Talk:Dave Nonis

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material of any kind that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libelous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]

Who made the chart? It seems very subjective and there are no sources.

I've removed that chart. It is way to biased, and rather pointless. There does not need to be a description of every single move that Nonis makes as a GM. It also lacked any sources whatsoever, and quite frankly, looked hideous. If you want to keep something like that, a good suggestion is a blog. Wikipeida is not the place for that. Kaiser matias 21:04, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

If it's deemed so important, it has to lose the summary part. It is really biased, saying if Nonis made good trades/signings or not. Wikipedia is not the place for that. Drop that, and I got no problem, though I personally don't see any need for it. If we're going to do this for Nonis, what will it look like on guys like Burke, Sather or Clarke, GM's who've made more than their fair share of trades/signings. Kaiser matias 00:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

This is going to be done for all GMs. You urself say u are a canuck fan. Which means u want to be biased. Wikipedia is for unbiased and true comments. If a fan in Boston wants to read about Nonis, he/she should see this page and learn about the moves. Just like you will in the future go to Glen Sathers page and see his moves. Frankly which one of the summaries do u have a problem with? Its been here for over a month and no one has complained. I have read every summary top to bottom and there is nothing mean, vicious, atrocious, or wrong about any of them. as mentioned in next paragraph headlined chart, the summary must be a generalization that is good on the first day of the trade, good ten years after and good if canucks are last place or win the cup. It must withstand all this. When it does, it means its the truth. When under Naslund it says "At 3 years 18 million if he plays well, he is worth it. Otherwise a bit expensive for 75 points", this is an accurate assessment. Nobody outside a biased canuckfan would argue with this. This statement is true the day he signed, its true now, and its true when he retires and when we all look back.--Samanthabee 00:56, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to argue about this, so I posted it on the Ice Hockey Project Talk Page to garner input from other users. Until a consensus has been reached from them, since I trust them to represent the fair share of hockey fan users, I will leave it alone, and not bother it. Kaiser matias 10:21, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chart

The chart is a chronology of moves by the general manager. It can be used as a reference for people to see who he has signed and who he has traded. The chart must have a neutral point of view. It cant be edited by canuck fans in an unbias way nor canuck haters in the same manner. This is an encyclopedia. A person from Africa or South America must read the moves and come away with an accurate assessment of Canuck's personel changes. Whether the Canucks finish deadlast or win the cup, a move must portray a balanced assessment. Upto now it has been edited and maintained in a professional matter. Lets keep it that way.

maybe we can just get rid of the "excellent, ok, not good" part.--Bangabalunga 21:26, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The chart is unencyclopedic. First, Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. An encyclopedia is supposed to inform a user about the person, not list every transaction they've performed in their endeavors. Second, the summary section is full of point of view, and fan analysis like Move would be better if Luongo made a bit less and Should've let him go to Flyers, got 2nd Pick and saved 1.9 million falls into the realm of original research, which is unacceptable in an encyclopedia. Given this, it doesn't belong. This site is an encyclopedia, not a fansite for you to vent your thoughts on your favorite team's transactions. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 10:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

Personally, I like the idea of tracking a team's moves, but they simply do not belong in a biographical article. What I might suggest is that the editors that wish to track moves create an article for the 2006-07 Vancouver Canucks season, and include the moves there, along with the other stats for the team, ala articles already existing for the Calgary Flames and LA Kings. It would create a more appropriate place for information such as this... could you imagine how long a moves section for Lou Lamoriello would be? Resolute 23:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, there's already 2006-07 NHL transactions and similar articles for previous seasons, which follow Wikipedia guidelines. Having a listing of a GM's moves on their own pages would be redundant and in some cases would be longer than the rest of the article as Resolute points out (Imagine how large such a list for Bobby Clarke would be...). NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 23:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I understand both of your points and they are valid. The best scenario in that is the San Jose Sharks article. It mentions each generation of change. Thats good too. But I feel strongly that each GM should have a list of their accomplishments. We do this for many other biagraphies, companies and products. Everytime Boeing sells a plane, its written under the model. It is informative for people to see a GMs page and see the signings and trades. I know Bobby clark would be long same with Lamoriello, but maybe we can put a column of date as well and put in chronological order. Its not hard to do.--Bangabalunga 23:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

The problem for me is that it really takes away from the focal point of the article - the person in question - as that one section will end up overwhelming the entire article. Maybe the answer is a separte List of Vancouver Canucks transactions that is linked to the Nonis article, I dont know. Personally, I believe that this article is the wrong forum for this list. Highlights, and major deals sure, but every minor or trifling move he ever makes? Resolute 00:04, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

If you want only a biagraphy, then remove everything, including Luongo trade from the first paragraph. Make it him and his college years and his family stuff. You cant just pick and choose what moves you want to display. You guys talk about neutral and informative encyclopedia but you dont act like it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Samanthabee (talk • contribs) 23:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

Listing every transaction he's ever made in the position would just be cluttering up the page with too much information that only hardcore hockey fans would care about, and would be redundant since there's already articles that list such information already. If you want to write about his stint as GM, writing a sourced, verifiable summary of his time at the position would be a better addition than just a list of transactions. NeoChaosX (he shoots, he scores!) 00:03, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

While it may not have sounded like it at the time, this was essentially what I was saying. The only problem I had with it was it gave opinions in the summary for different aquisitions. Wikipedia isn't much for that, so I said it. It would be good to include some of the things Nonis and others have done, but only the major ones. In Nonis' case, it would be like trading away Bertuzzi for Luongo, ditching Crawford. It isn't really necessary to include on his page that he once traded for Noronen or Eric Weinrich. I realise that it sounds like I'm trying to switch positions now as well, but when I didn't explain myself fully. It is good to include the major events of GM's, but it just can't, unfortuanetly, give opinions. Kaiser matias 00:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi NeoChaosX. This list is not much work. Everytime there is a signing, a line is added, which gives date, who came, who went, and a summary like for how much and so on. This is pure information. It is good to offer this.--Samanthabee 00:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

What is the big deal here? The list is fine.--Bangabalunga 00:19, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Personally I think the information would be better if converted into prose and added into the article. However I don't see a problem with the table in general. Some of the arguments used for removing it are weak (POV - that is not a weak argument, but has been addressed by Samanthabee):

• "It's still an indiscriminate list of information" - How so? It seems to be important actions in his career. Perhaps you could state what is left out that makes it indiscriminate, e.g. major mistakes?
• "Moves have no relevence on Nonis' biography" - That is rediculous, if I said George Bush's cabinet appointments were totally irrelevant to his bio would you agree? That's analogous. Mark83 20:56, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

"Irrelevent" was a poor choice of words, but the prinicple remains. I would sugguest that Bush's cabinet appointments do not belong on his biographical article, but rather on an article dedicated to his presidency. Similaraly, as I have stated, I'm not favouring removing Nonis' moves outright, but rather placing them in a more proper article - ie, an article on the season at hand, or on Canucks transactions. Another analogous scenario is to list every game a player scores a goal on his article. Is that reasonable? Resolute 22:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. To take your player's goal analogy - a player's goal is analogous to a major tactical call a manager makes in a game. Likewise a player's decision to switch team is analogous to a major signing a manager makes. To suggest a player's goal equates to a manager's possibly multi-million signing/firing is not a sensible argument. Should every goal/game decision be listed? No. Should every career major change/hiring be mentioned? I think so. Of course "major" is debateable and I have no knowledge of this subject, therefore I am not qualified to judge. I'm just trying to give an outside opinion to resolve the dispute. Mark83 22:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Problem is, the article already had "major" moves listed. The Luongo/Bertuzzi trade is a major move. Claiming a backup goaltender off of waivers is as minor as you can get. As you say, every move doesnt belong. Resolute 04:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Mark for your outside input. I agree with you. All we are trying to do here is track a general managers moves. Thats all. I live in Canada. Imagine myself going to the web page of the General Manager of Manchester United and reading about his transactions. This is informative. Where else in the world can a person reference a move by Dave Nonis? All we are proposing is making a table with who arrived, who was traded, and specs about it like how many years the deal is and how much. There is nothing terribly wrong with this that justifies such a harsh reaction. And why create a page called Cancuks Seasons at Hand? no need for that. The moves are made by this genral manager. This biagraphy is pretty empty anyway and these moves are part of his job and belong here. Also, imagine a person googling "Nonis transactions". Then Wikipedia comes up with a nice table that references this. This is very useful. Thank you.--Samanthabee 02:36, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

These are moves made by the team, of which the General Manager is a representative, that is why these moves belong in a team article. Perhaps you should ask yourself why such a "harsh" reaction has occurred? I've tried to offer suggestions of where this data fits better. You've offered what, exactly? Resolute 04:59, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Is converting the table to prose not a compromise? With discussion here to decide what was undeniably a Nonis move and excluding more general team decisions? And regarding the comment above, I see where you're coming from but (in my opinion) a manager is like a CEO of a company who will ultimately get the blame/credit for failure/success. Mark83 10:15, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I dont disagree. And, to the point, before this table nonsense began, Nonis' major move was already entered as prose. Someone felt the need to add every minor move he did, creating that chart. As I have said, there are better places to put those moves, something which the supporters of this table generally have ignored completely. Resolute 14:42, 14 December 2006 (UTC)