Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings seasons/archive1

The following is an archived discussion of a featured list removal 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 kept by The Rambling Man 10:19, 15 August 2009 [1].

---

List of Minnesota Vikings seasons

• Featured list removal candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings seasons/archive1

Notified: WikiProject National Football League, Minnesota Vikings subproject, and RyguyMN

I don't think this list meets FLC #2 or #5. All refs are just for the stats in the table and the lead is too short. BUC (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree. See List of New York Giants seasons for an example of an NFL seasons FL that meets standards. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Remove – Much work is needed for this to meet modern FL standards.

• The lead is too short. It should be at least two larger paragraphs, and many recent sports season FLs have three or more.
• In addition to needing expansion, the lead shouldn't have a "This is a list of" beginning.
• If facts in the lead aren't covered by general references, they need inline citations.
• Sports E-cyclopedia is of questionable reliability.
• In the table, I see an overuse of bolding. It wasn't discouraged when I worked the Giants list to FL status, but it is now.
• A photo for the lead would be nice. Several season FLs use a photo of the team's stadium. Giants2008 (17-14) 00:16, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

As a Vikings fan, I would be sad to see this get de-listed. I know it doesn't meet the criteria now, but if y'all can give me a couple of days, I may be able to bump it up to current standards. If not, let me know and I'll take care of it after a de-list and we'll go through the whole rigamarole again. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:37, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I've made some improvements now relating to this list and have a checklist of things that still need to be done. I will check back in here when I've made further changes. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

KV5, as you're making concerted efforts to save this from delisting, if you continue to do so then I will happily keep the nomination open for a while longer. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Further improvements have been made. Not done fully to standards yet, but much improved from the condition at the beginning of the review. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Leaning keep, see below.

• The footnotes need references.
• Em dashes in the blank cells please.
• I don't think the note above the key is necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

All were on my checklist except for the em-dashes. Really necessary in blank note cells? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:45, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for consistency's sake. I put them in using WikiEd, so that will save you some time. Dabomb87 (talk) 16:53, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

A tip of the cap. Many thanks. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 16:45, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

*Delist from me... "NFC" is used as an abbreviation before the full expanded version. It is? NFC was shown as an abbrev. in the first sentence. I did go back and re-word a little to see if it could be made clearer. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Once we abbreviate something, e.g. National Football League, shouldn't we use the abbreviation from thereon? You have "National Football League's 14th ..." after abbreviating to NFL. Done that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) "Since the Vikings began play, ..." very colloquial, dare I say completely AmEng, isolating a number of non-US readers? We don't have anything of this type in BritEng. Changed that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) "...good for a .154 winning percentage...." again, "good for a..." - state the facts, i.e. that it equated to a .154 winning percentage. Done that. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) Not keen on the "easter egg" style year links in the lead. Perhaps instead of just linking to 1962, say "1962 season" etc? Removed them; those templates are handy for tables but I don't like them in prose. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:40, 21 July 2009 (UTC) "With an overtime loss to the Atlanta Falcons, the Vikings became the first 15–1 team in NFL history not to reach the Super Bowl." I imagine this is cited somewhere? Awards section has lots of abbreviations which need a key e.g. COY, PBMVP etc. Footnotes are unreferenced. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Like I said, I haven't had a chance to go over everything yet. My major concern was to get it looking passably like an FL again before I nitpicked it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:07, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

And like I said (!) as long as improvements are being made in a timely manner, there's no reason to close this FLRC. I'm now in the position where I can add my 1.2 pence to these FLRCs as User:iMatthew will be closing them for the next couple of weeks. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:10, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. I'll probably get to some of these tomorrow evening. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:11, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Inlines are still needed in certain spots in the lead. I'm always avaliable to help if necessary. Giants2008 (17–14) 23:12, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know... I just started working on this a couple of days ago. I'll get to it. Help is certainly welcome. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Lead looks much better on the cite front. The one thing I would like to see cited is the Vikings' ranking in division titles. Footnotes still needs sources, but you probably knew that already. Giants2008 (17–14) 21:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Notes are cited now, but Crzycheetah is right in saying that the awards need sourcing. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

• The image needs alt text. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Comment Would it be possible to make the table sortable, as in List of New York Giants seasons? Dabomb87 (talk) 20:15, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

• Issues
  • The table can and should become sortable
  • A key is needed for the awards
  • Refs are needed for the awards, as well.
  • The "Super Bowl champions" box before the table should be removed since the Vikings never became champions.

--Crzycheetah 01:02, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Update from KV5

• I am working on finding sourcing for all of the awards. I don't agree with making the table sortable; I think that it detracts from the visual appeal of the list by not having the summation cells below the columns that they add (no offense to your layout, Giants2008). I have commented out the Super Bowl Champions row in the key so that the formatting can be retained if (when? I hope?) the Vikings do win a SB. Everything else is (I think) done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
  • I have to nitpick here a little. Could you use the same symbols to represent different championships as in the Giants and the Bears lists? Out of all 32 lists, only Giants, Bears, and now Vikings use symbols, so I'd like to see the same symbols and colors used.--Crzycheetah 05:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
    • Well, I won't change to two single daggers instead of the double dagger for the Super Bowl champions (which isn't currently shown) because it's an improper use of the symbol. The reason I used the system I used is contained in Footnote, although I'll admit it's not completely in order. I chose not to use the double vert because some people may think it's a typo of extra pipes and remove it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:33, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
      • I really dislike the use of "¶", to me it has a very different meaning than just an indicator. Also, it's very hard to type "c and some people need to type that when they use ctrl+f to find the championships quicker or just count the championships.--Crzycheetah 06:12, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
        • Agree. It's like using the copyright symbol. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)
          • It's hard to type daggers and currency symbols too; in that case, copy and paste is usually used. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
            • Maybe we need to change the dagger and the section sign also? And just use subscripted letters?--Crzycheetah 04:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
              • I suppose that's a possibility, though it likely negates the ability to use "Find" to get to championships. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) I think this is becoming too complicated. Here's my opinion: a) we should strive to be consistent within a "series" of articles, within reason; b) I don't see why we should use a symbol that has a very strong connotation already (e.g. the paragraph symbol or the copyright symbol) when there are plenty of other symbols that can be used (^, for instance). Dabomb87 (talk) 15:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. I don't think we need to follow what the Wikipedia article tells us. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:09, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

We might not have to, but if there's an established system, why not use it? The dagger symbol has other connotations outside of being a footnote or indicator, but we use that too. A lot of the symbols readily available on a keyboard are, in my opinion, ugly. I don't really have anything against the carrot, but when people start using the # and the @ and the & and the % to indicate things... it goes on and on and starts to look quite disjointed. Then we're sacrificing the visual appeal criterion for the sake of simplicity. I wish we could use tooltips for these things but, unfortunately, the MOS doesn't allow us to use the full capabilities of an electronic encyclopedia simply because it could be paper, even though it's not. That's a different argument, I suppose.</rant> KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:35, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Is there anything to the claim on the talk page that the divisional title count is wrong? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea; I'd have to do some research. I haven't had this page on my watchlist for more than two weeks, and that discussion is about 8 months old so I hadn't seen it until now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, that was quick. The claim is wrong. The Bears and Packers both had many division titles before the Vikings existed, which is where the extra numbers come from. The NFL first had divisions, then conferences, then both, which accounts for the "non-division" years at the beginning of the Vikings table. See FL List of Chicago Bears seasons for more details. However, the Packers only have 13 titles, not 19, so that has been corrected. Also, the lead had not been updated after the 2008 season (just the table), so they are now tied with the Bears' 17 division titles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Vikings' division title rank could use a source, as I said above. I seem to remember some team in Texas that has won a bunch. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll get there; I've been away for a week and have only had time to do minor work. This doesn't involve the hated team in Dallas because they aren't in this division. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Comment Can we use more specific links in the table? For example, "Lost Wild Card Playoffs (Eagles) 26–14" in 2008 would be pipe-linked to NFL playoffs, 2008–09#Wild Card playoffs. Also, why is "Playoffs" capitalized? Dabomb87 (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why playoffs is capitalized. I also don't know why I volunteer for these things... article rescue isn't my forte. I'll see what I can do. Should I un-cap all occurrences of playoff? Should I un-cap all of the pipelinks (i.e., "divisional playoffs" instead of "Divisional Playoffs")? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:40, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

After searching through several sources and going through Wikipedia's articles, it seems I was in the wrong, so I restored the caps. Dabomb87 (talk) 19:29, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

I've been adding some cites for awards here and there to help the process along, and plan to continue doing so. It's getting there. Giants2008 (17–14) 15:39, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Awards are all sourced. Giants2008 (17–14) 22:37, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

The "conference champion" color does not have a symbol. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:05, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

It did, but someone removed the pilcrows (I don't know who). Since they were taken out, and since there was some minor controversy over it before, I replaced it with a different symbol. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• Keep Excellent efforts by KV5 and Giants2008 to bring this back to FL standard. Dabomb87 (talk) 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
• Keep KV5, you were the one who removed that pilcrow. Anyway, all looks good, I just think that all season pages need to have the same symbols for each championship. That can be taken care of later, though.--Crzycheetah 01:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Eh... I removed it? How? When? Meh... fixed now. Regardless, thanks for your support. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:10, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

From August 1 to August 3, during your 8 edit spree, it got deleted somehow.--Crzycheetah 02:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Facepalm. OK. My b. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• Huge commendable work by Killervogel5 and Dabomb87 to get this up to FL standered. A few things I have to nitpick, why is the stadium refered to as "H.H.H. Metrodome" rarther than it's full name? I find it a bit odd that Gary Anderson is mention in the lead when talking about Viking history, and players like say Fran Tarkenton, Cris Carter and Alan Page, are not. About 80-90% of the refs are Pro-Football-Reference.com, I think that's too many from one source, why not just make it a general ref. The NFL champions and Conference champions colours are a bit pale. Why not mention Jim Marshall's wrong way run in the footnotes. BUC (talk) 07:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• The color scheme is identical to the other FLs. The reason PFR isn't a general reference is because they don't all go to the same source. That's what this list was before it was improved, and to return it to a general reference would be a big step back. The reason Anderson is mentioned in the lead and not Carter, Page, etc., is because Anderson, in a big way, caused the team to miss the Super Bowl, which would have been their first. The others are great players, to be sure, but this isn't a list of players; it's a list of seasons. I will fix the reference to the stadium. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:39, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
• I hardly did anything; it was KV5 and Giants2008 who did most of the work. Dabomb87 (talk) 13:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.