi aussi, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 00:27, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that we can actually make this change as a result of whatever consensus forms in this FTRC - rst20xx (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to make a mistake on adding the article to the topic, so could someone do this ASAP. It'll be appreciated. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh sorry to be clear, it'd be done when this FTRC closes, not before, so that consensus has a full chance to form - rst20xx (talk) 01:54, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - given that Lester Patrick Trophy is a special case of a non-NHL trophy in that it IS presented by the NHL, would there be any kind of consensus to add it to the topic? rst20xx (talk) 00:59, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would oppose its inclusion. The trophy is awarded for work promoting hockey in the United States. It has nothing specifically to do with the NHL, and in fact, several winners earned the award for reasons completely unrelated to the NHL. It is not a fit for the scope of this topic. Reso lute 01:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also oppose since it could also be given to ice hockey related people outside of the NHL. Also , I think article shouldn't be on Category:National Hockey League trophies and awards. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 01:32, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Should it be on {{NHLawards}}? rst20xx (talk) 01:55, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No. Maxim_(talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So consensus to remove the Lester Patrick Trophy from both the navbox and the category? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitrary section break

So here's somewhat of a rough break of the rough agreements we seem to have reached:

NHL Foundation Player Award: Nominated for FLC, so I think this is resolved.
Lester Patrick Trophy: Doesn't merit inclusion as a non-NHL trophy
NHL Lifetime Achievement Award: Merged, maybe re-created if it catches on (but we're talking in years)
List of Stanley Cup champions: Consensus to add.

Two other things: how solid (for lack of a better word) is the rule about a list having 10 items to be considered at FLC? Because the Messier and Crozier lists are not in all that bad shape compared to the Foundation list, save a slightly lower number of entries. Should those two be considered at FLC or should they remain audited until they have 10 items (so Crozier later this year, and Messier in two years)? Maxim_(talk) 02:05, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I think the community minimum can only be decreased if the list cannot reach 10 entries. For example, if no more entries can be added, but needs to have at least 8. For NHL awards, impossible, as they can reach 10 entries in some years or so. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:09, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Supportthe summary stated by Maxim above. Z gin der 2009-02-17T18:53Z (UTC)

Umm...this isn't a vote...and I think all FLC contributors will agree with me on this. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]] 02:29, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what is this discussion re-intended for? For a supp or demote?--TRU CO 01:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be a demotion, but I believe my summary is an accurate representation of the actual result here (issues addressed as described). Maxim_(talk) 04:11, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the purpose of the nom now though?--TRU CO 22:07, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Waiting for the outcome of the NHL Foundation Player Award FLC before proceeding - rst20xx (talk) 22:19, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah okay.--TRU CO 22:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Close with consensus to keep - NHL Foundation Player Award is now an FLC, and with this I feel that all four of my concerns have been dealt with. List of Stanley Cup champions will be added to the topic. Well done, all - rst20xx (talk) 17:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]