Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of NBA game sevens/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 promoted by Matthewedwards 00:35, 30 May 2009.

List of NBA game sevens

 * Nominator(s): — Chris!  c t 19:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

My first nom in May. I worked on this for almost a year and I now felt it fulfills the criteria. Note: one of the references used (VegasInsider.com) is not a reliable source. But since the information can also be verified by the list itself. I don't think this is going to be an issue. — Chris!  c t 19:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Also I think more information can be added if necessary (such as dates and venues).— Chris!  c t 19:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I started adding this. Will definitely finished later.— Chris!  c t 00:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done— Chris!  c t 19:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Support The prose needed an overhaul for grammar and clarity, but I went ahead and copy-edited the lead myself.
 * I would remove the unreliable source about the 20 game sevens—that's not info that is likely to be challenged; rather, it's a summary of the verified list.
 * I removed the ref.— Chris!  c t 21:45, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There needs to be a key for the "All-time standings" table.
 * No need after I spelled them out.


 * In the "Playoff round" column, wouldn't it make more sense to link to the name of the playoff round rather than the playoffs article for that year? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know. If it links to the name of the playoff round, then where should the link to the playoffs article goes.— Chris!  c t 22:18, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I understand what's going on now. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:51, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes http://www.hickoksports.com/history/nba196768.shtml reliable? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:53, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * See User:Zagalejo's comment below. He explained why it is a RS. Also the statement that used that ref is supported by others as well, so it shouldn't be a problem.— Chris!  c t 23:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
 * OK. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

 Weak oppose  – Prose still needs some improvements before I support this.
 * "In other words, game seven is the only one in the series that cannot be guaranteed more than one game in advance." "in the series" > "in a series".
 * "The Conference Finals has been...". Change to "have been", since this is plural (there are two series in this round, correct?) Same for Conference Semifinals in the next sentence.
 * Disagree with Dabomb on one thing: "Because of home-court advantage" has a strong whiff of original research without a citation. Fortunately, I did some searching for you and found a good USA Today story to use.
 * "Charlotte Bobcats, which has yet to appear in the playoffs, and Memphis Grizzles, which was swept in all of their playoffs appearances". Needs a re-write badly. Try something like "The Charlotte Bobcats, who have yet to appear in the playoffs, and Memphis Grizzles, who were swept in all of their playoff appearances".
 * Looks better now, but I think "the" should come after the colon. What do you two think?  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Adding the seems correct.— Chris!  c t 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * "In 1979, 1988, 2005, and 2006 four game sevens were played." Comma after 2006.
 * Note: Bunch of en dashes needed.
 * This is referring to Note A, if I wasn't clear enough.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 21:07, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Done— Chris!  c t 22:06, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The last reference is using ISO date formatting. Not a big deal, but it would probably be good to make it consistent with the others.
 * All-time standings: Change column from Win–Loss % to Win–loss %. This is the first time I've ever seen sorting work properly with colspan involved. Well done on that.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 00:32, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All done. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks— Chris!  c t 00:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Support – I'm ready now that the referencing issue is taken care of. Hickok Sports.com doesn't strike me as the most reliable website, but I can't see the year a playoff round switched to best-of-seven being too controversial. Looks much better than when I reviewed it originally.  Giants2008  ( 17-14 ) 22:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment What cites the second paragraph on the lead? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 05:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is self-verified by the list.— Chris!  c t 01:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Uhh...The list doesn't talk about when the First Round started the best-of-seven format. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 03:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you look at the refs (basketball-reference.com), each page will say which format the round is in.— Chris!  c t 05:13, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could at least find a source that says all of that, since the source isn't on the general reference or after the paragraph. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 05:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Added— Chris!  c t 18:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The ref only talks about the first round change in 2003. How about the semifinals and conference finals? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 18:45, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I was unable to find any Internet source. So, I asked User:Zagalejo for help, since he has access to published materials. He told me that the statement might not be correct and he will look into this. Therefore, I hided it for now until he got a reference. I seriously don't think it will hurt the nom IMO, since omitting that info will not diminish reader's understanding on game seven. But if anyone feel that is not ok, then I will have no choice but to withdraw this nom. I don't want that to happen, though, just so you know.— Chris!  c t 20:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you wouldn't want to withdraw this nom, but I'm sure you could find at least one source on NBA.com or any other reliable site that has that information. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 20:31, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * No, I can't find anything online. I looked through Google, NY Times, NBA.com, ESPN, Sport Illustrated, CNN and BBR. The list with BBR links can self-verify, but you insist me to get a source that explicitly says all that.— Chris!  c t 22:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This source mentions that the Conference Finals switched to seven games in 1958. The best source I can find that explicitly says the Semifinals switched in 1968 is Hickok Sports. I'm not sure if that site is generally considered a RS, but it probably should be, since the author, Ralph Hickok, has written sports encyclopedias for publishers like Houghton Mifflin, McGraw-Hill, Macmillan, and Facts on File.. Also, this Library Journal article notes of Hickok Sports, "While the whole is still a work in progress, the completed sections are thorough and accurate." Zagalejo^^^ 15:47, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks to Zagalejo, problem solved.— Chris!  c t 19:24, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

It really does pisses me off when I don't want any notice about the FLCs I have commented on, but ehh... --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]] call me Keith 21:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support The Rambling Man (talk) 09:19, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Review by 
 * Lead
 * Looks fine to me.
 * I don't understand the need for that infobox, it looks more like a navigational template than an infobox, is there a real need for it?
 * Not really. I can remove it.— Chris!  c t 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All-time game sevens
 * Is the table not capable of being sortable?
 * See my response to The Rambling Man.— Chris!  c t 23:25, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Notes
 * 'The home-and-away format in every round of the playoffs except the finals is the 2–2–1–1–1 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, five and seven). The format of the finals is in the 2–3–2 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, six and seven).' --> The home-and-away format in every round of the playoffs, except the finals, is in a 2–2–1–1–1 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, five and seven). The format of the finals is in a 2–3–2 format (the team with the better regular season record plays on their home court in games one, two, six and seven).
 * References
 * Per WP:ACCESS and reflist, at most 2 columns is recommended to be used because not all browsers/pc's can handle 3 columns.
 * Everything else fixed

-- T ru  c o   22:14, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Support -- Previous issues resolved; article now meets WP:WIAFL. In response to the infobox, I recommend speaking with the respective project about converting that infobox to a navigational template that goes at the end of each article.-- T ru  c o   20:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment - I agree with Truco about the infobox. As to images, why not just use images of one or two of the arenas? The image doesn't have to be from the event itself, as for example images of some of the athletes in List of winners of the Boston Marathon are not from the Boston Marathon itself. Geraldk (talk) 16:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - the images work well. Well done.

I really think this list suffers from not having any images. First, for the lead, why not use something from the Boston Celtics? I am not a Celtics fan, but they have the the most game sevens of any team, they have the most game sevens in the championship game, they have the third highest win percentage, the second highest win percentage of any team with more than one game seven. Coach Auerbach would also be a great option as he was involved with most of those games sevens in some form or another. As for the rest of the article, you could do something like what I did with the WSOP main event champions perhaps use the team logos? Without images, this page just doesn't strike me as being among the best.

I also disagree with you about making the first table sortable. I think having it sortable would be nice. People sometimes get wierd bugs up their butts and may want to see which stadiums had the most game sevens? What round did the events occur? For example, I just noted above that the Celtics had won the most game sevens during the Championship game... do you know how much easier it would have been for me to make that statement if the list were sortable by playoff round?-- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:10, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Reply: two images added. Infobox converted to navbox— Chris!  c t 22:13, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Another comment that was just recently brought to my attention, Table entries are another exception; each row of a table should be able to stand on its own. In other words, everytime Boston Celtics are used in a table, they should be linked.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 22:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

There are now two NBA Playoffs navboxes...

Template:NBApostseason and Template:National Basketball Association Playoffs
 * Everything fixed (sortability, links as well as redundant templates)— Chris!  c t 23:22, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Support nice quick job.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 00:04, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Could it be possible that the venue column be moved right before the refs? We do that setup elsewhere, and the scores and teams appear last in the rows when they should be either the first or in the middle. – Howard  the   Duck  06:36, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Just so that no one gets confused, what order, from left to right, do you want the columns to be? --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  06:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The current order is OK except that the venues have to be right before the refs. – Howard  the   Duck  06:42, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment Now that the table is sortable, I have changed the date format to correct the date sorting orders, I hope that's fine with everyone.
 * I have some questions about the key in the table, pink background and green border have already indicate that the game seven was won by the road team and is in the NBA Finals respectively. I don't really think there is a need to put ^ and & after the scoreline.
 * Color Blindness.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:41, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Could it be possible that the All-time standings default position is sorted by the numbers of game seven played. I think the numbers of game seven played is more notable than the percentage win. I think that the fact that Minnesota won 100% of their game seven and being on top of the default table is irrelevant because they have only played one game seven. I think most readers are more interested to see the numbers of game seven played and see Boston on top of the default table without sorting it. But I still agree that the Win–loss % column is needed as it also gives significant information on the table.
 * I suggest that the current or the latest team names are in the lead in the All-time standings table, so that it would be Los Angeles / Minneapolis Lakers rather than Minneapolis / Los Angeles Lakers. Another thing about the team's former names, in the case of Baltimore/Capital/Washington Bullets / Washington Wizards who have been both relocated and changed franchise name, I see that the relocation is marked by a slash sign without any spaces, and the franchise name change is marked by a slash sign with spaces. I think this should be applied for every other teams who only been either relocated or changed name, so that we would have Philadelphia/San Francisco/Golden State Warriors instead of Philadelphia / San Francisco / Golden State Warriors.
 * This would need to comply with whatever the general standard is for dealing with these teams? I don't know what that standard is, but if it is to put the current city first, then that is how we should be here?--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Actually I also do not know if there any standard for team's former names, but I just think it would be better if the current names shown first. Also I think there should be difference between showing relocation and franchise name change in order to make non-expert readers understand it easier.
 * My comments above isn't exactly clear, so I made a summary of my suggestion below:
 * Current team names should be shown at the front, example: Los Angeles / Minneapolis Lakers rather than Minneapolis / Los Angeles Lakers
 * The renamed franchise former names should be separated from the current names with a / and spaces in front and behind, example: St. Louis / Atlanta Hawks and Buffalo Braves / Los Angeles Clippers
 * The relocated franchise former names should be separated from the current names with a / without any spaces, example: Charlotte/New Orleans Hornets
 * If a franchise have been both relocated and renamed, both standard aboves stand, example: Baltimore/Capital/Washington Bullets / Washington Wizards or Buffalo Braves / Los Angeles Clippers
 * - Martin tamb (talk) 17:51, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am willing to make changes, but slash needs to have space in between per the MOS.— Chris!  c t 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, never mind, it seems like the change is already in place.— Chris!  c t 20:59, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Are there any place to mention of a team playing multiple game seven in a single season, perhaps a table or a sentence on the lead. I think the fact that New York Knicks played three game sevens in 1994 is quite notable.
 * Why does the Winner and Loser columns is unsortable? I think it would be nice to sort the Winner column to see in which years that a particular team won game seven(s). However, if you made them sortable, there is a problem with the sortability of Team (#)  as Boston Celtics (19)  would be sorted before Boston Celtics (2) . I have a solution by inserting hidden zero by using  0 , so that (2) is actually (02) and will be sorted before (19) . well, I'm not really good at sortable table, so there are probably a better way to made them properly sorted.
 * I added sortability about an hour ago and don't see any problems with it... perhaps you were looking at the version before I made that edit? If not, I am not having problems sorting on winners/losers.--- I'm Spartacus!  NO! I'm Spartacus! 16:45, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I did looking at the previous version and did not notice the edit you made. Thanks for making both columns sortable. Sorry if my comments wasn't exactly clear about the problem, the problem isn't actually on sorting, but on the sorting orders.

Previously

Now (with hidden zeros)


 * Try sorting the Team and see the difference, I think it's better to made them sorted by first, second, third game, and so on. Anyway, I have added the hidden zeros (hidden sortkey) to the tables, I hope that's okay with everyone. - Martin tamb (talk) 17:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you want the column sorted by first, second, third game, then it doesn't work. It is sorted by team name alphabetically.— Chris!  c t 19:55, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I fixed it, I think.— Chris!  c t 20:56, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Really sorry, my comments above isn't exactly clear again. What I want to achieve is the Winner / Loser are sorted first by the team name but the version here would sort based on alphabetical order: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston (1) , Boston (10) , Boston (11) and so on. While my last edit, which I want to achieve, would sort like this: Atlanta, Baltimore, Boston (1) , Boston (2) , Boston (3) , and so on. The reason is simple, it's just weird to see the (#) sorted alphabetically which resulted in (1), (10), (11), ... (19), (2), (20), and so on. I have undo your last edit if you don't mind. And really sorry for the confusion. - Martin tamb (talk) 02:27, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's all, anyway well done on the list. Feel free to object any of my suggestions if they aren't suitable for the article. Sorry if any of my comments were already discussed earlier. - Martin tamb (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Support The list/article is already in good shape before my comments, my comments above is just to improve it a little bit more. Thanks for the response and really sorry if some of my comments isn't clear and create some confusion. Anyway, great job on the list. Martin tamb (talk) 02:35, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.