Template talk:Cleveland Browns

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Football League (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Ohio (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject Ohio.
 
WikiProject Cleveland (Rated NA-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of the WikiProject Cleveland, the scope of which includes Cleveland and the Greater Cleveland Area; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
 NA  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Using the template properly[edit]

For the head coaches' pages: {{BrownsCoach}}

For the team's seasons' pages: {{Cleveland Browns seasons}}

For the template in general: {{Cleveland Browns}}

The general template should only be used on general pages; please use the Coach template and the Seasons template on their respective pages. Try not to use the general template on those pages. Wlmaltby3 03:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

For the starting quarterbacks' pages: {{BrownsQuarterback}} Wlmaltby3 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Creation of the template[edit]

I've created this template based upon the templates for the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts, though I simplified its design. I noticed that the templates used within those templates (that is, {{fb start}}, etc.) were for soccer, and not gridiron football. Therefore, I removed those elements; however, if it is necessary that they be in the template: by all means, add them in there the way they should be in there. I also simplified the seasons portion of the template, as it seemed too messy on the other templates. That is all there is to say from me, but I shall contribute to the articles as best I can. Wlmaltby3 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't list as N/A[edit]

Don't list the radio section as N/A, as that would be misleading, as some people would think that the games won't be on the radio.

While technically, it won't be officially official until 5/1/2013, sometimes it's better to go with WP:DUCK in cases like this...because God knows all parties involved in The Browns' new radio contract are beating us over the head with the fact that they have the games.

Vjmlhds 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

First of all, there is nothing misleading with "n/a until 5/1/2013". You yourself acknowledge that the new radio deal does begin until May 1st. Secondly, WP:DUCK is an essay, not policy, and it only pertains to "internal processes" like interactions among users on talk pages or in discussions. Clearly you are reaching here to find a justification to include these stations. May 1st will come soon enough. Until then, "technically" and "officially" (your words) there is no existing deal between the radio stations and the Browns. WP:VERIFY Levdr1lp / talk 21:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
"The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump or even stand aside policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH..." Levdr1lp / talk 21:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Doug Dieken[edit]

Doug Dieken has been with the Browns organization since 1971 as a player turned broadcaster (including '96-'99, when Dieken stayed in town as a spokesman/ambassador for the nebulous "Cleveland Browns Trust" during the "suspended operations" period of the team).

Including him in the "Culture and Lore" section here is no different than Joe Tait's inclusion on the Cavs template (39 years as team announcer) or Herb Score's inclusion on the Indians template (nearly 40 years with the Tribe combined as player turned broadcaster).

No malice or "pouting" about other issues involved...just something that needed to be done anyway.

Vjmlhds (talk) 05:01, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more. Individual players are rarely noted in this template, w/ the two common exceptions being HOF inductees and those players whose numbers have been retired. Dieken doesn't fall into either category. As for his radio work, his role as the team's color analyst is secondary to the play-by-play announcer (unlike Score or Tait), his time in the booth doesn't nearly match either Score or Tait (26 yrs), and he hasn't been recognized for his work w/ an award on the same level as Tait's Gowdy Award. Moreover, he is already prominently listed in List of Cleveland Browns broadcasters, a list which is already included in the Media section of the template. Levdr1lp / talk 12:35, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
26 years as a broadcaster isn't enough?!? Over 40 years as a popular fixture on the team isn't good enough? A Pro Bowl selection, NFL Good Guy Award, Ohio Broadcasters HOF, and Cleveland Broadcasters HOF inductions aren't enough? I don't remember the decree where @Levdr1lp: was the ultimate decider of what awards or accolades were worthy enough to be mentioned. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: I'm at 3RR (assuming you don't count my edit to remove the WKYC link as you preferred), but you've passed 3RR. It's really unfortunate that you're trying to shoehorn this link in w/o even trying to discuss it first. I'm really trying as best I can to AGF here, but I'm seriously beginning to question your motive. Do you really, truly think Doug Dieken belongs in the "Culture & lore" section, or are you merely retaliating b/c we've disagreed over using a Dieken photo in the Cleveland Browns article? Can't you see how from my perspective your timing comes across as even just a little suspect? Levdr1lp / talk 15:41, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: Discuss it? You're the ONLY ONE who ever objects to things like this! You really need to get this thought out of your head that I have to get your permission to make certain edits. This isn't like I'm adding Spergon Wynn or one of the umpteen million bums who have passed through here. Doug Dieken is a legitimate icon on this team through his FORTY FIVE years as a player/broadcaster/ambassador of the Browns...you know how many owners/GMs/coaches he has seen come and go? Come on man...a little perspective here. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:49, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: 1) For years there was no link to the Doug Dieken article in the "Culture & lore" section. 2) I disagree w/ your decision to add Dieken now, and I think I've laid out some pretty straightforward and reasonable objections. You don't have to agree w/ my reasoning, but you can't very well object to the way I've presented them. 3) I disagree with your edit, so by definition it's controversial. By ramming your change through w/o discussing the issue (you've still passed 3RR, btw), you are refusing to follow WP:BRD & allow consensus to emerge. I find this troubling, especially as I've tried to demonstrate my own willingness to work w/ you (dropping the WKYC issue in this template, dropping the issue of the Frantz photo in WHK, etc.). 4) We disagree over use of a Dieken photo in the Browns article, something you apparently won't even acknowledge here, or how it clearly seems to relate. How else do you explain the timing of this edit? Do you really expect me to believe it's just some coincidence? It seems pretty clear to me this is just some type of retaliation b/c we disagree on a separate issue. Levdr1lp / talk 16:18, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: Thanks to the good folks at Pro Football Reference.com, anybody can see that since 1971, the Browns have had 3 ownership groups (counting the Lerner Family as 1 group), 9 GMs, 2 GM/Head Coaches (Belichick, Butch Davis), 12 other full time head coaches, and God knows how many players. The one constant through all that...Doug Dieken (either on the field or in the booth). So to say that Dieken isn't part of the team's culture or lore is REALLY short sighted - given he's been the only constant in 45 years. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
BTW... when you've been part of the team for 45 years, it's deserving of both a spot in the culture and lore section of the template AND a pic on the main article. Vjmlhds (talk) 16:42, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Vjmlhds: Still past 3RR. Still refusing to address the odd timing of your edit. Still refusing to follow WP:BRD cycle. Needless to say, I find this all troubling, particularly after I've conceded other content issues w/ the hope of moving on. Levdr1lp / talk 16:50, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: You just love conspiracy theories don't you. "OOH..he chose to make this particular edit at this particular time JUST to spite me" How freaking full of yourself do you have to be to think people make edits on Wikipedia just to spite another editor. What's REALLY troubling is your obvious narcissism in thinking that you are the reason why I do what I do. News Flash...Wikipedia is a fluid entity, designed to be adapted when necessary. When an individual is a notable part of a team for 40+ years, he deserves to be considered as part of the team's culture. He played for the Browns for 15 seasons, is entering his 27th season as radio analyst, and was a team ambassador during the 3 "suspended operations" seasons. This isn't like an equipment manager or something... Doug Dieken (45 years of combined team involvement) is VERY comparable to Joe Tait (39) and Herb Score (40) as far as their place in team lore is concerned. Vjmlhds (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Vjmlhds: Please. Setting aside for a moment the odd timing of your decision to insert the Dieken link into this template, you're still not addressing 1) the fact you've gone beyond 3RR; 2) your stubborn refusal to follow the WP:BRD cycle; and 3) your unwillingness to compromise w/ someone who just conceded two other issues that were important to you as a show of good faith. You think Dieken belongs in the "Culture & lore" section? Fine. Wouldn't you rather discuss the issue in a calm and civil manner -- and actually convince me you're right -- rather than WP:SHOUT-ing in edit summaries, edit warring, and throwing around insults bordering on WP:PERSONAL attacks? The fact remains the status quo for this template has been no-Dieken-link for a very long time. If anyone has convincing to do, it's the editor (you) who wants to make a contested change to long stable content. Unfortunately it appears you would rather ram this through regardless of what anyone else thinks. Levdr1lp / talk 18:43, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: Why do I have to convince you of anything? If anything, you have to convince me why you're having such a hissy fit over this edit. And don't YOU DARE go WP:Personal with me. "Suspicious timing" on my edit = questioning my integrity. SPI = questioning my character. IF there's a WP:Personal issue here, it's YOU constantly hounding ME. Vjmlhds (talk) 19:11, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: If your goal is to achieve consensus rather than forcing through what you want, other views be damned, then no, you don't have to convince me or anyone else of anything. If however you hope to cooperate with other editors and receive honest input, even if sometimes that means ultimately accepting something you don't agree w/ at first, then yes, sometimes it's best to wait and see what others have to say. Also, I meant exactly what I said about borderline WP:PERSONAL attacks. I'm not the one using the term "narcissist" to describe another editor. I'm not the one accusing someone of throwing "a hissy fit". I'm also not WP:SHOUT-ing when things don't go the way I want them to. And what's this about the SPI case? What was that, like three months ago? You weren't at fault. I apologized for any undue stress you may have experienced. It's over. Let it go. Levdr1lp / talk 21:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: You drop this, I drop the SPI...that SPI went WAY over anything else you ever pulled on me. You questioned my character, you accused me of playing dirty pool, and you basically called me shady. How can I ever take anything from you as legitimate after you pulled that crap on me? Any disagreement you have with me is merely an attempt to try to drag my name through the mud, as there is no question that your sole purpose is to bring me down. If this were on the street, and you did somebody like you did me, you'd be in an ambulance. Vjmlhds (talk) 23:44, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: You know, I was actually getting tired of debating this Dieken issue, and so last night I decided to drop it all on my own. At least that was until I saw this most recent post of yours. Just... wow...
Look, I'm not going to address the SPI case here because it has absolutely *nothing* to do with this issue -- the case was resolved months ago. But I'm still in no mood to keep escalating over some trivial piece of content, so here's what I propose: you drop the SPI case and any other old baggage, and stop with the "if we we're in the real world I'd show you" lines (it's really getting old), and I will agree not to remove Dieken link from this template. I still disagree w/ the reasons for inserting the link here, and I obviously can't guarantee some other editor won't try to remove it at some later date. If/when that happens, I'm going to share my views. However, in the absence of any other input, and in the interest of moving on, and as yet another show of good faith... I'll drop this issue. To review: I've dropped the WKYC issue here in this same template; I've dropped the issue of the Bob Frantz photo in the WHK article (provided there's clarification in the caption); and now I'm dropping this Dieken issue (assuming no one else weighs in against it). Now can we please move on? Levdr1lp / talk 16:12, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── @Levdr1lp: I'll move on when I see that some consequences have been paid on your part. "They send one of ours to the hospital, we'll send two of theirs to the morgue" - Sean Connery from The Untouchables. Vjmlhds (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: Sometimes I'm not sure why I even bother. Levdr1lp / talk 18:26, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons[edit]

Doug Dieken

  • 45 years with Browns as player/broadcaster/ambassador
  • 1980 Pro Bowl selection
  • 1982 NFL Man of the Year
  • Ohio Broadcasters HOF
  • Greater Cleveland Sports HOF
  • Cleveland Browns Legends Club

Joe Tait

  • 39 years with Cavs as broadcaster
  • Curt Gowdy Award winner
  • Multi-time Ohio Sportscaster of the Year
  • Ohio Broadcasters HOF
  • Greater Cleveland Sports HOF
  • Commemorative banner at the Q

Herb Score

  • 40 years with Indians as player/broadcaster
  • 1955 Rookie of the Year
  • Two-time All Star
  • Ohio Broadcasters HOF
  • Greater Cleveland Sports HOF
  • Indians HOF

Vjmlhds (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

@Vjmlhds: I think an important thing being overlooked here is that Dieken's professional association with the Browns is ongoing, unlike Score w/ the Indians (retired in '97 & died in '08), or Tait w/ the Cavs (retired in '11). If/when the Browns recognize Dieken with something on par to the 2009 Indians wearing a patch w/ Score's #27 & a microphone all season long, or Tait's "commemorative banner", then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with listing Dieken in the culture/lore field. Until then, his inclusion feels forced and promotional. No one is questioning Doug Dieken's notability. No one is questioning whether or not Dieken's current role as the team's radio analyst should be included in the Browns article, the Browns Radio Network article, or the List of Cleveland Browns broadcasters article. But singling him out in this manner? One could make a much more compelling case for Bernie Kosar, and yet I don't see sufficient reason to add him, either. Levdr1lp / talk 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: Fair point. I stand down. Vjmlhds (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)

Formatting in Template:Cleveland Browns[edit]

I don't know why User:Levdr1lp (talk) feels like they need to continuously undo my edits to Template:Cleveland Browns, specifically when it comes to the list of the team's seasons in the template. this is my revision of the template. this is Levdr1lp's revision to the template. I don't know why there needs to be bullets in the list of seasons to indicate that the Browns did not field a team from 1996–98; I feel like blank spaces should be enough to signify to readers that the Browns did not field a team during those years. As such, all I've tried to do is ensure that the formatting of the template is consistent with other National Football League (NFL) team templates, such as Template:San Francisco 49ers, which has blank spaces in the season templates for the 1940s to indicate that the 49ers didn't field a team until the 1946 AAFC season. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include the bullet points when no year is present, not to mention the aesthetics of the random bullet points floating (particularly the 1940s). Bullet points are to separate the text to make it easier to read. If there is no text, there's no need for a bullet point, especially in instances like this with consecutive years missing. I could understand including them if one year was missing (though I don't think it would be necessary), but not in cases like this. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello JonRidinger. Charlesaaronthompson- I appreciate that you have opened a discussion on this talk page (if reluctantly). Your preferred formatting is not consistent from desktop to mobile devices. Note that the 1940s & 1990s are misaligned vertically, and that the older format creates different dot sizes (I realize both are aesthetic concerns, but it appears we're all mindful of how this template looks). More importantly, however, I am not certain your formatting complies w/ WP:HLIST; the older method of actually inserting dots has been practically phased out, and it may interfere w/ blind users (bouncing back & forth from "span" markup to hlist). I also don't find "other NFL templates do it this way" very convincing. Levdr1lp / talk 17:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Interesting. Why do we have all the seasons listed here and then right below we have Template:Cleveland Browns seasons with the exact same data? Are the seasons templates getting phased out? --JonRidinger (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
I've wondered the same myself. That said, my primary concern is how to format these seasons, not whether they are listed. Levdr1lp / talk 18:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I've opened a discussion of these changes, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#UX: Team templates decade treatment when fewer than ten played seasons. Cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: The use of greyed-out text to support vertical alignment in NFL templates was discussed in the above thread. Cleveland for whatever reason is/was a holdout and still displays inline text for 1940~1945 seasons, prior to its inaugural season in 1946. Hiding this text still achieves the alignment goal, while avoiding user confusion from our general sports convention that greyed-out season years indicated temporary non-participation (such as sporadic participation in early 1900s college football, suspension in WWII, etc). What is your goal with reverting away from the NFL-wide convention of hiding years preceding the inaugural season, to instead show 1940~1945 as inline grey text? Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@UW Dawgs: I'm well aware of the discussion at the NFL WikiProject; I weighed on, as did many others, and there was no apparent consensus aside from *possibly* duplicating some of the formatting used in college football templates. The problem with your formatting, as has already been noted in this thread, is that it misaligns the decades w/ hidden years from the decades w/o the hidden years. Levdr1lp / talk 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@Levdr1lp: How is the 1940s row misaligned? UW Dawgs (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@UW Dawgs: It is somewhat misaligned on desktop devices, but moreso on mobile devices. More importantly, and as noted last October in this very thread, your preferred formatting likely does not comply w/ WP:HLIST. Levdr1lp / talk 21:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
Got it, re mobile. Calling it "my preferred solution" is inaccurate, as my interest was and remains solely in reverting Charlesaaronthompson undiscussed, global change. Will reopen the discussion on NFL, as this feels like it can be resolved prior to the 2016 season. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
@UW Dawgs: My mistake. You're right, it was another user who first raised the issue. Levdr1lp / talk 22:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

DePodesta[edit]

I think DePodesta should be added.

He doesn't have the "title" of GM, but essentially that's his job - "Chief Strategy Officer" is a recently "in vogue" corporate title when you get right down to it - he pretty much has GM powers.

He's certainly plenty notable, given his "Moneyball" connection and MLB resume.

Vjmlhds (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Chief strategy officer is not a traditionally defined role within NFL franchises, & the linked article covers the CSO topic in general, not how it applies to professional football specifically. I also don't know whether the term is "in vogue" or not, or why that would even matter (claim sounds like original research). Podesta's notability w/ respect to "Moneyball", etc. is not a reason to list him here. Still, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea. I simply would like to see coverage equating this newly created position w/ other more traditional "key personnel" like owner, GM, head coach, etc. Levdr1lp / talk 20:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Here's an article from Sports Illustrated, which explains that DePodesta is essentially the top man regarding football decisions. He answers only to Haslam, and that the coach, GM, player personnel guys all are underneath him, and that he can delegate decision making to them if he chooses. Long story short, he's at the top of the pyramid regarding football matters. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
The hiring of DePodesta received pretty significant media coverage not only for who he is, but how the Browns are planning on using him. Having him in the template makes sense to me given his authority in the organization on top of his notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Johnny Manziel in culture/lore[edit]

Mr. Manziel barely lasted through two troubled seasons. I suspect he will become largely forgotten in the minds of Browns fans as more time passes. Little or no lasting influence on the team's culture. Levdr1lp / talk 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

All of his infamous shenanigans happened while with the Browns (the inflatable swan ----> beating his girlfriend and everything in between). All of his BS certainly had an effect on the Browns (helped cost Farmer and Pettine their jobs), and his failure as a QB is why we had the number 2 pick in the draft (later traded for #8 and extra goodies) Manziel is a cut above the 8 bazillion other QBs that have come and gone in relation to his what kind of damage he did to the team on the field and and all of the negative publicity and effects he had on the club in regards to image (he was a mainstay on ESPN and TMZ). He will live in infamy with Browns fans...he won't be quickly forgotten, (IMO) he'll be regarded by a lot of fans as the Browns biggest bust ever...he'll be the one by which all future draft busts/knuckleheads will be compared. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
"...as more time passes..." My point was that Manziel likely won't have a lasting, meaningful impact on the team or its fanbase in the years & decades ahead (though I could always be wrong- we'll see). Art Modell's thirty-year ownership began w/ controversy (Paul Brown's firing) and ended in outright revolt (move to Baltimore), though during his time the team also won its last league title and achieved far greater success than anything since 1999. It's a complicated tenure that may take decades for the fans to come to terms with, if ever, but Modell casts a long shadow on this franchise. While Manziel could certainly find his way into either the team or team history articles, I think it's a real stretch and entirely premature to add him now. The tabloid fare is far more relevant to Manziel himself than his association w/ the team. Levdr1lp / talk 03:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
As is usually the case, we have a stalemate. Let's get a third voice to break the tie, and I'll live with however the cookie crumbles. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
Vjmlhds- I've asked for input at WikiProject Cleveland. Bear in mind that consensus isn't necessarily a vote. Also, please consider leaving the discussion open for a few days before making any changes, even if a third person weighs in. This will allow more editors to participate and broaden the consensus. Levdr1lp / talk 21:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'd say it's too early to include Manziel in culture and lore, if ever. Seems to fall under WP:RECENTISM. Culture and lore is something long-term and established, like the Dawg Pound, or discussed regularly as a defining moment, like Red Right 88 or The Drive. Manziel was only here two seasons and unless some kind of nickname is developed about his time here or it's later seen as some kind of defining moment in franchise development (and can actually be documented), he'll be as much "culture and lore" as Tim Couch. Right now he's a recent part of the team's history. Anything is possible, but right now, no, I'd say leave him off. Far too early. --JonRidinger (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Fair enough. I asked for the third voice, and got it. Consider the issue dropped. Vjmlhds (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)