Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame/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 14:30, 4 December 2009.

List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame

 * Nominator(s): — Chris! c / t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC) & User:Dabomb87

Second list for the Basketball Hall of Fame FT.— Chris! c / t 01:46, 19 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Support per discussion and expansion. Staxringold talkcontribs 02:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabomb asked me to stop by, as I'm the major contributor to the group of Jesus College lists. Initially, there was only one list – "List of people associated with Jesus College, Oxford" – and that got the FL star. As more articles were written and added, the list had to be split into various sub-lists: at one point, the template limit had been reached on the page, breaking the citations, and the page regularly exceeded 200kb in total; it's still 190kb+ even with four offspring lists. I hope that it's a good way of doing things where the length of sub-lists means that combining all the names on one page would result in a list that was very difficult to load and edit; looking at the HoF lists, I think that would be the case here too.  Another perhaps more relevant precedent, approved by FLC rather than edited this way later, is List of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign / Featured topics/Lists of Victoria Cross recipients by campaign - a FL (and lead list of the FT), which links to 8 sub-lists (all FLs) in simple fashion.  So I don't agree that this list has to contain all the names in each sub-list in order to be comprehensive, with further details being given at the sub-list.  That seems unnecessary duplication.  Personally, I wouldn't even have a table for the most recent recipients - it looks odd to me to have such a short table (which hardly need to be sortable), as on first glance it makes it look as though these are the only recipients, and it would help to distinguish between the sections which are complete (e.g. referees) and the summaries if only the complete sections had tables.  Far better, I would think, to summarise the sub-list, and mention the most recent recipients in the text.  In the Jesus lists, the summaries follow the leads of the sublists, but I think that the summaries here need to be longer and mention more names, as the leads of the sub-lists are quite thin.  So, at present, I think the "coaches" section summary needs to be expanded somewhat, and the "contributors" and "players" have no summary at all.  Hope this helps. BencherliteTalk 13:37, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I've started to revamp those sections according to your advice. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 15:45, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

 Oppose  – Criterion 3. I have the utmost respect for both nominators, but can't believe in my own mind that this list "comprehensively covers the defined scope" of this topic. There have been nearly 300 inductions into the Hall of Fame, and the list has tables for exactly 19 of them. List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame, the closest related FL, has a similar number of inductees, yet does have a table with every inductee that is of manageable size. Why couldn't there be a full table with basic information in the main list, with full achievements notes in the sub-lists so that they could still meet 3b?  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 20:25, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, 3a doesn't require a list to have all items. It says a list need to have "useful and appropriate information about the items," which in this case is provided by the section summary. Having a full list w/ content forking sublists violates 3b, in my opinion.— Chris! c / t 23:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with Chris on this one. Creating sublists just for the sake of the achievements column is overkill, while a list with all of the inductees on one page would be too long, unless somebody will draft such a list in their sandbox and prove me wrong. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:17, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a link to the version before it was split. The list wasn't complete at that time, but was already long and took a while to load.— Chris! c / t 01:53, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There has been exactly one more induction in the Basketball Hall of Fame than the Baseball Hall of Fame, and the size of the Baseball Hall of Fame list (more bytes than the old Basketball Hall of Fame format) wasn't an issue in the recent FLRC. Regarding usefulness, if I wanted to know everybody who was inducted into the Hall of Fame in 1985, this list is not useful to me at all in its present form. I'm remaining in the oppose column, but have no fear. I'm sure that if enough reviewers support, it will wind up promoted anyway, as you know.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 22:18, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well yes, the numbers of Basketball Hall of Fame induction and Baseball Hall of Fame induction are almost equivalent. But the reason why Basketball Hall of Fame get split up in the first place is because it is too long. No disrespect to the editors who worked hard on the Baseball list, but I think it is too bare bone compared to this list. It merely lists all inductees without providing much description about them. I have absolutely no problem with you opposing, but I feel that the oppose is based more on preferences than a specific criteria in WP:FL?. And I am not sure what I can do to satisfy your request.— Chris! c / t 23:43, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Comment - Disagree with both Staxringold and Giants. I think this list (and the alumni of Jesus College list before it) is a decent compromise between splintering into too many sub-pages and having a very long list that's largely inaccessible. The mixing of the player and non-player inductees in the baseball version drives me nuts. This style is much more useful to readers. Plus, there's plenty of precedent for both lists of lists and partial lists of lists. However, I do believe that the lead, and the leads of the individual sections, could do with expansion. In that area, I think the List of members of the Baseball Hall of Fame is a decent example. Geraldk (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I can definitely try to expand the lead, but don't think I can make it as long as the one on Baseball Hall of Fame. It seems to me that the long length is due to the complexity of the induction and selection criteria. The criteria for induction here is much simpler.— Chris! c / t 18:42, 31 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Splitting players and non-players is one thing, I'm fine with that. My issue is with no information on the individual Hall of Famers for several of these groups on the list page. As I say below, Rawlings Gold Glove Award lists every 1st baseman who has won the award even though List of Gold Glove Award winners at first base exists. Staxringold talkcontribs 20:41, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Merged now, although I don't agree with it.— Chris! c / t 23:28, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Support per previous comment regarding contributors being in this article. I have two questions for the opposers, assuming they are still opposed:
 * 1. Are List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (coaches) and List of members of the Basketball Hall of Fame (players) worthy of articles?


 * 2a. If yes to 1, what information about players and coaches would you expect to see here, while still making those articles meaningful and useful additions?


 * 2b. If no to 1, are you saying that the length of a merged list would not prevent you from supporting the list, if other concerns were met (for instance the player achievements column was completed)?

Hope those questions help the discussion. WFCforLife (talk) 00:04, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Re WFCforLife: I appreciate your attempt to help restart the discussion. There seems to be a deadlock about this issue.— Chris! c / t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To opposers: I echo WFCforLife's comment. Please respond below to keep discussion unfragmented, thanks.— Chris! c / t 06:48, 3 November 2009 (UTC)


 * To the first question, I would say that, in their present format, they could be seen as meeting 3b; in fact, I believe I supported the coaches list when it was at FLC.
 * I would expect a very basic table, without the extensive achievements notes since those are a critical factor in the seperate lists meeting 3b. If the seperate list needed to be beefed up further, perhaps a team column could be considered as well.
 * One more note: I feel better about this list now that the contributors have been merged in. To me, it now feels more like a list in its own right, rather than something that primarily redirects the reader to other lists. Even in Bencherlite's example, the main list has plenty of content on its own without the split-off sections. The merge that happened brings this list closer to that standard.  Giants2008  ( 17–14 ) 17:25, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Note: I've asked User:Staxringold to revisit. Hopefully he will response soon.— Chris! c / t 18:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The format of the list is still not my cup of tea, but the work during FLC has improved it a bit, so I'm switching to neutral. Fair enough?  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 23:27, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Well, I guess neutral is better than oppose. :) Thanks.— Chris! c / t 00:37, 9 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from KV5

I like the format of this list; it reminds me a lot of List of Major League Baseball awards, in that a lot of subsections have their own articles but some others are just part of this list. That said, just a few minor comments:
 * I see some undefined abbreviations; AAU jumps out at me right from the start. Further down in the list, I see this: "National Association of Intercollegiate Basketball (NAIB)/National Association of Intercollegiate Athletics (NAIA)". Maybe it would make sense to key all abbreviations at the top of the list and then remove the written-out names from the tables. This especially makes sense because sortability could easily cause a single written-out name to occur after an abbreviation.
 * Not sure if a key is a good idea. There are 20 or more abbreviations used, done AAU.— Chris! c / t 22:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Due to the length of this list, I may come back with more later. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 17:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Other shortened names that aren't explicit are "Trotters" and "Rens".
 * Done, after edit conflict 3 times. :(— Chris! c / t 22:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "Big 8" - the name of the article is Big Eight Conference, and MOSNUM would agree that it should be written out.
 * Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "7 Big Ten titles during late 19th century and early 20th century (Chicago)" - what school is this? A link may be helpful.
 * Done. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "having coached the Kansas Jayhawks (college) and the Detroit Pistons (NBA) to championships" - should be consistent: either (college) ... (professional) or (NCAA) ... (NBA)
 * Done— Chris! c / t 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
 * "As of induction of the Class of 2009" - date?
 * Done— Chris! c / t 23:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm comfortable supporting at this time. Good work. KV5 ( Talk  •  Phils ) 23:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)


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