Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates

Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons edit

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. No further edits should be made to this page. The closing editor's comments were: 17 days, 4 support, 0 oppose. The objections against the list were dealt with, and consensus has been reached in order to Promote. Juhachi 10:37, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This list is a well archived record of all the professional seasons. It is modeled on Chicago Bears seasons which already a FL. Covers awards and has footnotes where needed. Buc 16:57, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; I probably need not point out the team season articles that aren't yet created. Hopefully no one sees that as a major issue. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 01:50, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • That was per PR feedback. Personally I diddn't see the piont but if users are inspired to create the entries, so be it. Buc 08:38, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • To pass this FLC, the articles will probably have to be created. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why?
          • I personally don't feel so, but a number of such lists have recently failed for not having the articles created, as it creates a plethora of red links. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 16:51, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So articles needs to be created just for the seak of turning the links in another article blue? Does this mean it doesn't even matter if the article says nothing more than "the Tampa Bay Buccaneers x season was there xth season. They finshed x-x" Buc 19:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Such creation has been going on since the conception of featured lists. Most articles remain as stubs, but I don't think it hurts to create them. -- Phoenix2 (talk, review) 05:34, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There really should be more to an article than just that one sentence over and over again. The 1976 season was far more notable than that, and so was 1979. DarkAudit 16:01, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tried but I think it's inevitable they'll be removed. Buc 15:53, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose for the exact reason Phoenix point out. We have opposed three out of four similar lists for that exact reason in the past (In the case of the vikings, the season had been created beforeheand). That's criterion 1. a) 1. "The list brings together a group of existing articles related by well-defined entry criteria." (my emphasis). Circeus 15:40, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Articles exists for just 3/31 seasons. That is less than 10% and hence oppose. I think articles for all seasons, atleast at stub level is required before bringing this back. For eg. FL status of Indian national cricket captains was reverted because there was 40% redlink items in the article.
    • Tried it today but they got deleted. Buc 20:06, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The problem is not with the request, it's with the articles you created, which DID fall within the "no context" criterion for speedy.Circeus 22:56, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion - when marking a year for SB, Conf champ, Div champ - please color the entire row instead of just one cell. makes it easy to identify the message.
    Kalyan 18:57, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: If you are interested in creating stubs for all seasons, I did so when I was working on getting New England Patriots seasons listed. If you want a model to follow, consider looking at any Pats season article between 1962-2004 or so. The minimum stub should probably have the infobox and a short prose section giving a rundown of the season. REAL short is OK, but infobox and text are needed. It only took me two or three days to complete that Pats stubbing; it goes quickly once you create the model and simply cut-and-paste the basic model, while changing each seasons data to correct. It really shouldn't be that hard.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 15:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Done (at last) Buc 17:16, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (as of now!): Some comments -
    1. Lead para is too small. needs more data.
    2. Pls avoid using single/two sentence paras. Paragraph should have atleast 4 lines.
    3. As requested earlier, i think the entire row should have uniform color so that we can easily identify the result of the season.
    4. Instead of the column "Awards", can we have a column termed - "Achievements" so that some entry can be made for each year. request feedback from others before implementing this (corollary to the statement - unless we have agreement, not fulfilling this comment won't stop a support vote)
    Kalyan 18:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

1.Keep in mind this is a list not an article. Also the team has a very short histor so there isn't really much to say.

2. There must be a rule of thumb regarding this. Anyone know what it is?

3. What like "Player x had a good season"? Sounds a bit POV Buc 20:32, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

      • SUPPORT: I think the article is in line with other FLs. However, i think the lead should also mention of the 1976 season (no-win season) along with the superbowls and the like. As much as the undefeated season is hard to achieve, a zero-win season is equally difficult to achieve.Kalyan 10:00, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/Tampa_Bay_Buccaneers_seasons&oldid=1080116086"