Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame/archive1
- 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 not promoted by The Rambling Man 18:11, 7 February 2011 [1].
List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame edit
List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
| Toolbox |
|---|
- Nominator(s): Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The List of Chicago Bears in the Pro Football Hall of Fame is being nominated for feature list. The article is a detailed list of all the individuals that were members of the Chicago Bears that became enshrined in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I believe the article meets the FL criteria, is well cited, and prose is good. Let me know what everyone thinks. Happyman22 (talk) 03:08, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Can we please have support or fail votes please. I fear this list might fail as others have on this forum because of the lacking of yea/nay votes among the members. Thanks Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you format the picture under inducties so that the table is not so far down the page? KnowIG (talk) 01:13, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you explain better? I just edited it where the table is now closer to the top of the inductees header. Is that what you were asking about? Happyman22 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comments - the number column sorts incorrectly. Ref 6 is dead. Footnote c needs a citation. Afro (Talk) 19:57, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment Ref 6 has been fixed. Note c has a reference and the number column sorted correctly for me..is it possible there might be a glitch because I just did it and all the numbers sorted correctly. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't get the Walter Payton followed by Bronko Nagurski or, Bill Hewitt followed by George McAfee and, Stan Jones followed by George Halas. Afro (Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It did just do that. However, once I reset the list again by hitting the sorter it sorted them out again. I don't know if that is a glitch of some kind because it did not do that the first time, but it did yesterday when I tried it again. Happyman22 (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- So you don't get the Walter Payton followed by Bronko Nagurski or, Bill Hewitt followed by George McAfee and, Stan Jones followed by George Halas. Afro (Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment Ref 6 has been fixed. Note c has a reference and the number column sorted correctly for me..is it possible there might be a glitch because I just did it and all the numbers sorted correctly. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think I figured out the problem looking at the coding the column lacks any kind of sorting code. Afro (Talk) 22:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Can you describe what you mean by minor. You have written 'while the other three contributed only a minor portion of their career to the Bears.' What does minor mean 1 season? 2 seasons? Or perhaps remove the sentence and list the three people and say that they are in the hall of fame for exploits at other clubs, having come to Chicago when already legends (as in Page's case) or were at the club before they were notable (as in the case with the other two). KnowIG (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response to comment: I defined minor as 3 seasons or less...but I don't know if that is good enough of a definition. Happyman22 (talk) 01:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose – Criterion 3b. The contents of the list are substantially similar to what can be found in List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees, with only the players' numbers added. I fail to see why a separate list is needed for this team. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:10, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment it's a nice list, but these days we're trying not to create unnecessary forks, and I think Giants2008 hits this on the head. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:14, 13 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees lists all of the members of the Hall of Fame, which has hundred of inductees, while this list devotes a separate space for the franchise with the most members, the Chicago Bears. This list details only Chicago Bears members and allows people to access their favorite team if they wanted to see who is in the HOF instead of having to look through a huge list of all members. Also, the franchise with the second most members is a FA list so if this list is an "unnecessary fork" would that not apply for the other list as well? Happyman22 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That list was passed in 2008, when reviewers weren't paying close attention to forky lists. It probably wouldn't pass today, which is what matters. Also, the main Hall of Fame inductees list isn't overly long to me, and it does allow the option of sorting by team. It's not perfect because many players were on multiple teams, but that information is present in the main list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually kind of surprised that TRM promoted the Green Bay list judging by the Nomination page it only had 2 supports one of which was weak, Not to mention 3 of the reviewers didn't comment regarding their disposition one of which was TRM, it might be down to a change in standards but by today's it might not be promoted due to lack of interest. Afro (Talk)
- My ears burning...? Yes, things have changed since July 2008, and if I was closing the nomination today, well, it wouldn't be being closed, it would need more reviews and more support. Ho hum, live and learn. I don't often comment per my disposition, I usually review and leave it to others, but in the current climate, whereby we're lacking reviewers, I feel more inclined to offer more of an opinion than just "comments". The Rambling Man (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm actually kind of surprised that TRM promoted the Green Bay list judging by the Nomination page it only had 2 supports one of which was weak, Not to mention 3 of the reviewers didn't comment regarding their disposition one of which was TRM, it might be down to a change in standards but by today's it might not be promoted due to lack of interest. Afro (Talk)
- That list was passed in 2008, when reviewers weren't paying close attention to forky lists. It probably wouldn't pass today, which is what matters. Also, the main Hall of Fame inductees list isn't overly long to me, and it does allow the option of sorting by team. It's not perfect because many players were on multiple teams, but that information is present in the main list. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 00:05, 17 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Response - List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees lists all of the members of the Hall of Fame, which has hundred of inductees, while this list devotes a separate space for the franchise with the most members, the Chicago Bears. This list details only Chicago Bears members and allows people to access their favorite team if they wanted to see who is in the HOF instead of having to look through a huge list of all members. Also, the franchise with the second most members is a FA list so if this list is an "unnecessary fork" would that not apply for the other list as well? Happyman22 (talk) 20:07, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose and suggest FLRC on the Packers list. Given that the general inductees page gets along fine (like the MLB HoF list) it doesn't really need subdivisions. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:14, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.