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 SchroCat 15:19, 20 January 2014 [1].

List of Detroit Red Wings award winners[edit]

List of Detroit Red Wings award winners (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, well, what do we have here but yet another Detroit Red Wings Featured List nomination. What is with these guys? This time around we have List of Detroit Red Wings award winners, easily the longest of the bunch and arguably the most impressive (in terms of what the team has accomplished). The team and it's players have taken home 158 awards so far; if a Red Wing hasn't won it, it probably isn't an active NHL award. The list has undergone peer review where all concerns were addressed. save for one regarding a tagging issue with one of the images. I am unconvinced that is a critical issue, but if others feel it is we can address it somehow. Also, I currently have an open FL nomination for List of Detroit Red Wings general managers, however I believe that given the status of that nomination I am within the standard that "[u]sers should not add a second FL nomination until the first has gained support and reviewers' concerns have been substantially addressed." As always I look forward to reading, addressing, and responding to your comments. Regards, and thank you for your time. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My two cents is, if you have the time, give it another look. It's a fairly long list and if there is one thing I know about reviewing articles, it's that there is always something that can be improved upon. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 01:41, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for your kind words and support. The alts were all recently updated per my understanding of WP:ALT, especially the Bush/Blair and Queen Elizabeth examples. The Ted Lindsay image you mentioned is just a picture of Ted Lindsay, and so that is all the alt text says. Kind regards, Rejectwater (talk) 23:54, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "...and are one of the Original Six teams of the league." - This reads as if it is meant to be taken literally, as in the Red Wings were one of the NHL's first six franchises. Easily fixed by putting "Original Six" in quotes, thus changing the implication.
  • The Red Wings are in an odd situation where, if they should reach the Stanley Cup Finals from the Eastern Conference, could have won the Wales Trophy for three different reasons. I think it would be useful to add and end note explaining that the Wales Trophy was first a divisional championship trophy, then a regular season championship, and now dedicated to the Eastern Conference championship. Especially since we know someone will come along and "fix" this. Also as a suggestion - and only if you (and others) think it a good idea: the Wales Trophy section could be split into two rows, the first showing when they won the American Division, and the second had the most points.
  • Question: Do the Red Wings hand out team awards, similar to those awarded by the Flames? Near as I can tell from their media guide, they don't, but I would like to make sure as you are obviously an expert on the team! Resolute 00:40, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calgary list - it's funny you say that because it was that page and List of New York Islanders award winners that served as the inspiration for this page.
  • Original Six - fair enough. Done.
  • Wales footnote - I have thought about the note explaining that also and will add it in soon. I don't think the idea of splitting the award into two rows is a good idea; the footnote should explain things sufficiently.
  • Team awards - no, I am not aware of anything like that. As you say, there is no mention of any such awards in the team media guide. For a publication that includes the team's all time record in games played on Halloween, I trust that not being in that guide means there aren't any.
  • Thank you for your kind words, input, support, and for taking the time. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 10:06, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Their most recent team trophy was the Clarence S. Campbell Bowl in 2009, taken in honor of being the champions of the Western Conference. - You just mentioned they are part of the Eastern conference. How can they be champions of the Western Conference?
  • their uniform number retired - what's a good link for this? Retired number, maybe?
  • The section #Individual awards could do with standardising how you write numbers (numerals or words)
  • The second paragraph of #All-Star Game selections needs at least one citation
  • Jack Adams Player 1959 none - What's this supposed to mean, no years playing with the team? If he was a manager for the team, then you should give a footnote clarifying how he was involved with the Red Wings. Other people in a similar situation as well.
  • The Red Wings have also made the number 6 of Larry Aurie and the number 16 of Vladimir Konstantinov no longer available for issue, however those numbers are not considered to be officially retired - so why are they not available?
  • Look for duplicate links between sections, like Gordie Howe, First and Second Team All-Stars, Stanley Cup, etc. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • West vs. East; have added footnote that explains this.
  • Retired number - added wikilink
  • How numbers are written - I believe I have standardized the entire page in this regard. Numbers are written out using words in prose sections and in numerals in tables. There is one exception: the retired numbers section. In that section uniform numbers are displayed as numerals which is the way they are used and displayed (ie, Steve Yzerman wore 19, not nineteen). More to follow. Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 22:12, 30 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • All-Star Game selections citations - done.
  • Hall of Fame/none - added footnotes for individuals in question. Rejectwater (talk) 01:31, 10 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have added explanations for Aurie and Konstantinov.
  • Duplicate links - the page is currently set up as one link per term per prose section with unlimited links in the sortable tables. You are saying there should be no more than one link per term for the entire article? Regards, Rejectwater (talk) 00:17, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from --K.Annoyomous (talk)

--K.Annoyomous (talk) 12:25, 6 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Descriptions, unsortable - I disagree. Is there a policy at play here or is this your preference?
  • Getting rid of the function certainly doesn't add value. I take it then, that this is your preference. Having no knowledge of any pertinent policy that would apply here my preference is to leave it as it is. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, there is no policy that states that descriptions must be unsortable, and this may be a personal preference; however, the descriptions are not data, and this may only be my opinion, but I just find sorting non-data to be redundant. I also don't recollect any other tables that sort their descriptions except for the two in this article. It would be nice if there was a third-party to comment on this matter. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • add (#) beside the names - yes, it is possible. I am unsure of the value of this and fear it would clutter the table(s).
  • It won't clutter the tables, seeing that they are all wide enough. The reason why I had them on the featured lists have I have contributed to is because I, and assuming that others do as well, would like to know how many times each player has won said award. It gives readers a sense of how successful each player was during his time with the Red Wings.
  • What I am thinking for this is two additional columns. One for times won by individual and one for aggregrate team wins. This would allow sorting. Readers could see which award has been won the most by individuals, won the most by the team overall, etc. Let me know what you think. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The huge empty areas are visually unappealing. I can see that you want the table all the same width, but just look at all that extra unneeded space in the Number of selections column for NHL First and Second Team All-Stars! The Team trophies table looks squished, so a fixed width is unnecessary for that specific table. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 08:56, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unfixing the width of the tables doesn't get rid of any unused area. The tables simply stretch to fill all available space. Fixing the width limits the size of the table, it doesn't expand it. I have fixed the team trophy table to be the same size as the others. Rejectwater (talk) 00:29, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, it depends on the table. If we remove all the fixed width settings, some tables would stretch to fill the whole screen while others would be tiny. The unused space you are concerned with would be empty whitespace on the page rather than empty space in the table cells. Huge, huge chunks of empty whitespace in many sections. Of course, that also depends on the screen resolution and size of the window the browser is being viewed in, which cannot be controlled for... except by fixing the width as a percentage. Rejectwater (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The "Team trophies" table now looks out of place with the resolution that I have (1366px width). I suggest that that table alone be left unfixed so that it is visually appealing for common resolutions (~1280px and up), unless there is a better solution. Also, why is this particular table unsortable? I was assuming that it was because the table is short enough for the sorting function to not be needed, but then I saw the table for "Other awards", and that one is sortable. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the "Number of selections" column that I mentioned, how about shorten the column title to "Selections" and fix the width to 1%? I think that will resolve the gigantic empty space in that column, and will make the table look more even. Try that out and let me know what you think. --K.Annoyomous (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Quick comments (well, ignorant questions mainly)

Not any more, but the Cup predates the NHL, it was originally a challenge trophy and for a time it was a championship trophy for the winner of a series between PCHA/WCHL/WHL and NHA/NHL. It was possible to be NHL champions and not win the Stanley Cup. While both of those eras predate the Wings it is part of the Cup's history.
Not sure I understand.
Looking at the lead it appears that it is broken down by position so I'm not sure how to re-word in the current format and use the official description of the trophy. I thought about changing the first instance to netminders of goalies but I'm not sure how encyclopedic either one is.
Linked
Added nowrap all of the dates on the team awards table.
Linked
There is a compromise at WP:Ice Hockey that diacritic are used on all bios and pages for leagues where that are commonly used. But not used on pages based on leagues that do not use them (most North American based pages). I added pipe links to avoid redirects.
Removed sorting ability
These are how the pages are named. I'm not sure what the proper format would be.
Shortened to Selections, which reduces the column size a bit, but I'm not sure how to make it smaller.
No one has made a page for it yet. Being it's from 1939 the sources are more difficult to find (majority offline) and its less likley to be worked on due to age.
Changed second mention to The trophy as to not repeat back to back.
Removed.
Changed to 3 columns
I think that they are all now the same
Same as the access dates, though I may have missed one.

Will do a proper review when I get time. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:43, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Randomly came across the FLC and I noticed that there was no activity from the nominator. The above list seemed pretty straight forward and I didn't want all of their hard work to go to waste or the comments not to at least be addressed, so I figured I'd address them quickly. Cheers. --Mo Rock...Monstrous (leech44) 06:01, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
More