Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks/archive3

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 by PresN via FACBot (talk) 12:25, 12 February 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s):

aroace, 🐾) 23:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• "The franchise was founded in Decatur, Illinois, on September 20, 1920, and became professional on September 17, 1920, and moved to Chicago in 1921" => "The franchise was founded in Decatur, Illinois, on September 20, 1920, became professional on September 17, 1920, and moved to Chicago in 1921"
• "to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for their 2023 first-round selection (No. 10 overall) and 2024 fourth-round selection (No. yet to be determined)" => "to the Philadelphia Eagles in exchange for their 2023 first-round selection (No. 10 overall) and 2024 fourth-round selection (no. yet to be determined)"
• That's all I got!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:55, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@

aroace, 🐾) 17:35, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by RunningTiger123

• I tried to figure out how the team could become professional before it was even founded, but when I checked the sources, they said the franchise started on September 17 and there is no mention of September 20. Are better sources available to explain this?
• "8 Pro Bowls" – probably better to spell out eight (
  MOS:NUMERAL
  )
• 1974 and 2003 notes should not use periods for consistency
• Dick Harris and Joe Gray do not sort correctly

— RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, not a change to make now, but capitalization may need to change depending on this RFC (though I have no clue how that discussion's going to be closed). RunningTiger123 (talk) 01:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RunningTiger123: - I can't believe I didn't pick up on the bit about the club apparently turning professional three days BEFORE being formed. I'd be intrigued to know the answer..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done here, here and here. Apparently, according to bearswire.usatoday.com (that's been added as a reference) the franchise was founded and became professional on the same day, September 17, 1920. Thus, I've amended the information; and since the content was from the

aroace • 🐾) 02:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

To say "became professional" would indicate that the franchise had previously not been professional. If it was founded as a professional franchise then there is no need at all to state "and became professional" because it was never not professional -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like this was actually a mistake implemented into Chicago Bears, from which I copied that sentence from. The franchise was founded in 1919 and played a year of football before joining the league. At some point someone made a change to the main Chicago Bears page and changed 1919 to 1920 and I didn't notice when I transferred this. I'm kicking myself for it because I knew the Bears played a season outside of the pro league too. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So should this article in fact say that the franchise was founded in 1919 and became professional in 1920? Because as it stands the wording doesn't really make sense..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ChrisTheDude: That's exactly what it should state. I've tweaked the changes made at Chicago Bears and made changes at List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks to reflect this. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing that -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, this can sort of actually happen. A city is awarded a team and then the city determines who the owner will be and then the team takes a day or two to actually get registered. Unless you look at is "Unnamed team" was founded, and then had it's name chosen later on. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I believe all your concerns have been addressed @RunningTiger123. Thank you for taking the time to review the list, Tails and I very much appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support – RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:00, 31 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gonzo_fan2007

• No pick should be sorted so it falls at the beginning/end of the list. You can do this by writing out ''{{Sort|1=0|2=No pick}}'' in each cell
• You have plenty of room to write out the "positions" in the table. Maybe this is just a personal preference, but for me I like to have as much info in the table and as little need to look at a key as possible. That way, the position abbreviations key can just be removed.
• The "Season, Pick, Position, College" parts of the key should be removed. These are so self-explanatory that explanation is unneeded, or if absolutely necessary you could include a note. But honestly, we rarely explain column headers in a key in any other list, why this one?
• Recommend that you move Ref #20 from all the column headers to the table title (i.e. after "Chicago Bears first-round draft picks by season").
• Any reason not to drop more photos down the side of the table?
• The Bears have had a number of first round picks selected as Rookie of the Year. This should be added as a pertinent award for this type of list (you can see what I did at List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks). I would also add MVP award to the table, but that one is probably more a personal decision.
• Ref #76 hasn't been archived.
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:15, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  • No pick should be sorted so it falls at the beginning/end of the list. You can do this by writing out No pick in each cell – Does it not do that for you currently? No pick ends up at the top of the list, as if its value is 0 (for me personally). When I went to implement the sort template that you suggested I noticed it's attempting to add a Wikilink, which would be a redlink and unfortunately the sort template doesn't include a nolink parameter. Perhaps {{Date table sorting}} could work for this?

  • Did you user {{
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • {{Sort}} was giving me issues, but I implemented a bastardized version of {{sortname}} here that I think addresses your sorting concerns. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • You have plenty of room to write out the "positions" in the table. Maybe this is just a personal preference, but for me I like to have as much info in the table and as little need to look at a key as possible. That way, the position abbreviations key can just be removed. – There's room, but it's also probably better for smaller screens that we don't write it out fully. This has also just been the format I've followed on these lists, as most of them don't write the positions out fully in my experience.

  • The width of the column right now is restricted to the length of the word "Position", the citation link, and the sort arrows. That length is about the same length as most positions (
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • I've abbreviated the column and updated the key to reflect this update. I'm open to listing the positions by a non-abbreivated name, I think I'd just prefer that it be a change adopted across all of the first-round pick lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The "Season, Pick, Position, College" parts of the key should be removed. These are so self-explanatory that explanation is unneeded, or if absolutely necessary you could include a note. But honestly, we rarely explain column headers in a key in any other list, why this one? – That may be a fair point. I suppose my goal is always for readers who are unfamiliar with the subject to be able to read and understand a list at first glance. How strongly do you feel about this? I only ask because I'm considering whether it should be implemented across all of the relevant lists.

  • I mean, I don't feel strongly about anything really lol, I just think it is excessive and in most other lists I don't see it unless the we have to use acronyms or something that really needs to be explained.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Any thoughts on this one?
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

    @

    WP:ILIKEIT, so I've removed it. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:36, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

    ]

  • Recommend that you move Ref #20 from all the column headers to the table title (i.e. after "Chicago Bears first-round draft picks by season"). – I actually would like to not do this, as it would, in my opinion, imply that the notes column is also being verified by this reference. As it stands, I think it's clear that the notes column is not.

  • Fair enough.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • Any reason not to drop more photos down the side of the table? – Not particularly, I'll start looking for a few more good ones.

  • 👍
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • The Bears have had a number of first round picks selected as Rookie of the Year. This should be added as a pertinent award for this type of list (you can see what I did at List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks). I would also add MVP award to the table, but that one is probably more a personal decision. – My problem with this is evaluating which groups of voters/awarders should be used for this. I can see the argument for it though.

  • What I did was just link to
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • After giving it some thought, I'd prefer not to include this for consistency. As of now, it looks like List of Carolina Panthers first-round draft picks and List of Green Bay Packers first-round draft picks are the only two lists in Category:Lists of first-round draft picks by National Football League team that include this. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ref #76 hasn't been archived. – This was intentional actually. If I were to archive it now, then when I re-used the reference later in note AF, once comp picks have been awarded and the fourth-round pick can actually be specified, it would contain an older version of the source that didn't contain this information. I can get around this though actually by using one of the numerous sources that has reported on this.

  • Makes sense.
    « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
    ]

  • Replaced the reference now. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I'll start looking at the pictures and a different source for the 2024 No. 1 pick. I just wanted to get back to you quickly and thank you for looking over the list @

  Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:59, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

  I think I've responded to all the points that were awaiting a reply @

  Gonzo fan2007. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Support regarding the ROY award and the full write out of the positions, I think it would be good to have that discussion to see if consensus is that they should be added, with the default that it be left to a case-by-case basis if there isn't support to include them in all. Nice work.
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  That sounds like a good idea to me. I'd love for this series of lists to have some consistency to them. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 03:20, 12 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Closing note: This
  WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot
  goes through.