Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers head coaches

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 20:19, 30 March 2008.

List of Green Bay Packers head coaches edit

I bring to the community another great list created by User:Jwalte04. Although, I feel this list meets all of the criteria, I will be glad to address any objections or receive any suggestions to further improve the list. Thank you for your time. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 21:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- Avoid links in the emboldened lead sentence per WP:LEAD#Bold title.
  - Done
- Images should not be forced to user-defined widths. As a preference, use the upright paramter for portraits. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Images for more information on this.
  - Done
- "(only one of his tenures was for a whole season)[3] " - this in parentheses is clumsy reading.
  - Done
- Don't think you need four paragraphs in the lead, merge the last couple at least.
  - Done
- Don't use small fonts as they prevent people who have visualisation problems enjoying the article.
  - Done
- What does the em-dash signify in the # column?
  - A: Ray (Scooter) McLean had two separate tenures as coach for the Packers. The # column signifies the running total on the amount of coaches the Packers have had. Thus Mr. McLean was counted only once, on his first tenure, and not the second time to ruin the count. Basically, he was coach two separate times, yet he still is only 1 out of the total of 15 coaches the Packers have had. Hope this answers, feel free to prod me more if you feel there is a better way of doing this.
    - I think that if I'm asking the question then I'm not likely to be the only one, so perhaps you should note it somewhere, maybe in the key, as to what it means? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Any ideas on how the best way to do this? I could add a note, but I think that would look weird. I could just remove the dash and leave it blank, which would kinda help. Any ideas? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, either you repeat the number and make it clear what the hash means (i.e. the chronological number of distinct coaches) or you don't have the hash number at all? The Rambling Man (talk) 18:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        How is this change and this change. Does that clear it up? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Are the coach awards referenced somewhere specific? I'd prefer to see them cited as references rather than hidden away somewhere in the general references.... The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done
That's about it for the moment. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:45, 20 March

2008 (UTC)

- I believe everything is Done, tell me if my changes work and if you have anything else for me :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:05, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support - my major concerns addressed. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments not related to the FLC by Bole2

Comment Should you really be using the done templates? FAC page says you shouldn't use them. Buc (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- In case you hadn't noticed Buc, this is the FLC page. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:54, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Are there difrent rules? Buc (talk) 17:33, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - Uh-huh. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Really - I mean no offense by this - who gives a crap? Does it really affect anything? I mean I'm all for following norms, but did using the Done templates really affect Wikipedia enough to comment about it on a FLC? I would suggest going and actually reviewing a list instead of making sure FLC's have proper formatting. That would serve Wikipedia better. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 18:43, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Seconded. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:48, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Template apprently take a while to load. No it doesn't really affect me it was just a heads up. Buc (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Notes and references should be in seperate sections, see here for an example. This allows for sourcing of footnotes. VegaDark (talk) 21:25, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reply I cant seem to figured out how to make this work correctly. Would you be able to provide a better example (preferably one that has more than one note, and where one note is used more than once)? Or I wouldnt be opposed to someone just fixing it. Either way thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 05:30, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, it took me quite a while to figure out how to do that, I'm not sure how to use the same note twice. Wikipedia:Footnote3 should have more info about how to do that. VegaDark (talk) 19:27, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I have chosen not to do this. First off, neither you nor I know how to do it. Secondly, the templates you pointed me to (Wikipedia:Footnote3) are decrepit. Thirdly, I cannot see any policy/guideline that says that this is how it should be, nor have I ever seen any article use this type of format. Lastly, I dont see the need for this. Footnotes are footnotes, as long as someone can find them easily (which they can) then I feel they are fine. If someone knows how to do this correctly, feel free, but I have spent enough time trying to figure this out, and I do not feel that this inhibits the List whatsoever. Thanks for the comments though. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 04:37, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved comments from Matthew

Comments

Those under "References" should be under "Further Reading" or "External Links" WP:CS
- Are you sure? It's not that I mind changing it, I just have seen many, many lists use the References section as a general reference for everything that is not directly cited. I changed it, but I am pointing this out because most sports lists use this format. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, Wikipedia:CS#Further reading/External links says "All items used as sources in the article must be listed in the "References" or "Notes" section, and are usually not included in "Further reading" or "External links"." If they are being used as references then why not use inline refs? However, you may interpret it differently, and that's fine. It's not enough for me to oppose. -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:41, 27 March, 2008
    - How bout I change the header to "General references?" I've just seen many sports lists, where a certain source includes basically the whole list, so there is very little need to cite the ref in-line. Thus people create a Footnotes section for information that is likely to be challenged or needs clarifying, and then also placing a general reference section where someone can go and verify the list. I really dont mind what it is called though :-) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:48, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      - Me either. I'll let you pick :) -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:54, 27 March, 2008
        I chose "General references." Is there anything else I can do to improve the list? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think so. Other people covered most of the things.-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:03, 27 March, 2008
JT-SW.com looks like a WP:FANSITE, and hickoksports is full of popups, and naked-girl ads. I'm not sure it qualifies as an RS.
- Removed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) 19:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

-- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 19:04, 27 March, 2008

Support -- ṃ•α•Ł•ṭ•ʰ•Ə•Щ• @ 20:03, 27 March, 2008
Support Great list. GO PACK! (I'm from WI :)) Burningclean _[speak] 23:37, 29 March 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.