Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Calgary Flames seasons
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 19:37, 1 January 2008 (UTC).
Format based on various NFL team season articles that are ranked as Featured lists. Is complete, stable, factually accurate. Self-nomination. Resolute 02:29, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose The seasons spent in Atlanta have to be provided, as well. Also, even though no other season article has this, I'd like to see a section heading right after the lead, == Headline text ==. Name that section whatever you want, but I think it's necessary to separate the table from the lead.--Crzycheetah 21:48, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Added a section break before the chart. Personally, I disagree with the inclusion of the Atlanta Flames seasons, as that runs beyond the scope of the article. This one is specific to the Calgary Flames, not the Flames franchise as a whole. Within the hockey project, previous incarnations of teams are treated with separate articles, thus, for consistency, the Atlanta Flames seasons would be better served in their own article. Resolute 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I find it being rather odd that there are separate articles for the same franchise. The franchise is called "Calgary Flames", which used to be called "Atlanta Flames" before 1980. There was not any NHL franchise called "Flames". If you want to have seasons spent in Calgary only, I suggest changing the title of this list to reflect this fact.--Crzycheetah 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm really not sure how I could make it clearer, actually. The article is specifically called Calgary Flames seasons, and states in the opening paragraph that the scope extends from the date the franchise relocated to Calgary. Likewise, Atlanta Flames seasons spells out the seasons in Atlanta. The two combined would form the entire history of the Flames franchise. The decision to separate franchise histories by incarnation was made before I joined the project, but is one I completely agree with. If other editors feel this list requires the inclusion of the Atlanta years, I will certainly concede the point to consensus, but this separation is consistent throughout the entire hockey project.
- I find it being rather odd that there are separate articles for the same franchise. The franchise is called "Calgary Flames", which used to be called "Atlanta Flames" before 1980. There was not any NHL franchise called "Flames". If you want to have seasons spent in Calgary only, I suggest changing the title of this list to reflect this fact.--Crzycheetah 23:32, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I disagree with including the Atlanta Flames season, because while in the few NFL season lists that include moved team, all incarnations are treated at the master article (there are no Los Angeles Rams or Boston Patriots articles), Atlanta Flames ha a distinct article,and there is no need to merge these lists anymore than there would be to merge List of Digimon Adventure episodes and List of Digimon Adventure 02 episodes. Circeus (talk) 20:22, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When someone changes his name, it does not mean that there should be two articles about that person, does it? Maybe one day we'll have a Lewis Alcindor article talking about pre-1971 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who knows?
Same here, this is one organization that changed its name in 1980. Why are there two articles about one organization? It is illogical and does not make sense.--Crzycheetah 03:53, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]- The simple reason is size. The master Calgary Flames article is 53KB, and that is after I split of about 20KB of other info. WP:NOT#PAPER would also apply. The comparison to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is invalid, as he is still simply the same person. A franchise shift is a hell of a lot more than a name change. A name change is Mighty Ducks of Anaheim to Anaheim Ducks. In this case, while the Flames acknowledge their history in Atlanta, the organization treats its beginning as the relocation to Calgary. i.e.: It celebrated it's 25th season in Calgary in 2005-06, but it is completely irrelevant that this year is the franchise's 35th season of play. In fact, the History section of the Flames media guide mentions nothing at all about the Atlanta years. It would strike me that forcing a merger of the Atlanta history into the Calgary history would be nothing more than us imposing our own WP:POV. Ultimately, however, the Atlanta history would have to be minimized to fit in with the Calgary history. Allowing for separate but heavily linked article chains allows the previous history in Atlanta to have more depth, which is exactly what this project is about. And, finally, I would suggest that WP:IDONTLIKEIT plays a strong role in not allowing for separate article clusters for separate incarnations of franchises. Resolute 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, why is Los Angeles Rams not separate? It's an incarnations of franchise case, too. I hate it too when someone based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT allows Atlanta Flames to have a separate article. Anyway, WP:WIAFL simply states that a featured list contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items, in this case the list is not complete.--Crzycheetah 04:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the football wikiproject chose a different tactic on how they relate history of franchises. They split franchise histories off into separate articles. WP:HOCKEY chose a cleaner (IMO) split by incarnation of franchises. One method is not necessarily superior to the other. And, again, I would disagree that the list is not complete. It is complete within its scope: Seasons completed by the Flames in Calgary. To go back to your football examples, we have several FL's relating to NFL first round draft picks. The NFL draft is not one round, therefore those lists are not complete using your criteria. Perhaps you should press to have them delisted? Resolute 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The titles of those NFL draft lists state clearly that there are first-round picks listed only. And they list all first round picks, so the lists become complete. If there were a List of Atlanta Falcons draft picks listing first-round picks only, then your argument would be valid. i will change my opinion as soon as I am confident that there is no relation between Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames OR if the title of this list mentions that it omits the seasons spent in Atlanta.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I will simply have to accept your oppose vote because there is clearly no possible way to satisfy you. The title is perfectly clear. Calgary =/= Atlanta. The Atlanta Flames played from 1972-80. The Calgary Flames played from 1980-present. Seriously, what are you expecting? Calgary Flames seasons (excluding the years in Atlanta)? The title is very, very obviously focussed on the history in Calgary. This fact is reinforced in the lead paragraph of the article. Resolute 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually made a good suggestion: Seasons completed by the Flames in Calgary.--Crzycheetah 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unecessarily wordy article title. The title is crystal clear as it stands. A failure to understand the difference between Atlanta Flames seasons and Calgary Flames seasons is not a valid or useful reason to change the title. Not to mention that it breaks a project wide naming convention for no good purpose. Resolute 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title is very misleading and implies that Atlanta Flames was a separate organization and does not have any relation to Calgary Flames. But, as I just read in the Flames official site, Atlanta Flames=Calgary Flames.--Crzycheetah 05:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only misleading to people who choose to be misled, and who choose not to read the lead of the article. There is nothing reasonable I can do to satisfy you. Resolute 15:19, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The current title is very misleading and implies that Atlanta Flames was a separate organization and does not have any relation to Calgary Flames. But, as I just read in the Flames official site, Atlanta Flames=Calgary Flames.--Crzycheetah 05:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Unecessarily wordy article title. The title is crystal clear as it stands. A failure to understand the difference between Atlanta Flames seasons and Calgary Flames seasons is not a valid or useful reason to change the title. Not to mention that it breaks a project wide naming convention for no good purpose. Resolute 05:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- You actually made a good suggestion: Seasons completed by the Flames in Calgary.--Crzycheetah 05:12, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then I will simply have to accept your oppose vote because there is clearly no possible way to satisfy you. The title is perfectly clear. Calgary =/= Atlanta. The Atlanta Flames played from 1972-80. The Calgary Flames played from 1980-present. Seriously, what are you expecting? Calgary Flames seasons (excluding the years in Atlanta)? The title is very, very obviously focussed on the history in Calgary. This fact is reinforced in the lead paragraph of the article. Resolute 05:08, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The titles of those NFL draft lists state clearly that there are first-round picks listed only. And they list all first round picks, so the lists become complete. If there were a List of Atlanta Falcons draft picks listing first-round picks only, then your argument would be valid. i will change my opinion as soon as I am confident that there is no relation between Atlanta Flames and Calgary Flames OR if the title of this list mentions that it omits the seasons spent in Atlanta.--Crzycheetah 05:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because the football wikiproject chose a different tactic on how they relate history of franchises. They split franchise histories off into separate articles. WP:HOCKEY chose a cleaner (IMO) split by incarnation of franchises. One method is not necessarily superior to the other. And, again, I would disagree that the list is not complete. It is complete within its scope: Seasons completed by the Flames in Calgary. To go back to your football examples, we have several FL's relating to NFL first round draft picks. The NFL draft is not one round, therefore those lists are not complete using your criteria. Perhaps you should press to have them delisted? Resolute 04:52, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Then, why is Los Angeles Rams not separate? It's an incarnations of franchise case, too. I hate it too when someone based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT allows Atlanta Flames to have a separate article. Anyway, WP:WIAFL simply states that a featured list contains a finite, complete and well-defined set of items, in this case the list is not complete.--Crzycheetah 04:47, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The simple reason is size. The master Calgary Flames article is 53KB, and that is after I split of about 20KB of other info. WP:NOT#PAPER would also apply. The comparison to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar is invalid, as he is still simply the same person. A franchise shift is a hell of a lot more than a name change. A name change is Mighty Ducks of Anaheim to Anaheim Ducks. In this case, while the Flames acknowledge their history in Atlanta, the organization treats its beginning as the relocation to Calgary. i.e.: It celebrated it's 25th season in Calgary in 2005-06, but it is completely irrelevant that this year is the franchise's 35th season of play. In fact, the History section of the Flames media guide mentions nothing at all about the Atlanta years. It would strike me that forcing a merger of the Atlanta history into the Calgary history would be nothing more than us imposing our own WP:POV. Ultimately, however, the Atlanta history would have to be minimized to fit in with the Calgary history. Allowing for separate but heavily linked article chains allows the previous history in Atlanta to have more depth, which is exactly what this project is about. And, finally, I would suggest that WP:IDONTLIKEIT plays a strong role in not allowing for separate article clusters for separate incarnations of franchises. Resolute 04:15, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- When someone changes his name, it does not mean that there should be two articles about that person, does it? Maybe one day we'll have a Lewis Alcindor article talking about pre-1971 Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, who knows?
- Added a section break before the chart. Personally, I disagree with the inclusion of the Atlanta Flames seasons, as that runs beyond the scope of the article. This one is specific to the Calgary Flames, not the Flames franchise as a whole. Within the hockey project, previous incarnations of teams are treated with separate articles, thus, for consistency, the Atlanta Flames seasons would be better served in their own article. Resolute 22:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please calm down? Based on the prevailing Wikipedia format, I must
oppose(changed to neutral) as the list is lacking information from the Atlanta years. This appears to be a decision the Ice Hockey Wikiproject has made, but unfortunately it runs counter to the prevailing Wikipedia format, as seen on all of the NFL, NBA, and MLB team articles. (there are, for examples, no articles for the Charlotte Hornets or Brooklyn Dodgers, nor would I expect any) That they have made this decision doesn't mean I have to agree with it when voting for FLC, and suggest they re-examine and justify it. Personally, I feel the NFL/NBA/MLB model is the best, as the Atlanta Flames are the Calgary Flames. (I say that because rarely the new team is not the old team - example: officially, the Baltimore Ravens are not the former Cleveland Browns). That an article for the Atlanta Flames exist does not mean the error should be perpetuated. - However, I will reverse my oppose if you can tell me that the NHL doesn't consider the two teams the same team for purposes of history and statistics, like the NFL and NBA and MLB do for their teams. That is to say, if you can show that the policies of the NFL itself are different, rather than a mere design choice by the Wikiproject, then I can forgive this - being not a huge NHL follower, I have no way of knowing on my own. Looking at the Flames official site on nhl.com, they do exclude the Atlanta years from the main list, so perhaps this is a widespread concept in the NHL?
- That said, the list is very nice and I would happily endorse it if it included Atlanta (or if the exclusion can be otherwise justified as above), both in the list and the text. For example, it can be confusing - is the playoff record 15-17 for Calgary, or the whole Flames franchise? Because Atlanta went to the playoffs too. Questions like that would be very easily avoided by simply adding the Atlanta years to the list. --Golbez (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Flames franchise history does include the time in Atlanta, but, as you noticed, and as I mentioned above, the Calgary Flames date their history from the time the franchise relocated to Calgary. The Atlanta years are basically treated as a form of "pre-history". i.e., the media guide lists game logs from the Atlanta years, but does not list detailed player stats from the Atlanta years. Ultimately, I fail to see why the NFL/NBA/MLB model is superior. It is simply different. (and as an aside, an attempt to merge Montreal Expos into Washington Nationals was soundly defeated, so the split by team incarnation exists elsewhere as well.)
- Formally, the Flames franchise date is 1972, but again, as you noted, the current incarnation of relocated teams often trace their own histories back to the date of relocation, so it is a grey area. In this case, I continue to question why the current format is inferior. The article cluster documenting the Atlanta years, and the cluster documenting the Calgary years are significantly linked together, showing the links between the two incarnations of the franchise. They are also separate, partly for size reasons and depth of coverage, but also partly because the teams themselves often split their histories this way. Again, I do not see how one way of presenting the information could be determined to be superior to the other. Resolute 23:29, 26 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Expos are a unique matter, since (I believe) that is the only major North American franchise to move or change names since Wikipedia began (excepting the Charlotte, and then New Orleans/Oklahoma City, Hornets), and therefore had an existing article in the present tense. People are often hard-pressed to give that up. And the anti-mergers had some good arguments. But back to this subject: I will remove my oppose (but will remain neutral) if the intro is edited to make it extremely clear which stats are for Calgary only, and which stats include Atlanta. As an American sports fan, when I see, for example, an article saying "the Calgary Flames have a 15-17 playoff record", I assume that includes all previous iterations of the franchise as well - in this case, Atlanta. However, I think the only way to get a support is if the two articles were merged. I still prefer (I never said one method was objectively superior) the general NFL/NBA/MLB model. Personal preference. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is fair. The quality of the article will not be lessened without a gold star. It is more the quality of the format I was aiming to confirm, and getting bogged down on a technicality isn't going to change that either. I will clarify that section you list, however. None of the stats include Atlanta, the article is on the Calgary years only. Resolute 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I gotta admit, it makes the intro a bit awkward, but I remove my oppose. --Golbez (talk) 17:20, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- And that is fair. The quality of the article will not be lessened without a gold star. It is more the quality of the format I was aiming to confirm, and getting bogged down on a technicality isn't going to change that either. I will clarify that section you list, however. None of the stats include Atlanta, the article is on the Calgary years only. Resolute 15:25, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The Expos are a unique matter, since (I believe) that is the only major North American franchise to move or change names since Wikipedia began (excepting the Charlotte, and then New Orleans/Oklahoma City, Hornets), and therefore had an existing article in the present tense. People are often hard-pressed to give that up. And the anti-mergers had some good arguments. But back to this subject: I will remove my oppose (but will remain neutral) if the intro is edited to make it extremely clear which stats are for Calgary only, and which stats include Atlanta. As an American sports fan, when I see, for example, an article saying "the Calgary Flames have a 15-17 playoff record", I assume that includes all previous iterations of the franchise as well - in this case, Atlanta. However, I think the only way to get a support is if the two articles were merged. I still prefer (I never said one method was objectively superior) the general NFL/NBA/MLB model. Personal preference. --Golbez (talk) 00:19, 27 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but... Why are the first two columns the same? And is there any possible way to make that last column shorter? Having so much text in there makes each row quite tall, which is inconvenient at best. Overall, though, quite a good job! -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 06:37, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The first two columns document the league season page (i.e.: 2007-08 NHL season) and then the Flames' season article (2007-08 Calgary Flames season). As far as the last column goes, I'm open to suggestions, but there really isn't a better way to present up to four rounds of playoff results that I am aware of. Resolute 06:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The way it's currently written, there's no indication about which one is NHL and which is specifically the team. And having the text be the same for both columns is confusing.
- As for the result column, what about something like:
- The first two columns document the league season page (i.e.: 2007-08 NHL season) and then the Flames' season article (2007-08 Calgary Flames season). As far as the last column goes, I'm open to suggestions, but there really isn't a better way to present up to four rounds of playoff results that I am aware of. Resolute 06:41, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
| 1997-8 | Campbell | Smythe | 5 | 4 | 3 | 3 | 7 | 9 | next field | 9 | 3 | 4 | 1 | |
| Here are the results | ||||||||||||||
- -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll play around with some formats in my sandbox for later. Will also discuss on WT:HOCKEY, how we might look at the NHL vs team season article links. They are all uniform now, so changing one would necessitate changing about 35-40 articles. Resolute 01:51, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 23:39, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While the Atlanta and Calgary franchises are officialy the same team, as recorded in the NHL Record Book, they are at the same time two different franchises. The article makes it clear that this is about the years spent in Calgary, and there is a link to the Atlanta seasons. It helps reduce clutter, and if the various MLB/NBA/NFL articles don't conform to this system, perhaps it would be beneficial for members of sports projects to discuss a uniform system for all sports, though this is probably more of a pipe dream than anything. Kaiser matias (talk) 07:26, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Support While I understand the concerns above, the title of the list is List of Calgary Flames season which is quite clear that it is the list of seasons in Calgary. If it was titled List of Flames seasons then I would have to object. -Djsasso (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. 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.