Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches/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 23:25, 15 March 2010.

List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches

 * Nominator(s): NThomas (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I feel it meets all of the FLC. I've based this list off of current WP:FLC List of North Carolina Tar Heels men's head basketball coaches and FL List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches. NThomas (talk) 17:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Support. All my concerns have been addressed.—NMajdan •talk 18:57, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oppose. List fails featured list criterion 3b.  Good raise  15:40, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How so? I thought 10 entries was the "unofficially official" length for an FL and even if you remove the two duplicate coaches, this list still passes that.—NMajdan •talk 16:18, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would hazard a guess that it fails 3b in Goodraise's opinion because it could be reasonably incorporated into the main article, but I guess it would be helpful to know if this is the case. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:37, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why this would have to be incorporated into Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball. I have yet to see a sortable coaches list within a team's article that is as large as this list is. This article is already almost half the size of the main article. Some elaboration other the a six word sentence would have helpful. NThomas (talk) 17:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * TRM guessed correctly. It is my opinion that this list should be incorporated into Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball, following WP:SS and WP:SIZE. In response to NMajdan, featured lists have to meet the featured list criteria, not a few editors' rule of thumb.  Good raise  17:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But when the criteria is very much open to interpretation then it does. I do feel this list able to stand on its own. NThomas, might I suggest incorporating the women's basketball coaches into this list like I did here to lengthen this a bit?—NMajdan •talk 18:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just a quick sandbox experiment – I've removed the repeated history and merged it with the current Red Raiders' article. Any thoughts?  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My biggest reason against the inclusion of this list into the main article is based on the newly christened GA Kansas City Chiefs. It's head coaches section has a paragraph about the coaches then links List of Kansas City Chiefs head coaches as it's "see also." What about developing a head coaches section with a written paragraph about the coaches that on Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball in a similar fashion? Any push for GA, the main article will be hampered down with that table data. NThomas (talk) 19:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If I were to add the women's coaches, like NMajdan suggested, would that help to satisfy 3b? NThomas (talk) 03:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Looking at NMajdan's example, I have to say no. I would have opposed that article's FLC on the same grounds I'm opposing this one now.  Good raise  16:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So you would have opposed a 20-item list? Man, there are a lot of FLs that you'd oppose then. NThomas, I still suggest you make the changes I suggested above. Ultimately, it is up to the FL directors. They will take all supports and opposes into consideration when making their final decision. As the list stands now, I'd oppose, but again, my concerns have yet to be addressed.—NMajdan •talk 17:14, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

(<) Once again, it's a guess, but my sandbox experiment may show that this list can easily be incorporated into a main article without overloading it. Perhaps that's where Goodraise's 3b objection lies, rather than just a mere line-counting exercise? The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If we wanted to get technical, I could say that this article meets 3b. 3b actually has two conditions: 1) meets all requirements for a stand-alone list, 2) is not a content fork AND does not recreate material from another article AND could not be included as part of a related article. This article meets 3b1 and since it doesn't violate all of the conditions in 3b2, it passes that as well. Frankly, if this is the stance for this article, it would apply to every coaching article. I think these should be treated as groups of articles. If one violates, they all do. I'm working towards a Featured Topic of lists and if one of those lists is turned down because of 3b, I'd be very disappointed since all others passed.—NMajdan •talk 17:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd be disappointed too. But as I said, I'm only guessing at what Goodraise's continuing objection is based upon.  Let's see what Goodraise has to say.  The Rambling Man (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, I could see myself opposing a 20-item list (just as much as I could see myself supporting a 5-item list). TRM is correct. I am not line-counting, not now and not in general. When I look at this article, I see an improper spin-off from the main article. When I look at List of Oklahoma Sooners head basketball coaches, I see an improper spin-off from not one, but two main articles. If we in fact wanted to get technical, then I'd have to disagree with you. The implicit ANDs in that criterion don't mean that each of its parts has to be failed for the whole to be failed, but that failing one is enough to fail the whole.  Good raise  22:03, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But that is not the way 3b is written. If failing one part fails it all, then it should be rewritten to include ORs and not ANDs.—NMajdan •<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 22:50, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I suggest you take a look at logical conjunction. <span style="font-size:medium; font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  15:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And it backs up my opinion. Your take on 3b2 is <tt>0 AND 0 AND 1</tt> which equals <tt>0</tt>.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan •<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 15:49, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't back up your opinion. The article states that a "logical conjunction [...] has the value true if both of its operands are true, otherwise a value of false." In this case we have three operands: A) "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches is not a content fork", B) "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches does not largely recreate material from another article", and C) "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches could not reasonably be included as part of a related article". For the sake of the argument, I'll concede that A and B are true, while only C is false. That leaves us with "true and true and false", which equals false. <span style="font-size:medium; font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  16:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What you just said backs up my comment. 3b2 coming out false means it satisfies the requirement. As long as any one of the three are false, then is doesn't violate 3b2. One of us is confused. I hope its you.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan •<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 16:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Lets try a different approach. List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches is not a content fork, does not largely recreate material from another article, and could not reasonably be included as part of a related article? Yes or no? <span style="font-size:medium; font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  18:48, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you're getting at, as we have already established this. I just have a fundamental disagreement with the arbitrary 3b. This list has my support and I'll let the FL directors sort out the rest.—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan •<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 16:53, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fine with me. After all, I wasn't the one who wanted to make this technical. <span style="font-size:medium; font-family:monospace, monospace;"> Good raise  18:13, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

(outdent) This issue probably requires wider discussion, so I have started a thread at WT:FLC. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Comment "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coaches" sounds very clumsy. Why not "List of Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball head coaches"? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:15, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is the naming scheme that the football articles use. "List of <School> head <sport} coaches"—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan •<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 22:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Hmm, well it still sounds strange. "head" should be closest to avoid any ambiguity (the coach of the "head men's basketball team"?). I think perhaps all of these lists should be moved (we can discuss somewhere else where more American football editors can provide input). Dabomb87 (talk) 23:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify, I do not oppose a change. Obviously, this article is a bit different than the football lists because of the two-word sport title ("men's basketball").—<span style="font:bold 11px Verdana,sans-serif;">NMajdan •<span style="font:9px Verdana,sans-serif; color:#000;">talk 19:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Personally, I don't care, but if I were to introduce Pat Knight, I would say: Texas Tech Red Raiders men's basketball head coach vs. Texas Tech Red Raiders head men's basketball coach. I agree that if one gets moved, I think they all should be for consistency (not just the basketball lists). NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments – To start, I do believe this is a justifiable content split. When I get a chance, I'll elaborate on FLC talk. My other comments are as follows:
 * "Huffman's successor, Polk Robison, lead the Texas Tech to the first NCAA tournament in 1956". Grammar needs some work here. While working on this, keep in mind that the first NCAA tournament was in 1939, not 1956.
 * Poor choice in sentence structure, it now reads: NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Since you don't use the abbreviation AP more than once in the lead, you can just remove it and use Associated Press Poll. Also, should "Coaches' Polls" be singular? I'm pretty sure there was only one.
 * Fixed both. NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

 Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 12:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the review! NThomas (talk) 00:20, 4 March 2010 (UTC)


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