Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Chicago Bears seasons/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates | Chicago Bears seasons
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by User:Matthewedwards 06:30, 22 September 2008 [1].

Chicago Bears seasons

edit
Notified: Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago, Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illinois, User:Happyman22 (original nominator), and about a dozen other editors who were leading editors at Chicago Bears, Chicago Bears seasons or members of the inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject Chicago Bears.

This list passed before the rules on FL tightened. Therefore there a major issue with a lack of refs in both the lead and the footnotes. I also feel there is a minor issue with having the 2008 season when it hasn't even started yet. BUC (talk) 18:58, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with BUC's assessment; in addition, I see several style issues that would need to be addressed, including incorrect use of dashes, links in the bold title, grammar and spelling errors, punctuation mistakes, etc.. The way the footnotes section is set up is not going to fly, either; it definitely needs true references. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you guys going after all the NFL team season lists Featured Lists or just this one. Why take away an honor from a list that was the first one to achieve the honor from the NFL articles? Also, the 2008 season starts in a few weeks so I do not see what is wrong with it being on the page. I think you guys need to leave the status quo. Worry about future lists not about the ones that were worked hard upon in the past, and that people do not have time to waste on making it "up to par" with new standards. If you want to fix the errors, fix them yourselves and also if you want to add more references go ahead. You can find all the references in any NFL history book or the NFL.com. The stats were not made up. Happyman22 (talk) 02:10, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am planning to add in some refs when I can find the time. I don't think it's a waste of time to get a list up the FL standered. As for the current season, the norm for team season lists is only to have completed seasons. BUC (talk) 15:21, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The burden is not on the reviewers to maintain and update lists, unless of course they are normally one of the major editors of a particular list. The standards for FL have changed and, just like FAs, featured lists can lose their status if they are not maintained at the high quality expected by the reviewers. I know that, as a major editor of one featured list and several FL candidates, I have been doing my best to keep my lists up to snuff with new expectations within FLC. Don't feel targeted; these things happen. Rather, consider taking on this list as a project if you do not want to see it demoted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have the time, but it would be nice if someone else can do it. Happyman22 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Can you name a Seasons list that you feel is an exemplary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 09:05, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that the best bet is to look for the most recently promoted season list. I'm not sure which one that is. I am fairly sure that in baseball, Boston Red Sox seasons is the most recently promoted list; however, it is a vastly different format from this list. As a reviewer, I've been picking up more and more of what's expected of the latest FLCs in sports (since those are the lists I review), and so I've been trying to maintain Philadelphia Phillies seasons by adding the new expectations. Since that list was originally modeled on this list, it might be a good jumping-off point. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 12:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So in this case, add a separate column for reference links; and add more into the prose. Quick look at the Footnotes, some of them can be omitted as they are mentioned in the Bears History article -- OR -- some are trivia. KyuuA4 (talk) 06:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add a separate column for ref links, fix them up, and add more. I'll also work on grammar. RMelon (talk) 14:56, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Would anyone object to me removing the current season? BUC (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. That line will be right there within a month anyways; so it wouldn't make a difference anyways. Plus, it is in italics - indicating that it is pending. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:01, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the NFL season articles in the last few mounths have had to remove the current season line to get to FL status. BUC (talk) 19:12, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't bother me if it disappears. WP:CRYSTAL would agree. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm disappointed in Happyman's take-it-or-leave-it attitude. FLs, like FAs, are not some kind of life peerage; they need to be updated in terms of both their content and the modern standards we expect of FLCs. If an FL is left untended—an orphan, as it were—and the apparent guardian tells reviewers to fix it themselves, I think that's the death-knell for the FL. Tony (talk) 06:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Cr 6, visual appeal: can someone change that glaring yellow in the table? Tony (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I replaced it with a lighter color. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be a death-knell for the FL if I don't have time to edit the article. I am stepping away from Wikipedia here in a few days for many weeks because my life is getting busy to the point where editing isn't possible for me with my schedule. I would like for this article to remain a FL so that is why I throw it out there that others should help out and edit. If you don't have time either or if no one cares to edit it then sadly it will probably lose its status.

Peace out. Happyman22 (talk) 02:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep The article is shaping up and I can now vote to keep.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll offer a conditional support at this time, as the progress is helping a lot. However, the duplicate reference that is used over and over again should be turned into one named reference rather than being copied and pasted. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There are two separate duplicate references (from 1971 on the refs are full season summary pages - I tried to break it up). How should I go about turning them into one named reference? Also, he BoSox list article has duplicate references in the same manner. I don't believe having them should dictate whether the list remains featured. RMelon (talk) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Red Sox seasons one only has one duplicate link, not one reference duplicated 20+ times like this list. Be that as it may, the way to do it is to name the reference on its first occurrence by changing the <ref> tag to <ref name="whatever">. Then, any time you want to use the reference, put the tag <ref name="whatever"/> with a slash, like that. Then it will be in the reflist only once and will show up with the same source multiple times. Different years are different sources, if you are using different years. The sources being used in this article (refs 17-27, 33-65, 67-71, 73-79) are all the exact same link. That's where the issue is. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:26, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ah, I see what you mean. I'll work on it when I get a chance. Shouldn't be too long. RMelon (talk) 15:42, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Remove—Cr 1. Here are spot-check samples of why it fails the Criterion.

"A brief period of success ranged from 2005 to 2007" eeuuw.

Simply fixing these examples will not do. I'm not going to fight about the details. It's just not good enough.

In addition, the black streaks across the top of the table could be toned down in colour. Is the reason for the bold explained? Tony (talk) 09:05, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the excessive linking to ref #4? BUC (talk) 16:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose because someone thought it was better to use one reference than to use the individual references for each season. It should be changed. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:37, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the reference, I am not so sure it should be changed.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:24, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to [2] for 1922, [3] for 1923, etc., would be much better. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In terms of WP:WIAFL it is cited. If you want to swap out the refs for ones you prefer, have at it. I do not think objection would be valid however.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:05, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know that it is cited, but I've been told to change a reference that is used that many times in another FLC. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:09, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Above you asked for one named ref. That was done. This is not my article. I was just passing through and did what you asked above. If the editors involved here want to do something more elaborate, they are free to replace what I have done.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 14:39, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Tony, I did, and I won't retract what I said earlier. However, I didn't realize the scope of how many times this particular reference was being used. It looks excessive. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have encouraged as many people as possible to clean this up and I think it has gotten to a pretty reasonable level of quality in this process. Excessive is a very vague term. As long as WP:RS is not an issue, the question is whether the sources provided help to establish verifyability for the reader, IMO. Is the reader likely to say 50 citations come from the same place and thus I don't believe it. I think not. If the article were solely sourced by one ref it would be excessive. However, there are plenty of other sources to lead the reader to the conclusion that all facts have sufficient attribution. In terms of WP:WIAFL that is sufficient.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 23:00, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
However, it still fails Cr. 5 - compliance with the MOS. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 00:45, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure I understand how this fails WP:WIAFL#5. Can you please elaborate.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:51, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • ←OK, let's see, the references and footnotes need to be split up. WP:COLOR is violated several times by having color as the only indicator for certain categories. Abbreviations need to be spelled out at their first occurrence, or in this case, footnotes should be added to explain the meaning. Beyond the fact that I still feel that link is overused, I still don't think that this list truly represents featured content anymore, in that it's not an example of Wikipedia's best work. I've withdrawn my conditional support above and am neutral at this time. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 01:38, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is using that link materially different from the Red Sox List's use of different pages on the same website over and over again? The solution to this "problem" would be to link to individual seasons on pro-football-reference.com, which would substantially increase the amount of references, and the overall length of the article. Is that desirable? RMelon (talk) 03:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's a matter of sourcing, and materially, yes, it would be better to link to the individual season pages. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:23, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
RMelon (talk · contribs) said he will work on some of the issues this weekend.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 22:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Being that I won't have to disappear to another state this weekend, I will likely be around the wiki and look forward to seeing the improvements. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 22:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to close this soon, but here are some more things that need to be considered:

Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 21:53, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Consider converting the "Totals" section of the table to a separate "All-time records" table, as is done in the recently promoted New York Yankees seasons. --Orlady (talk) 20:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Footnotes and references still need to be placed in separate sections. Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 06:53, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 13:02, 12 September 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_removal_candidates/Chicago_Bears_seasons/archive1&oldid=1146530434"