Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Chicago Bears seasons/archive1: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Killervogel5 (talk | contribs) m →Chicago Bears seasons: conditional support |
|||
Line 41: | Line 41: | ||
*'''Keep''' The article is shaping up and I can now vote to keep.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
*'''Keep''' The article is shaping up and I can now vote to keep.--[[User:TonyTheTiger|TonyTheTiger]] <small>([[User talk:TonyTheTiger|t]]/[[Special:Contributions/TonyTheTiger|c]]/[[User:TonyTheTiger/Antonio Vernon|bio]]/[[WP:CHICAGO]]/[[WP:LOTM]]) </small> 15:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
*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. [[User:Killervogel5|<span style="color:black">'''KV5'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Killervogel5|<span style="color:blue">Squawk box</span>]] • [[WP:PHILLIES|<span style="color:red">Fight on!</span>]] 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
*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. [[User:Killervogel5|<span style="color:black">'''KV5'''</span>]] • [[User_talk:Killervogel5|<span style="color:blue">Squawk box</span>]] • [[WP:PHILLIES|<span style="color:red">Fight on!</span>]] 16:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
||
**'''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 [[Boston Red Sox seasons|BoSox list]] article has duplicate references in the same manner. I don't believe having them should dictate whether the list remains featured. [[User:RMelon|RMelon]] ([[User talk:RMelon|talk]]) 19:31, 20 August 2008 (UTC) |
Revision as of 19:31, 20 August 2008
- 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)
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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Would anyone object to me removing the current season? BUC (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Doesn't bother me if it disappears. WP:CRYSTAL would agree. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:21, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- I agree with that. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cr 6, visual appeal: can someone change that glaring yellow in the table? Tony (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- I replaced it with a lighter color. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:04, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- Cr 6, visual appeal: can someone change that glaring yellow in the table? Tony (talk) 06:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)