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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 15 days, 3 support, 3 oppose. No conensus to promote. Fail. Scorpion⁰⁴²² 17:10, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

previous FLC

Renominating after it was closed today with no unaddressed comments. Last time I checked, we're supposed to have some sort of consensus before failing an article. Let's try this again.

• Support as nominator. Teemu08 00:07, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I am not sure the original six should have a selective list and the other franchises should have All-time rosters. Let's open discussion on the matter. I understand your point in the prior FLC. Let's get some more opinions. You may want to solicit opinions from all the people who have commented on all the Hockey awards that have been nominated in the last 10 weeks that are now WP:FLs.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 15:26, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I maintain my arguement that listing only notable players is an acceptable option here. While its true that no other ice hockey player list has a cut-off for games played, all of the current featured lists come from teams that were relocated relatively recently. Including only notable players is consistent with many of the football-related featured lists (see 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). Because the blackhaws have maintained rosters since the 1920s, I see this as the most valid option. Teemu08 14:55, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Support: Seems well put together, and thanks for addressing my comments on the previous nomination :) Looks good. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 23:23, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I noticed someone got rid of all the jersey numbers and the pictures posted tend to be non-Blackhawk uniform pictures. Maybe a column can be added to put the player's jersey number back on the list and get a few more Blackhawk photos. I'm sure there's got to be a few more that can be used on the page instead of using a Detroit photo of Hasek and a Nashville photo of Sullivan, or even a Calgary photograph of Amonte.--Ered7 06:50, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia is a free content encyclopedia, so they strongly promote using free images of people when available. Unfortunately (and to my surprise), to the best of my knowledge, there aren't any freely available pictures of Blackhawk players available on the internet (if you have some, please upload them :) ). I got rid of the jersey numbers because the page needed a complete overhaul when I began working on it. Its an interesting proposition, because I've never seen a featured list that includes jersey numbers, but it would be a nice addition. Is there an official site that lists all of the jersey numbers? Teemu08 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In general we don't usually put jersey numbers in articles because except for a few exceptions they change a fair bit so it becomes a bit of a mess to try and be acurate with jersey numbers. --Djsasso (talk) 16:29, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Jersey numbers are readily available in team media guides usually (e.g. the Hawk guide published annually has them included for every player that has ever worn a Hawk uniform). I know there are also books that have catalogues of old player uniform numbers (some of the 75th anniversary books that came out for the original six teams have this information). Media guides are probably the best resource since they are updated each season. As for accuracy, I think the table format the page has now is more useful for listing the numbers. In regards to the photographs, unfortunately, that seems to be a big limitation with a lot of the hockey player pages lacking at least 1 photograph.--Ered7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not all teams however, are that acurate with past numbers. And I would wager a bet one game players aren't listed in that Hawks list. I am a big fan on these types of lists to have them the same across all teams. So I don't like having those sorts of things on one team and not on others. --Djsasso (talk) 18:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose According to the list, the team hasn't had a goalie since 2003 and didn't have any between 1946 and 1953. That's a pretty big gap. I know there is a limit of 150 games, but why can't you at least include the current lineup? And why are Hasek and Kane there? Hasek only played 25 games with them and Kane hasn't even made it through an entire season. The list should have a set criteria and there should be no exemptions, not even for superstars. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• The first sentence of the article reads: "This is a list of notable ice hockey players who have played for the Chicago Blackhawks", not "This is a list of Chicago Blackhawks who have played at least 150 games". Hasek is generally considered one of the best three hockey goaltenders of all-time. Even though he only played a handful of games for the Hawks, he is a pretty notable figure in their history. Kane is the only #1 draft pick overall in Blackhawks history and is expected to win the Calder Trophy (rookie of the year). Current lineups are not included in lists like these because they are volitle—who's to say that a given player will be notable? Teemu08 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about Jonathan Toews? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 03:39, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Toews was added today by Ered7 when he put in the jersey numbers. I've removed it (at least for the time being) because there isn't anything unusually notable about him except that he's really, really good. Teemu08 (talk) 09:00, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I still think they should be removed, because if Nikolai Khabibulin, a player who has been with the team for more than 2 whole seasons, isn't included, then why should they? -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 18:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

* Weak Support while I would prefer including all Blackhawks players, seeing as the article is called "List of Blackhawks", not "List of Notable Blackhawks", I understand your reasoning to keep it as is and respect that. However, I would think that the nationality chart should be given a look over. Going through it, I noticed two examples that could be contested: Charlie Gardiner is listed as Scottish in this list, but his page states he moved to Winnipeg at age 7 and was raised in Canada. Another is Ivan Boldirev, who was born in the former Yugoslavia, but grew up in Canada, and I seem to remember him being referred to as Czech. So my suggestion to fix that column to either state country of birth, or find evidence proving that the nationality of every player is as stated, which can be difficult, especially with older players, and I'll give it full support. Good article none the less. Kaiser matias (talk) 23:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Still not entirely comfortable with the limit of players, but it's acceptable, and everything else about the list works out. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:40, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that a person who spends most of his life in a given country should be of that nationality, but it can be kind of a gray area (i.e. at what point has a person spent enough time in a country so that it's his nationality). The only consistent way to go about this is just to put the country where they were born—all of the given nationalities are consistent with the Chicago Blackhawks website. I'll fix up the key a little to make it seem a little more apparent that "Nationality" is where the person was born. Teemu08 (talk) 06:01, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose Didn't notice till now that players had been cut off this list or I would have put them back in a long time ago. Definately 100% do not agree with cutting out any players from the list. As anyone who has played for an NHL team is definately notable and should be included. Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia and there is no good reason to leave them off. --Djsasso (talk) 23:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please see the above conversation. Teemu08 (talk) 01:06, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I do see the above conversation and don't agree with your point of view at all. This is the National Hockey League and getting the rosters isn't hard. Heck I believe every player who ever played for the Blackhawks was already on the page before you removed them. Length of the page is not really a big deal either. If the page were to become too long you simply split it into a couple pages such as List of Chicago Blackhawks forwards or something like that. But to remove players from the list based on a arbitrary number of games is extremely POV and completely against what Wikipedia is about. Oh and one other thing you might want to be aware of is you don't need concensus to fail an article, you need concensus to pass an article. --Djsasso (talk) 16:22, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong oppose per Djsasso and Scorpion. --Krm500 (talk) 03:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Response OK, let's say this. What if this page remained the same, but new subpages were made for comprehensive lists of goalies, forwards, and denfesemen? Would you support it then (if it was proposed at a later date)? Teemu08 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've thought about this during the previous FL candidacy, since Original 6 teams have many more players in their history then Avs and Devils. If it's necessary to divide them, sure, but I don't see any reason to why all couldn't fit in one list. My oppose is because if the list isn't complete it's nor encyclopedic. --Krm500 (talk) 02:12, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am the same way. If it absolutely has to be split then fine, but I see no reason why it can't still be one list And like Krm without it being complete I don't find it encyclopedic. --Djsasso (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I preferred the bigger more comprehensive list as well, but I see the benefits of formtting lists like this better than the old format without the tables. If some kind of consensus could be reached I'd be willing to help make the page more complete (should everyone agree to including the players that have been removed). Teemu08, I think it's arguable that Kane will win the Calder at this point in the season, but I accept including him since he's played in an NHL game in a Hawk uniform and that's consistent with the topic. I think the current roster should be added in bold type, and I think at some point adding all the players to make the list comprehensive again would be useful.--Ered7 (talk) 11:14, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Oh I definately like the table and the look better that is not in question, but as long as the list remains incomplete it is definately not a Feature Quality list at all. --Djsasso (talk) 18:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• I really think keys should be put before the table. I've used tables in the past to condense them. Also, you have a serious image overlap problem at 1024x800 on Firefox (see screenshot). What is your resolution? usually the only solution to that is to keep only one image in the lead (which isn't a bad thing, almost all "first-round drafts" lists have only one image). Circeus (talk) 04:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I got rid of the images except for one in the lead (I'm using Firefox at 1280x1024). I also moved the key to the top with a little help from the Flames player list. Teemu08 (talk) 04:48, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]