Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Cleveland Browns seasons

Cleveland Browns seasons edit

This is a self-nominated and self-supported list documenting seasons completed by the Cleveland Browns. The list is based on other similar lists, notably Chicago Bears seasons and Minnesota Vikings seasons. It is properly formatted and and includes references and relevant footnotes. I believe the lead is sufficient and explains things that need to be explained. If anyone needs to fix or change anything, be bold about it. Support as creator. Wlmaltby3 00:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Support, looks fine to me; matches the others for quality and consistency. -Phoenix 02:12, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Watch your duplicate wikis, this needs to be cleaned up. Everything else looks great though! RyguyMN 05:50, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The other lists have similar duplicate wikis. I did it for consistency. Wlmaltby3 08:27, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ I think this is a case where the duplicate wikilinks are justified. Good work - I can see these becoming a Featured Topic. Tompw (talk) 11:00, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I disagree. It goes against Wikipedia guidlines. See WP:Manual_of_Style#Wikilinking. Redundant links clutter the list and make it difficult to read. Chicago Bears seasons and Minnesota Vikings seasons do not have redundant links and this should be consistent will all season articles. RyguyMN 19:26, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. I don't think you looked well enough. There are certainly plenty of redundant links of the Bears' seasons page. Wlmaltby3 19:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment. I don't think I was being clear enough. The playoff opponents have redundant links. The playoff games are fine because they refer to a specific year. ~~The Awards column looks great~~. Look at the playoff sections carefully on the Bears and Vikings pages. This is how it should be laid out. The table has some funky issues with borders going on as well. Still needs formatting work, but the information looks great otherwise. RyguyMN 22:18, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. ~~If you look at the 1985 season on the Bears' article, the playoffs are redundantly linked. I honestly don't know what you're looking at; they look like they're formatted the same exact way.~~ As for awards, I can't figure out any other way to organize it. I wanted to set it up so each individual award was listed, but it was too unwieldy. So any help to get that sorted out would be appreciated. The table formatting was my own idea, deciding to separate individual decades; that can be removed. Wlmaltby3 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment. I'm sorry, I misunderstood you. Now I understand what you're saying. The teams I've listed under the playoffs section are redundantly linked, not the games themselves. I'll take care of that problem. Sorry again. Wlmaltby3 23:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~ there should be an article per season. Tompw (talk) 20:37, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why did you support the Patriots article when it has the same problem then? Wlmaltby3 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Because I got confused. (I've withdrawn that support). Tompw (talk) 22:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Support Now redlinks are gone. Tompw (talk) 16:38, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. --Pinkkeith 15:44, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose All the team's individual seasons are redlinked. See the previous seasons list nominations. Also, the italics link at the top is improper (disambiguation is unnecessary here) it should be worked seamlessly within te lead.Circeus 19:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Why shouldn't it be there? It's the same way on all the other articles, I merely put it at the top instead of after the lead. Wlmaltby3 21:47, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Absolutely agree with Circeus' assessment. The italics should be tied with the lead. As it stands now, the list appears to be disambiguation. There is a growing trend of inconsistency with these latest season articles. Just follow the Bears and Vikings. RyguyMN 22:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - - Comment. So if I moved it down to the bottom like the others, would it be OK? I just figured it made more sense to put it at the top. Wlmaltby3 22:49, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've taken care of the problems with the duplicate/redundant links to the teams under the post-season header. I've also moved the link to the team's history after the lead, where it's located on the other articles. I've also gone through and created stub-class articles for all of the team's seasons (they'll be filled out later) to remove the red links. I think it's up-to-par now, aside from the awards heading. Any suggestions would be great. Wlmaltby3 02:11, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Comment. Wlmaltby, good job with the playoff team redundancy. The only thing now is redundancy with awards. The award receipent is fine, but the actual awards are redundant. I've given support, but I'm assuming this will be taken care off soon. RyguyMN 05:37, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment. The reason the awards are redundantly-linked is to differentiate which award the player actually won, as each award is awarded by several different organizations. If I just put "MVP", a reader wouldn't know if that was the MVP award awarded by AP or UPI. Thus the need for those redundancies. Like I said, I couldn't figure out another way to fill out the awards section at all, so any additional help would be great. Wlmaltby3 07:23, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Everything looks great now Wlmaltby3. Good job with the cleanup! Two thumbs up! RyguyMN 05:34, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Very well-done. The only thing I don't like is that the mix of colors in the columns is confusing -- I would use colors only in the post-season column. Otherwise, it's terrific. -- Mwalcoff 01:43, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The colors are consistent with all the other seasons lists and they're clearly labeled before the list even begins. Wlmaltby3 01:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, I would have opposed using different colors in the same row on the other lists as well... seems like overkill to me. Great list overall, though. -- Mwalcoff 06:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there a reason the team's NFL tenrue is divided into an Early Era and Modern Era? While it seems like a good idea, I do not really know if its relevant or not? --Happyman22 02:32, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I included it to merely serve as an indicator of the Super Bowl era and the NFL Championship era. Wlmaltby3 04:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Image in the front is not being used as the described fair use. It's being used as mere decoration, which is against the fair use criteria.++aviper2k7++ 03:08, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I removed the image. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 21:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]