Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tampa Bay Lightning players

Comments

• Wow, some list! As a quick starter, I would consider some criteria for entry onto this list or else it's just like a category listing. Perhaps a minimum number of appearances? I imagine in ten years time this list will be twice the size...
• "As of January 31, 2008, 27 goaltenders and 221 skaters " - this makes the list inherently unstable and the article would need to be updated for each and every first time appearance.
• Consider linking to goaltender and skater (or similar) for non-expert readers (like me).
• en dash should be used in the lead, not hyphen, to separate season years.
• Looks like you've used em dash in the table for year ranges - should be en dash.
• "Overtime Loss" and "Games Played" and "Regular Season" - over capitalised.
• Consider the use of the handy {{sortname}} template which will still sort alphabetically by surname but present the information by first name.
• "Appeared in a Lightning game during the 2007–08 season" vs "Stats are updated through to the end of the 2006–07 season" - confused me a bit - your highlighting "current" players but not including their statistics, although in the lead you have an "as of Jan 31..." some instability.
• Notes aren't consistent - e.g. why doesn't Marc Denis have a link to the Stanley Cup or a Lightning season?
• Shame the table isn't sortable (I thought it would be, hence my other comment about the sortname template!).
• "2002-2006" - needs en-dash.
• "debut during 2007-08 season" en-dash needed again.
• "Captain, 1999-2000" en dash (check all!)
• "Jancevski, Dan" seems to have the wrong colour unless he won the Stanley Cup this season?
• Abbreviations for the notes would be good - SC, HHOF etc.

So an oppose for now, but it's a very good start. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:15, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment about the "this makes the list inherently unstable and the article would need to be updated for each and every first time appearance" -- of course the article needs to be updated for each and every first time appearance, because when a player makes his first appearance with the team, he becomes a player in the history of the Tampa Bay Lightning, and he needs to be added to the list. Skudrafan1 (talk) 17:29, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yes, which is why I said that some minimum criterion for entry onto this list should be applied (e.g. 10 appearances). Inherently unstable lists will not be featured. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:58, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would not call adding every player who debuts for a team an "inherently unstable" attribute of a list. A very low number, most likely a half-dozen or fewer, players will debut for a team each season. And once the player is on the list, he is on the list forever. How does that constitute instability? As was discussed with all the other NHL-player lists that have been promoted (which all include every player to have played for a team, whether he played 1000 games or 1 game), the list would lose its credibility as a definitive list of a team's all-time roster if it did not include every player to ever suit up for the team. Should the next person to be elected President of the United States not be added to that list until he/she has served for an acceptable amount of time? Skudrafan1 (talk) 19:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • (a) Adding every player to a list is replicating the duty of a category. (b) "half-dozen or fewer per season" - so far this franchise has been going for 16 years and has had 248 players so, roughly, 15 new players a season, not six or less. (c) No-one said this had to be an "all-time roster", indeed if that's the purpose then it should be stated clearly. (d) The list is not sortable so listing everyone gives you virtually the same result as clicking on Category:Tampa Bay Lightning players. (e) My comments are, naturally, my own opinion. If the consensus says that all is good then my opinion will be overlooked. Until then I shall oppose this list being promoted! (f) As for the President, that's a great parallel isn't it? One man every four years versus around 15 every year whose stats change on a weekly basis! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, of course I was making an extreme parallel. Got your attention though, huh? :) Anyway, though, stats on this list don't change on "a weekly basis" -- they are only updated at the end of every season, per WP:HOCKEY consensus. And perhaps half-a-dozen players per season was an understatement (I probably should have said "about 10"), but drawing an average as you did is slanted: remember, every player who played for the team during its first season was debuting, so there's like 30 in one year right there. And it is not just a replication of the category, because the category does not include stats, seasons, awards, etc. I will bow out of this argument now, as it is not aiding in the general improvement of the list. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 03:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Have to say I'm suprised to see such a response to this list after 24 hours. I think I can help clarify some issues here:
• For starters, the general guidlines for hockey team lists are located [[1]]. That alone should help the confusion. It explains the rational to adding every player and so on.
• The list explicitly states that it includes every member of the team to play a game, doing so in the first 2 sentences.
• For sortability, I don't think there was ever any discussion regarding that. Either way, it is also ignorance towards charts on my part. I'm rather useless at doing anything short of copy and pasting them, so I'm lost in that regard.
• Everything else that has been said was mostly just poor reviewing on my behalf before submitting it. That will all be fixed up. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:07, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got most everything done, except the sortable table and the issue about the confusing dates. I wouldn't mind hearing other views about the date part first before I go and alter that, as I don't quite have anything that would fix that. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:30, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Further comments - I took a look at the archived discussion on hockey lists, interesting I guess. However, I do like to review these lists from the perspective of someone who isn't in a directly related project and so may be able to bring a fresh perspective. Hence some of my suggestions. While it isn't a direct replication of the category, it's very close because all you have are lifetime stats (which can't be sorted) - presumably these stats are all available on individual player pages (plus a load more information). To make the list more, well, useful, I would suggest as a minimum it's made sortable - that way you can, in one click, see who has made the most appearances, most goals, etc etc etc. I'm not attempting to redefine the way the ice hockey wikiproject wish to do things but perhaps bring a different view (e.g. see List of Ipswich Town F.C. players for a different project's approach). More specifics...
  • "248 different players" and "January 31, 2008, 27 goaltenders and 221 " - so every time someone debuts the list will need to be updated.
  • "2000–01 " vs " 2000–2001" in the lead.
  • "forwards and defencemen" - link for us non-experts! And wouldn't a US article use "defensemen"?
  • "one regular-season and/or playoff game " - is it and or is it or? I would think or if you're making a complete record.
  • Don't use em-dash to separate year ranges (e.g. in "2007—08 season"
  • Some OTL entries are 0 and some are —. What's the difference? Same with the Tie column.
  • Seasons in the table are whole year–whole year (e.g. 1992–1996) while in the lead they're mainly whole year–last two digits (e.g. 1992–96). I suggest a common approach throughout, whichever way you go.
  • Ensure all names are correct with their various accents, diacritics etc (e.g. Alain Cote should be Alain Côté).
  • When players have won individual trophies, I would expect to see a reference and some explanation as to what that trophy represents - within the world of ice hockey enthusiasts I'm sure it's obvious but to non-NHLers, it really isn't.
  • Bill McDougall has a blank column where I would expect to see an em dash.
  • Do any players fit in the category "Stanley Cup winners" and "Appeared in a Lightning game during the 2007—08 season"? If so, I presume from what I've seen that the Stanley Cup colouring takes precendence. That then means that we don't know for sure if he's made an appearance during the 2007–08 season any more. Unless you can assume he has because he's got 2008 in the season column. In which case why colour the current season players? Just a point of debate really.
  • This resource actually states "The totals presented here may not be exact" - is this a reliable source? What information did you get from that site that wasn't available at the other sites? Perhaps a similar note caveating that specific information should be used here.
• That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:51, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Should have covered everything said there. Some quick comments about everything:
• The list would be updated everytime a player joins the team. It's notable enough to be included, and doesn't happen that often.
  • How often? Once a month? Not sure what this list is trying to achieve that a combination of the category and the articles doesn't already. You can't sort it so there's not a lot to be gained from all the stats - just click on the name, get the stats? If you could sort and compare with other players then fair enough but right now, it's just a glorified category.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Tried to create some uniformity towards the dates, but it will still be a mixed sample as NHL seasons are listed as 2007-08 and not 2007-2008. It should be clearer though.
• Linked everything that needs defyining. That includes awards, as listing them seperatly on the page would start to get away from the article. This includes the issue regarding the ties/overtime loss columns.
• Diacritics has been a huge issue at [WP:HOCKEY]]. A consenus was to only display them on player pages, and not team related pages. As a team related page, they wouldn't be used here.
  • Still not 100% convinced why you wouldn't use player's actual names, regardless of discussion at WP:HOCKEY... There are loads of tricks you can use for sorting etc that would still work with all the diacritics etc, and if this is to be a definitive article then you might as well get their names right... right?! The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Regarding the issue of Stanley Cup winners who are still on the team, there is no answer there. I've been trying to find a way to work around that, but nothing has come of it yet.
  • So I suggest a decision should be made.... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, on List of New Jersey Devils players, the players who won the Cup with the team and are still on the team are given the "current player" color -- the Stanley Cup win is covered in the notes section. Thankfully, but unfortunately for me as a fan, I didn't have that problem with List of Buffalo Sabres players. :) Skudrafan1 (talk) 16:06, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• While this source does say it may not be exact, it is indeed a reliable source that is one of the most comprehensive site of it's kind on the internet. It's accuaracy can be matched with a comparison to the other references listed.
  • Fine, but if the source itself states it might not be accurate, the least that you can do is do the same if you depend on it for some elements of your article... The Rambling Man (talk) 22:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That should cover everything. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think I understand where you are trying to go with this. Unless I'm mistaken, the biggest issue now would be that the list is not sortable. All I have to offer to that is I don't have any idea how to make lists sortable, or else I would look to do something for it. As for what you said about using Hockeydb.com as a source, you've lost me with your second comment. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:50, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think to summarise the issues which I feel still need resolution...
    • Make the tables sortable which would make the inclusion of every player tolerable (in my opinion).
      • Tables with colspans and rowspans can not be sortable.--Crzycheetah 23:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well perhaps the table needs to be changed to accommodate sortability. Otherwise, as I've said, it's bordering on a category. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The source which says it may be inaccurate - what in the list relies on it?
    • Real names should be used, not names without diacritics. Can you explain why you would not use the real name?
    • Goaltenders table also has a mixture of — and 0 in the T and OTL columns.
    • Colouring of current team members who have won the Stanley Cup.
      • The Stanley Cup winners are already coloured. Do you want current players to be coloured differently? If so, why? --Crzycheetah 23:47, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just want the key to be consistent with the colouring in the table. If someone happens to be part of the current season and a SC winner then WP:HOCKEY need to work out a colour scheme. Right now it's not clear. The Rambling Man (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Rambling Man (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• I'll bring up the colour issue with the other members and see what can be done. Kaiser matias (talk) 05:57, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comments/replies WP:LIST says to use complete data sets. Obviously, a list of players to play for a team would have to include every player who has done so. To set a minimum standard above 1 would be to introduce our own POV to an otherwise straightforward list. Categories are limited in that they cannot show each player's stats with the team, nor can they show awards won, nor images.
  • Which source's veracity are you questioning, where and why?
    • As I said above... this resource actually states "The totals presented here may not be exact" - is this a reliable source? What information did you get from that site that wasn't available at the other sites? Perhaps a similar note caveating that specific information should be used here. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • The NHL uses the English/Americanized spelling of names, not their so-called "real names". Per a great deal of discussion, it was agreed within the hockey project to use the NHL's formatting on NHL articles. Basically, a variation on WP:ENGVAR.
    • Fine, but I still don't know why? The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixture of 0's and emdashes on goaltending stats relates to changes in the NHL rules beginnig 2005-06. Specifically, prior to that season, the shootout did not exist, and since that season, ties do not exist.
    • That's not clear though is it? Perhaps to you, but not to a non-expert reader. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:39, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]