Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks/archive1

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) 00:25, 21 April 2024 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks

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

• Featured list candidates/List of Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks/archive1

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This will be list #7 for me in this series and, provided all goes well, #27 in the series to be promoted. Nothing really different about this list, continues on using the same format as the other first-round pick lists that I've nominated. As always, I will do my best to response quickly to address any and all concerns that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• "where they've played their home games since" => "where they have played their home games since"
• I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together
• "The Titans used an addition first-round pick" => "The Titans used an additional first-round pick"
• On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"?
• That's it, I think. Great work once again!!!!! -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Thank you so much for the review @ChrisTheDude!

  • Example text – Fixed
  • I would merge the two short paragraphs at the end of the lead together – I'm torn on this. These paragraphs are broken up the same way in the other lists that I've worked on and I'd like them to be consistent.
  • Example text – Done.
  • On that note, there's only one pick listed for 1966 in the table, so why was it "additional"? – It's meant to continue off of the point of the previous sentence, in that, a first-round selection that was chosen by the team actually chose to sign elsewhere. I've added a couple commas that I hope make this slightly clearer.

  Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • On the last point, I would simplify it to "The team's first-round pick in 1966, Tommy Nobis, also chose to sign with the NFL instead". Currently the use of the word "additional" implies that they had more than one pick in 1966 (a "main" one and then an "additional" one - does that make sense?) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    That's much better wording, thank you for the suggestion @ChrisTheDude. Fixed now. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pseud 14

• The Titans compete in the National Football League (NFL) -- add the parenthetical after the full name, as it is used in many instances after
• The Titans have selected first overall twice, selecting John Matuszak in 1973 -- just a suggestion, so selected .. selecting doesn't sound repetitive, perhaps an alternate wording for either.
• That's all from me. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: Passed

• Images have alt text
• Images are appropriately licensed
• Images have captions and are relevant. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:22, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the feedback and review @Pseud 14! I've made the appropriate changes :) Hey man im josh (talk) 18:39, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Another great list. Pseud 14 (talk) 19:24, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DBC OlifanofmrTennant

Ref 48 lists SB nation and Gang Green Nation seperatly as publisher and work/website this is the only citation which does so. Additionally this seems to be a blog site. The about page is just a list of writers. SB nation is a blog hosting network so is this source reliable? Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 06:40, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @OlifanofmrTennant, I could have technically listed Gang Green Nation under Vox Media, but thought SB Nation was more appropriate. I did that because it quite clearly advertises itself as a subcommunity of SB Nation. As for the reliability of SB Nation and its subsites, it was discussed most recently here in 2023, and the result was no consensus. Despite it including "Blog" in its name, it's actually a widely used sports news site. Given what was being verified, and that it wasn't the only source used to help verify said fact, it should be an adequate source. Never the less, I've replaced it with two others. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up to make sure all feedback has been adequately addressed @OlifanofmrTennant. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 15:59, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gonzo_fan2007

• , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better?
• For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence
• he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means?
• joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead
• The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods.

That's all I got

• , who remained the owner until his death in 2013,, the commas make this a complicated sentence. Maybe mdashes or parentheses would work better? – I put a portion of that in brackets now, let me know what you think.
• For those two seasons, the team was known as the Tennessee Oilers, but changed its name to the Tennessee Titans for the 1999 season, when they moved into Adelphia Coliseum, now known as Nissan Stadium, where they have played their home games since. split this up, run-on sentence – Yeah, wow, is it ever, eh? I've made some changes, let me know if you think it's decent now.
• he was the team's territorial selection maybe a brief explanation of what this means? – I included an explanation of the territorial picks in the paragraph above that which I believe/hope is adequete. Let me know if it's not and I'll see what more I can do.
• joined the NFL instead -> joined the Chicago Bears of the NFL instead – Good suggestion, done.
• The notes in the 1965 and 2022 rows have periods at the end of the sentences, while the rest of the notes do not. Can you rephrase these two to not be two sentences and thus not have the periods. – I've used this format across all of the first-round picks. I've added full stops in cases where I didn't feel it flowed well to combine what were essentially two separate and unrelated notes. I'm not sure there's a good way to refactor these in a way that I could apply to all of the lists. I'm not opposed to utilizing a different format, I'd just prefer to do so in a way that can be applied across all of these articles.

Thanks so much for taking a look @

Gonzo fan2007! I very much appreciate the feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

Support, good job!

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply

]

• The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article.
• Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture.
• The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page.
• Likewise for
  Titans Ring of Honor
  .
• I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 (they were Houston when they made the trades). I know that humans who have changed their names are referred to by the current one throughout an article, but I don't remember seeing that for an organisation, and articles such as 1960 Houston Oilers season use the name from that time.
• Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks"
• allowed them to select a single player within a designated region and teams were allowed to select a single player from a designated region Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity?
• Tennessee loaned quarterback Jacky Lee to the Denver Broncos (for the 1964 and 1965 seasons) in exchange for their 1965 first-round selection (No. 2 overall), defensive tackle Bud McFadin, and cash. The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• The picture of Earl Campbell is rather blurry. There's a clearer one on his article. – Yeah I went back and forth on which to include. I do think you're right that it's better to use that one. Switched.
• Typo on "running back" immediately after that picture. – That's embarrassing. Fixed.
• The first mention of retired numbers could link to that section of the Titans' page. – I've added some links.
• Likewise for Titans Ring of Honor. – I've added some links.
• I don't know whether there's a Wikipedia convention for this, but I find it a bit counter-intuitive that the team are referred to as Tennessee in the trade notes from 1960-1996 – I get exactly where you're coming from on this. I've worked on 12 of these lists and I've internally battled about what fits best for other articles as well, such as the Cardinals and Patriots. I've approached it from the perspective of the reader, and from a point of view that we're referring to the team as a whole, not necessarily their name at the time. I'm open to rewriting these, but I'm not sure of the best way to do so while making it easy for readers to follow. Do you have any suggestions?
• Similarly, the table could be titled "Houston Oilers / Tennessee Titans first-round draft picks" – In that case we'd want to name all three names they'd gone by I imagine. I'd like to hear your answer to my above response before I implement this. I only want to wait because I'm considering how/if I should implement this change across all of the relevant pages I've worked on in this series.
• Did the Oilers make the selection themselves, or was is collectively decided by all eight owners? The source seems a little unclear, saying "they were unanimously agreed upon by the other teams" but also "Billy Cannon who was selected by the Houston Oilers with their territorial pick". Perhaps the article should reflect this ambiguity? – So, those are actually two separate statements. The idea is that each team got to select whatever player they wanted within their region before the next phase of the draft started. After that phase of the draft, the territorial selections, teams agreed upon the top 8 players at each position, which were then randomly assigned to teams. So each time agreed on who the best players were at positions and randomly got one. The only selection ACTUALLY made by any team during the 1960 AFL draft was their territorial selection, the rest were randomly assigned to them after sort of "tiers" were decided upon.
• The term "cash" seems a bit informal for an encyclopedia. Would recommend giving the exact amount, or else "an unspecified sum of money" if it's unknown. – I went based on the language that the Broncos used, but that's a fair criticism. I've changed it to "an unspecified sum of money".

Thank you for taking the time to review this nomination @Harper J. Cole:, I appreciate it! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light.
• With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames, but that doesn't work in this case. I can see four options.

1. The current style, with "Tennessee" used throughout.
2. Use "Tennessee", but add an explanatory note each time from 1960-96
3. Use "Tennessee", but add a single explanatory note, perhaps on the table title.
4. Use "Houston" for 1960-96.

Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole:

• With regard to the territorial picks, I'm still not entirely sure. The phrase "unanimously agreed upon" does appear to be referring to the regional picks rather than the general lottery that followed it. Still, the latter sentence is so explicit in saying that he was selected "by the Oilers" I can't object if you're personally satisfied. There don't seem to be any other reliable online sources to shed further light. – I'll mull this over a bit, look over what I might have stashed away in a folder of possibly useful bookmarks, and see if I can figure out some better wording.
• With regard to the trade notes, you can get around it for the Cardinals and Patriots by referring to them by their nicknames – I could use the nickname for the Cardinals and Patriots, but I'm trying to apply the same formatting and style to all of these lists that I've worked on. As you said though, this wouldn't work for this list (or the KC list).
• I think, if I were to go the route of changing the styling, I'd probably lean towards option 3. I do make the point of identifying that the team changed names in the lead, but I also recognize that adding a note can still improve the article and make things more clear than they currently are. I'll give this a bit of thought and send you a ping tomorrow for you to review.

Thanks again for taking the time on this! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole:

Current: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. To start the 1960 AFL draft, each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players, and repeated the process until all 53 roster spots were filled.

Proposed: The first AFL draft was held prior to the start of the 1960 season. The first round of the 1960 AFL draft was territorial selections. Each team received a "territorial pick" which allowed them to select a single player within a pre-agreed upon designated region (the team's "territory"). Teams then agreed on the top eight players at each position, who were subsequently assigned to teams by random draw, with each of the eight teams receiving one of those players. This process was repeated until all 53 roster spots were filled.

Do you think that's more clear, easy to digest, and understandable?

As for the table title, I think it'd be rather janky if I went with "Houston / Tennessee Oilers / Titans first-round picks". Do you think a note stating "Previously known as the Houston Oilers (1960–1996) and Tennessee Oilers (1997–1998)." next to the table title would be adequate? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Yes, I think both those are fine. That gives ample opportunities for readers to understand the situation, even if they skip over the intro and go straight to the table. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:49, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Harper J. Cole: All of the changes have been made. I think/hope I've addressed all of your helpful feedback. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:25, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh Thanks—Supported --Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoting. --PresN 20:25, 20 April 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.