274:
example of our best work; short lists are (or can be) perfectly useful, informative and well-made. What other criteria do you require for something to be among
Knowledge (XXG)'s "best work"? And I think you're wrong regarding this process - A featured list is an example of our best work, and the criteria are how we decide if something is our best work (and therefore, a featured list). If you think it's not our best work, the only acceptable reasons are those spelled out in the criteria.
512:
Nice one. As far as I'm concerned, this now meets the FL criteria. There isn't much more to say or that can be added. I'm not sure of the below suggestion, because that's what the individual entries are for. However, whether on length reasons, it can be made featured, I'm not sure. Are there any real
292:
article instead. Again, the information can be presented in a better way than this; therefore, this does not exemplify our best work. I am saying 10 drafts because then I think there will be enough information for this list to be informative and useful. I don't know, maybe information from 7-8 drafts
389:
I've moved the notes to the Picks column (although I think it looks a bit ugly). I've also clarified the note about White. However, if you really want me to add something about the expansion draft in the lead, exactly how do you propose I add it? I really don't think it's that relevant to this list,
232:
I don't see why the number of drafts is relevant - if you think there should be a minimum of ten items on the list, fine, but requiring them to come from a specified number of separate events is silly. And the criteria is not irrelevant - if you object, you must cite which criterion you're objecting
103:
This is comprehensive (or at least, I'll trust Noble Story that it is indeed a complete list), and I think your objection is therefore inactionable. The precedent you mention was that the list was redundant with another list. I don't know if that's true of this list as well or not. But I don't think
273:
A list is made up of items - I don't think there should be a minimum, but there is a modicum of logic in you believing there should be, so I said it's a reasonable concern. Requiring that those items come from a specified number of events is nonsensical. I don't see why this can't be considered an
536:
is long enough to get away with having little or no of info about each dinosaur and no table. I think for this list it should be the opposite. Maybe some info about each player drafted instead of just a table. That should make up for the short length, if the short length is actually a problem. --
217:
First of all, I find it hilarious that you say "wait 6 years", because in six year, I might not be here, you might not be here, and
Knowledge (XXG) might be gone (although I hope not). Plus, I would say that 10 years is a rather arbitrary number. No offense, but I think there should be a third
307:
Okay, that is an actionable objection then. I'm not sure I agree that a merge is necessary, but that's what consensus-building is for. (I disagree that small amounts of information can be useful, because readers are generally looking for only a small amount of information, I think, and small
144:
Crzycheetah, you say that there should be at least ten entries in a list. Number one, as was pointed as out, there are other FLs that have less than that. Number two, this article has eight entries. What is the difference between 8 and 10 entries? Third, can you show me
86:
202:
Currently, I see picks from 4 drafts, and I'd like to see picks from at least 10 drafts. This objection is actionable; just wait for 6 years. Other FLs that may be shorter than this may never get any longer while this one can and will become longer over
364:, etc be placed in the Pick column, instead of the Player column? Technically, the Bobcats didn't acquire any of those players from the other teams; they only acquired the draft positions in which to select those players.
21:
233:
under. I also don't think "wait six years" is an actionable objection, because there's nothing that can be done to fix it. It will eventually fix itself, but that's different from being able to be fixed.
575:- though I can't comment on the sports-side of things, I think this is a very nice little list without any flaws. I believe it meets all the criteria (per my above discussion with Crzycheetah).
558:, they traded the rights to Brandan. When you are saying that they actually traded Brandan, you're basically implying that he was a Bobcats player, but he never signed a contract with them. --
415:
draft, after all. Couldn't you just mention it at the end of the first paragraph? Just say that they had an expansion draft two days before participating in their first regular draft.
67:
I think this article now meets all the FL criteria. And a note: this list is short, but it is comprehensive in that it covers everything it is supposed to (all the draft picks).
188:
a stub. And again: what is the difference between 8 and 10 items, which you previously said was the minimum for an FL? And what about other FLs that are shorter than this list?
371:. (Speaking of which, could we say something about the expansion draft in this article? I know it's separate from the actual NBA Draft, but it's definitely related.)
592:- A good comprehensive list that's as correct and up-to-date as possible. Nice job goes out to Noble Story for expanding the article (even if I did create it ;)
408:
I'm sorry if if looks a "a bit ugly" now, but clarity comes before aesthetics. Maybe we can tweak the list so that it looks more presentable; I'm not sure.
259:
the list of criteria applies. Right now, I am not sure that this is an example of our best work, so I am not even going to discuss the criteria here.--
44:
163:
There are basically 3 years of picks listed here, which is just a stub and therefore should not be featured. The criteria is irrelevant here, so just
123:
613:
601:
584:
567:
546:
526:
507:
489:
445:
424:
399:
380:
317:
302:
283:
268:
242:
227:
212:
197:
176:
158:
117:
98:
76:
34:
17:
184:- "An article containing only a few sentences of text which is too short to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject". This article is
288:
I don't find this list useful at all because of its small amount of information. The table available here could be more useful in the
122:
I'll also note that length does not appear to have ever been discussed on the criteria talk page, with it only being brought up once
346:
61:
293:
will be be just enough as well, but right now I am positive that this information taken from only 4 drafts is not enough. --
411:
Re the expansion draft: I think many readers would consider that to fall under the scope of this article. It is
251:
is fine? The criteria is irrelevant here because this list does not exemplify our very best work. According to
475:
The entries in the list need referencing. I can't see anywhere a substantial reference to verify each entry.
247:
Then, let me ask you this, what is the difference between 10 items and 10 drafts? Why do you think having 10
609:
I agree with
Crzycheetah that such a small list does not really represent Knowledge (XXG)'s best work. --
542:
563:
485:
441:
395:
298:
264:
223:
208:
193:
172:
154:
94:
72:
167:
it. I don't see how stubby lists such as this improve the collection of
Knowledge (XXG)'s best works.--
514:
164:
597:
420:
376:
85:
The table is too short to be comprehensive. Nominate this in 5-6 years. A precedent can be found
252:
105:
610:
580:
538:
533:
522:
503:
313:
289:
279:
238:
131:
113:
181:
560:
481:
437:
391:
295:
261:
219:
205:
189:
169:
150:
91:
68:
555:
593:
416:
372:
576:
518:
499:
309:
275:
234:
127:
109:
367:
The note about Jahidi White should probably clarify that he was selected in the
104:
there's a consensus for a minimum length for lists, and length is not mentioned
149:
where in the FL criteria there is something related to the length of the list?
255:, one has to make sure that a candidate is an example of our best work first,
345:
comprehensive; and besides, we do have FLs with fewer list items (see
43:
Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in
513:
guidelines, to say it's not long enough to be featured, apart from
124:
Wikipedia_talk:Featured_list_criteria#Question_on_subject_matter
349:.) I do have a couple suggestions for improvement, though:
308:
narrowly-targeted content meets their needs nicely)
341:Let's not get distracted by the length. This list
621:The above discussion is preserved as an archive.
47:. No further edits should be made to this page.
627:No further edits should be made to this page.
45:Knowledge (XXG) talk:Featured list candidates
33:The following is an archived discussion of a
8:
18:Knowledge (XXG):Featured list candidates
7:
554:The Charlotte Bobcats didn't trade
28:
347:List of counties in Rhode Island
62:Charlotte Bobcats draft history
22:Charlotte Bobcats draft history
1:
644:
508:22:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
425:17:39, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
400:06:50, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
381:05:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
356:Could the qualifiers like
303:22:48, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
284:22:10, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
269:21:25, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
243:20:41, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
228:03:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
213:03:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
198:03:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
177:03:11, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
159:02:20, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
118:23:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
99:19:52, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
77:14:59, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
465:NBA's 30th team perhaps?
624:Please do not modify it.
40:Please do not modify it.
35:featured list nomination
614:19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
602:19:08, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
585:23:57, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
568:20:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
547:04:11, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
527:18:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
490:03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
446:03:12, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
318:02:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
498:That's all I can see.
56:20:12, 11 May 2008.
126:, without comment.
358:(from Los Angeles)
534:List of dinosaurs
290:Charlotte Bobcats
218:opinion on this.
635:
626:
566:
362:(from Milwaukee)
301:
267:
211:
175:
97:
42:
643:
642:
638:
637:
636:
634:
633:
632:
631:
622:
559:
369:expansion draft
294:
260:
204:
168:
106:in the criteria
90:
65:
38:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
641:
639:
630:
629:
617:
616:
604:
587:
570:
556:Brandan Wright
549:
531:
530:
529:
496:
495:
494:
493:
492:
473:
472:
471:
457:
456:
455:
454:
453:
452:
451:
450:
449:
448:
428:
427:
409:
403:
402:
384:
383:
365:
351:
350:
336:
335:
334:
333:
332:
331:
330:
329:
328:
327:
326:
325:
324:
323:
322:
321:
320:
230:
139:
138:
137:
136:
135:
64:
59:
58:
50:
49:
29:
27:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
640:
628:
625:
619:
618:
615:
612:
608:
605:
603:
599:
595:
591:
588:
586:
582:
578:
574:
571:
569:
565:
562:
557:
553:
550:
548:
544:
540:
535:
532:
528:
524:
520:
516:
511:
510:
509:
505:
501:
497:
491:
487:
483:
480:
477:
476:
474:
470:
467:
466:
464:
463:
462:
459:
458:
447:
443:
439:
435:
432:
431:
430:
429:
426:
423:
422:
418:
414:
410:
407:
406:
405:
404:
401:
397:
393:
388:
387:
386:
385:
382:
379:
378:
374:
370:
366:
363:
359:
355:
354:
353:
352:
348:
344:
340:
337:
319:
315:
311:
306:
305:
304:
300:
297:
291:
287:
286:
285:
281:
277:
272:
271:
270:
266:
263:
258:
254:
250:
246:
245:
244:
240:
236:
231:
229:
225:
221:
216:
215:
214:
210:
207:
201:
200:
199:
195:
191:
187:
183:
180:
179:
178:
174:
171:
166:
162:
161:
160:
156:
152:
148:
143:
140:
133:
129:
125:
121:
120:
119:
115:
111:
107:
102:
101:
100:
96:
93:
88:
84:
81:
80:
79:
78:
74:
70:
63:
60:
57:
55:
52:The list was
48:
46:
41:
36:
31:
30:
23:
19:
623:
620:
606:
589:
572:
551:
539:Coasttocoast
478:
468:
460:
433:
419:
412:
375:
368:
361:
357:
342:
338:
256:
248:
185:
146:
141:
82:
66:
54:not promoted
53:
51:
39:
32:
482:Noble Story
438:Noble Story
392:Noble Story
220:Noble Story
190:Noble Story
151:Noble Story
69:Noble Story
390:actually.
515:WP:IGNORE
165:WP:IGNORE
611:Scorpion
594:Geologik
461:Comments
417:Zagalejo
373:Zagalejo
253:WP:WIAFL
20: |
607:Comment
590:Support
577:Tuf-Kat
573:Support
564:cheetah
552:Comment
519:Peanut4
500:Peanut4
339:Comment
310:Tuf-Kat
299:cheetah
276:Tuf-Kat
265:cheetah
235:Tuf-Kat
209:cheetah
203:time.--
173:cheetah
147:exactly
142:Comment
128:Tuf-Kat
110:Tuf-Kat
95:cheetah
83:Oppose
249:items
16:<
598:talk
581:talk
561:Crzy
543:talk
523:talk
504:talk
486:talk
479:Done
469:Done
442:talk
434:Done
396:talk
314:talk
296:Crzy
280:talk
262:Crzy
257:then
239:talk
224:talk
206:Crzy
194:talk
182:Stub
170:Crzy
155:talk
132:talk
114:talk
92:Crzy
87:here
73:talk
421:^^^
377:^^^
186:not
89:.--
600:)
583:)
545:)
525:)
517:?
506:)
488:)
444:)
436:.
398:)
360:,
343:is
316:)
282:)
241:)
226:)
196:)
157:)
116:)
108:.
75:)
37:.
596:(
579:(
541:(
521:(
502:(
484:(
440:(
413:a
394:(
312:(
278:(
237:(
222:(
192:(
153:(
134:)
130:(
112:(
71:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.