Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of New York Jets head coaches

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 User:The Rambling Man 20:26, 9 June 2008 [1].

List of New York Jets head coaches

edit

This list is based off of List of Chicago Bears head coaches and List of New York Giants head coaches, which are both featured lists. Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 03:24, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs)
{{{2}}}

Comments

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is extra space before the "References" section
    • Space removed.
  • Remove the number from the bold and perhaps remove bold altogether – it is not required.

Gary King (talk) 20:53, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those are some pathetic comments. ;) More importantly, there's no reason to remove the number from the bold. The 16 head coaches are the subject of the article. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 20:59, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, I don't really see why the bold needs to even be there at this point. It's just "head coach" really. Gary King (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it can be done. But since there is no reason for the "16" to be unbolded, why change it? Just because it can be done? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Even with the 16, it still doesn't capture the "essence" of the article – it would be better if the team name was included in the bold, but if that is not possible, especially without including any links, then the bold might as well just be removed. Gary King (talk) 21:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. The list is a list of NY Jets head coaches, and as there are 16 head coaches, it seems correct to leave it as it is. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:24, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find another head coach article that bolds it this way, but I could be wrong. Gary King (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I prefer not to start the article with "This is a list of New York Jets head coaches". Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 21:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And to comment or oppose based on what other lists do would violate WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 21:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the article is not about any "16 head coaches", which is what the bold implies. You should be able to look at what is in bold and then immediately get what the article is about. Gary King (talk) 00:03, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, what do you suppose I do? Nishkid64 (Make articles, not wikidrama) 00:26, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I originally suggested to remove the bold. Bold text in the lead is not a requirement, especially for lists, which can sometimes have content that causes a convoluted bold title. Gary King (talk) 00:30, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gary, it's fine as it is. There is no reason to remove the bolding. Why fix something that isn't broken? So what if it's not a requirement? Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 00:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

← Because of my comment above "You should be able to look at what is in bold and then immediately get what the article is about." I don't understand why you are so defensive with this list, especially when it wasn't you who nominated it? The eyes are automatically drawn to bold text, and when you first see "16 head coaches", you don't have a firm understanding of what the article is about. However, in the last 5 articles that have had bold text in the lead, they are:

4 of the 9 most recently promoted lists didn't have bold text in the lead. For Boston Red Sox seasons, I would have suggested that the bold be removed, but at the very least, it still helps identify that the article is about the Boston Red Sox. It is very uncommon to only bold common nouns in the lead of any article when it isn't the title of the article. Gary King (talk) 00:50, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am not defensive of the list. I am simply active in FLCs, and I commented on what I believe is not an accurite statement. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:14, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am willing to continue discussions, but a statement like "Why fix something that isn't broken?" began to seem defensive. The whole point of FLC is to, ideally, make lists that have nothing else wrong with them. If I bring up a perfectly reasonable (note: it could be wrong; reasonable just means that it's worth a discussion) issue, then I see no reason why it does not deserve a discussion. Apparently, Nishkid made the change, so if this is the final action on this issue, then I am willing to cap my comments. Gary King (talk) 01:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I'm sorry I began to sound defensive there. At least in my area, "Why fix something that isn't broken?" is a known sarcastic question. Feel free to cap your comments, as I have no further comments. Cheers, Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 01:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Why fix something that isn't broken?" is also known as a common argument. Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Gary King (talk) 01:39, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_New_York_Jets_head_coaches&oldid=1145853126"