Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of defunct National Basketball Association teams/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 The Rambling Man 19:13, 21 September 2009.

List of defunct National Basketball Association teams

 * Nominator(s): — Chris!  c t 22:28, 3 September 2009 (UTC) & User:SRE.K.A.L.24

I am nominating this with User:SRE.K.A.L.24 for featured list. We wrote this a while ago, but neither one of us managed to start the nom.— Chris!  c t
 * There is currently no reference that cites the first part of the second sentence, and the fourth sentence of the second paragraph. We will do our best to find one. --  SRE.K.A.L. &#124; L.A.K.ERS ]]  06:08, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If you're looking for the reference that mentioned that the Packers, the original Nuggets, the Hawks, and the Red Skins were playing in NBL before joining NBA, perhaps you can use this (page 87) and for the Jets here (page 306). — Martin tamb (talk) 18:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And here (page 180) for the fourth sentence. — Martin tamb (talk) 19:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I've added them to the article.— Chris!  c t 00:04, 10 September 2009 (UTC)


 * "and are also only defunct team" - missing "the". Also there's a link to the 1949–50 season which is piped simply as "1949", might be better to reword it to something like "at the start of the 1949–50 season".  Other than that I couldn't find anything amiss, and will happily support once you've sorted out the minor sourcing issue you mention above.  Oh, don't suppose an image is available at all, is it.....?  Not a deal breaker, but would be nice....... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments –
 * Why is North America linked? Who doesn't know what that is?
 * Note a: Change "which" to "who".  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 16:26, 8 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Everything should be fixed now.— Chris!  c t 23:59, 8 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support – Nice list on a creative topic.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 20:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Support - all looks OK to me now -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Comments Just some minor comments, that might be useful addition to the prose. You don't need to follow my comments if you think adding these infos are excessive. Other than that, I think the list already looks good. Great job. — Martin tamb (talk) 16:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Is it worth mentioning that the Bullets won the title in 1948, when the league was still called BAA.
 * Is it worth mentioning that the Stags, the Olympians, the Red Skins and the Rebels were successfully qualified for the playoff in every years they were active in the NBA.
 * Add the second fact. The first is not that important imo.— Chris!  c t 21:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Yeah I agree, the second fact is more useful to show that these teams were successful before they became defunct.

Support — Martin tamb (talk) 07:03, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment is ".....were successfully qualified for the playoffs" a standard usage in American English? Because to me, in the UK, it sounds incredibly weird.  Why not just ".....successfully qualified for the playoffs"?  Oh, BTW, well done on finding an image to go in the article.  As I mentioned above, this wasn't a deal breaker on my support, but it's really nice to see one added  -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 11 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I tweaked it. The sentence does sound weird when I read it.— Chris!  c t 22:44, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Support Comments  from
 * says the Packers had a playoffs appearance. Also, table needs to mention championship-winning teams. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed— Chris!  c t 00:23, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Please go back and check your math on everything. The Bullets had only 158 wins, not 161. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * And 292 losses, not 303. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:22, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed— Chris!  c t 01:27, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.