Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Grand Rapids Griffins seasons/archive1

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 not promoted by Dabomb87 17:56, 26 July 2011 [1].

List of Grand Rapids Griffins seasons

Featured list candidates/List of Grand Rapids Griffins seasons/archive1

Nominator(s): Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured list because...(<-- we still make users give a reason??) Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 10:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments two things spring to mind:

Not sure why this can't be easily merged into the (admittedly weak) main Grand Rapids Griffins article. (i.e. a question mark here over WP:WIAFL 3b)

I'm following the convention used for every NHL team page (including the three that were founded after the Griffins), in which only the five most recent season results are displayed. If we're going to break this convention, how many seasons should the team play before a spinoff article is warranted? Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All I'm saying is that I can't see a good reason why this info can't be merged into the main article. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because the list isn't terribly long, right? But surely you can come up with a reason why List of Detroit Red Wings seasons can't be incorporated into Detroit Red Wings. So what's your cutoff? Everybody else's seems to be five seasons. This team has fifteen. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying the list can't exist (like your Red Wings example) but I'm saying it shouldn't be featured (similarly, your Red Wings example isn't a featured list). The cut-off is the 3b criterion. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons – four more entries there than here. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Great example. The list has an article for every season, and the main article is massive, so the seasons can "stand alone" legitimately. Both unlike the Griffins pages. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:35, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since not one single Griffins season article appears to exist (as linked to from this article).

I admit that column looks pretty useless at the moment, but finishing up the 1996–97 Grand Rapids Griffins season article is my next project. The layout of the table again follows the convention used for NHL team seasons lists. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 18:49, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe wait until you have these season articles written before nominating at FLC? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose the articles could be created so as not to show so much red on the page – some of the season links at the FL List of Calgary Flames seasons, for example, take you to pages that are merely tables of stats extracted from media guides. Whatever we decide to do with that does not affect the content on this page, however. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:20, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the articles should be created but should be useful. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:28, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I will point out for subsequent reviewers that in the FL List of Tampa Bay Lightning seasons that The Rambling Man hails, most of the linked Lightning season articles are prose-free. I'm perfectly capable of compiling some tables, too, if that's the sticking point here, but again I'll say the color of the links does not affect the reader's ability to learn the statistical breakdown of each Grand Rapids Griffins season. Two Hearted River (paddle / fish) 19:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I "hailed" it as a good example of a list which is a useful standalone list from a half-decent main article. Not so in this case. Any future "argument" derived from this current perspective is entirely subject to the changes in quality standards between now an some undefined future point. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:51, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:10, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose – Criterion 5a. Well over half of the links in the first two columns of the table are red. The FL criteria call for "a minimal proportion" of red links, and I consider this more than minimal. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:14, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.