Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/San Diego Chargers seasons

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
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 01:20, 21 February 2008.

San Diego Chargers seasons edit

Just had a PR. With the end of the NFL season this seems like a good time to nom. Buc (talk) 19:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved stuff from The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC) and User:Golbez[reply]
Comments from The Rambling Man (talk · contribs)

Oppose for now, some comments...

  • Consider wikilinking "head coach" in the lead to help non-experts.
  • " three major periods of continued success " - sounds tautological to me. either "three periods of continued success" or "three major periods of success".
  • "period of success" is then used three more times in the next four sentences, it reads pretty poorly.
    • However, this "The most recent ranges " needs work, the most what? You need to add something here, preferably not "period of success" but something with a similar meaning to improve the prose. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "AFL " - when you use American Football League the first time, put (AFL) after it to help the non-experts.
  • What's the difference between a "winning season" and winning "Division Championships"? It's not clear why you've distinguished between them.
    • Winning season is having more wins than losses. Division Championship is comming first in your division. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • "3rd " - third.
  • "period of failure " repeated also. Reads poorly.
  • "going 1-15 into..." this is jargon, needs explanation for non-expert readers, plus you need an en-dash there, not a hyphen.
    • What needs expaining exactly. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • What 1–15 means! You know, I know, but people who don't know American football won't! The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Re-phased Buc (talk) 21:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"They are as of 2008" missing comma or, better still, start "As of 2008, they are..."

  • "They are as of 2008, the only team to win AFC West on multiple occasions since the NFL restructure in 2002 when the division was reduced to four teams. They have also been conference champions six times but only once since the AFL-NFL merger in 1970. In their 48-year history, the Chargers have played 748 regular and post-season games and have appeared in the post-season fifteen times." all these claims need citation.
  • Reference [3] is unnecessary.
    • Someone asked why the NFL season were in bold. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It was me. That was when the column just contained years. The note is no longer needed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"Italicized numbers mean that the records are subject to change each week due to regular season or postseason games being played." but in the lead you say this is a list of seasons "completed" by the Chargers. One or the other.

    • Well the season is over now so both are true. Changed wording anyway. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*Why is that statement bulleted?

  • Why use small fonts above the table?
    • Why not? I think it looks better. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why though? People who have difficulty reading small fonts or awkward colouring should be considered. It doesn't add anything to the article. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine, but I really don't think it looks as good. Many existing FL have it like that. Buc (talk) 10:44, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The Rambling Man (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Which says "While these comparisons are not a conclusive test, they may form part of a cogent argument". Buc (talk) 15:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • And who's essence is that just because A exists, and B is like A, B should exist. So what if another FL has tiny fonts? It doesn't make it right. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:49, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • No but it gives a good indication of what the basic consensus is. Might take this up on the NFL wikipoject page after this nom is over. Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

*"Post Season Results" - why the capitalisation? Post-season results. *MVP should be wikilinked the first time it's used.

    • It is but I've added an appropriate link for the All-Star Game MVP. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Link Pro Bowl, and why is it in a set of parentheses on its own?
    • It is linked the first time it is used. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is Offensive Player of the Year wikilinked twice while Defensive Rookie of the Year isn't? Consistent wikilinking required.
  • Ties total column is blank, why?
    • Can't have ties in the post season. Buc (talk) 09:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • So add a zero and a footnote - not everyone who reads this article is an Amerian football expert and a blank cell is very uninformative. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:10, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fixed

*Reference [2] is just floating around, it should be "tied" to something. *Superbowl champions in the key but not used.

  • "1982 was a strike-shorten season " - shortened, presumably, and what strike?
  • "The strike of 1987 " - what strike? Link it for non-experts or expand the point.

That's it from me. Hope the comments help push the article to FL. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've struck out the comments I consider completed. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok all done now as far as I can tell. Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • All done as far as I can tell. Buc (talk) 10:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've done some cleanup; however, I have a question - do we really need all of the refs about seeding? What relevance does the seeding of the Steelers in the playoffs have to do with a list of the Chargers seasons? --Golbez (talk) 23:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It effected the Charger's seeding. Buc (talk) 15:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • But I don't see the Chargers' seeding mentioned anywhere... like, for example, 1992, where does it say the Chargers' seeding? Is this a common thing on lists of seasons? --Golbez (talk) 15:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Added the seed # in. Buc (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • But only in the footnotes? Is this needed information? --Golbez (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • Where should it be? Buc (talk) 20:08, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • Do other featured lists of seasons include the seeds, either in the table or the footnotes? It cannot only be in the footnotes, but then again I doubt it's needed in the table - people can click the article for the playoffs if they're really into seeding (which has no impact on the season, anyway). --Golbez (talk) 21:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                • I believe so. Don't do any harm to have them. Buc (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I disagree; they clog up the footnotes with irrelevant information and, as you can already see, beg questions from readers. I don't think the seed information is either needed or desired. --Golbez (talk) 21:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                    • How do they clog up the footnotes?Buc (talk) 19:05, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
                      • The reader comes across a footnote, which takes him to an irrelevant statement about seeding (Which had ZERO impact on the season), which annoys him. I say remove them. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • You've now got "In their 48-year history, the Chargers have played 748 regular and post-season games, and have appeared in the post-season fifteen times.[2]" in the lead. This makes the article inherently unstable and would need it to be updated for every single game. This is about seasons, not individual games so I think this should go.
    • Shouldn't "conference" in the lead be capitalised? Same for "division champions" - Division?
    • Link the Superbowl win in the lead to the appropriate Superbowl article.
    • Full stop required in the caption for the image of the stadium.
    • "and recorded the worst record of any Chargers team in 2000," - reads odd - there's only one Chargers team in 2000?
    • "postseason" should be hyphenated in English. Or post season, but be consistent.
    • "AFL-NFL Merger" split in the table isn't needed - it should be a footnote. It doesn't relate directly to changes in the franchise (as the other complete rows do).
      • It does because it effected the Chargers. Buc (talk) 21:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's it for now. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Usually in these articles, it's a list of the seasons *completed* by the team. For some reason, this doesn't have that. That would make it much less unstable. As for conference and division, I don't think so, no more than you would capitalize league. The Conference Championship might be capitalized, but not "conference champions", the same way you would capitalize "President of the United States" but not "The American president." All of this IMHO, of course. I agree that the AFL-NFL merger could be moved to a footnote. --Golbez (talk) 21:35, 10 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Okay, as well as some of the above, the article still remains problematic in these areas...
          • "postseason" or "post-season"
          • "Division Champions" or "Division champions"
          • "Conference Champions" or "Conference champions"
          • "seasons (a season with more wins than losses)" plural vs singular.
          • "Italicized numbers mean that the records are subject to change each week due to regular season or postseason games being played." - there aren't any? The Rambling Man (talk) 09:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
            • The season is over now. Buc (talk) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • And this article should only ever deal with completed seasons, as you've been told many times. Remove the sentence and keep this article stable. The Rambling Man (talk) 07:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
              • This is the way NFL season articles are done. Many are already FL. Buc (talk) 17:07, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ever crossed your mind that this may be a shortcoming of the other FL articles? You know it undermines the stability of the article so just stick with completed seasons. It makes perfect sense. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It seems most people don't agree with you and the general consensus it what matters, all other NFL season articles are done this way and it didn't stop them becoming FL. Buc (talk) 20:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Undoubtedly you're right Buc, as ever. The fact that this will stop me supporting is probably of little relevance to you, as is the time and effort I spend trying to explain to you how I think you can improve your articles. To be honest, I'm a little fed up of talking to a brick wall. Good luck in your endeavours. The Rambling Man (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm trying to implement these changes, Rambling Man, let me know if I've missed any. The only ones I disagreed on were capitalizing Division and Conference - they aren't proper nouns. --Golbez (talk) 16:56, 14 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's fine Golbez. I just wondered. Let me know if you think you're done with updating the article and I'll re-consider my position. Thanks for discussing it with me... The Rambling Man (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
          • I already did, which is why I asked "let me know if I've missed any." :) Thanks. --Golbez (talk) 16:45, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - much much better. I found a final post season so added a hyphen in so I think I can safely say I was a major contributor.... ;-) The Rambling Man (talk) 17:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support too! (I hope you don't mind, I struck out your initial oppose) --Golbez (talk) 17:27, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not at all. Shame it was so painful getting to this point. I'll hide the comments so this stands a chance of others popping by to look at it! If you object, feel free to revert. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'd like to suggest all NFL season articles, including throughs already at FL status be re-written like this. I'll look in to this more once this nom is over. And thanks to Gol for filling in while I was away. Buc (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Although it might be better to use an image of the players as the lead image. -- Scorpion0422 01:16, 21 February 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.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/San_Diego_Chargers_seasons&oldid=1126722152"