Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of National Football League stadiums

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

List of National Football League stadiums[edit]

Almost entirely the work of Pharos04 (talk · contribs), I just spiced it up by merging in information from two seemingly useless lists, those being the lists describing which of the 32 stadiums were indoor or outdoor. I also created a dynamic map template depciting all 32 stadiums as the lead image, I think it's good to go now. If this works, NBA and NHL lists are next. -Phoenix 20:24, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Looks good :-) However, a few minor problems:
    1. The references to Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League should indicate what the "1639" (and similar numbers) refers to (I'm guessing page number... just put "p1639" if that's the case).
      •  Not done just yet. All the references in question use {{Cite book}}, which, or so I thought, is formatted in a way that matches Harvard/something important style? -Phoenix
        • I don't think I explained myself clearly enough... the first reference reads "(1997) Total Football: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League, First Edition, 1639. ISBN 0-06-270170-3." If the 1639 refers to the page number of the information concerened, then it should read "p1639" or "page 1639". Tompw (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          •  Done now, thanks for clearing that up. -Phoenix 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    2. There's a lot of small text, which isn't good for those with inperfect vision. The "Miscellaneous-use stadiums" seems to be ALL small text, and I think this should be changed to normal text.
      •  Done, text was 85% in the tables, now 100%. -Phoenix
    3. The "Former stadiums" is the same. If you want to save space, then change the city names to a Orchard Park, NY format.
      •  Done, were you talking about the redirect in the second section? I fixed it. -- -Phoenix
        • What I meant was rather than having "Foxborough, Massachusetts", you can save space by having "Foxborough, MA" (piping the link to use the state's two letter abbreviation rather than the full name). I've done AFC East by way of an example. Tompw (talk) 09:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Although the section is called "Former stadiums", it states "The following is a list of current and former NFL stadiums." (bolding mine). I suggest a section title like "current and former stadiums by team".
The list is of good layout and well-referenced, so it will have my support once the above has been dealt with. Tompw (talk) 23:13, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for having a look at it. -Phoenix 01:15, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support now the above has been dealt with. Good work :-) Tompw (talk) 12:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose pending the following fixes:
    • Title "Miscellaneous use stadiums" is vague and misleading. Consider changing this to more accurately reflect what it is. Maybe "temporary NFL venues" or "irregular NFL stadiums" or something else. Neither of those is great either, but they are better than the current title.
      •  Done, I used a somewhat hybrid of your suggestion and went with "Temporary home stadiums". -Phoenix 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The caption on the link map clashes with the text on the lead. Maybe not on your screen, but it does on my screen and hurts readability.
      •  Done; earlier, I was using a widescreen so obviously there was no interference. I"m back on a normal 4:3 monitor now and I see the problem you mention. I removed it. -Phoenix 17:23, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Normally there is no requirement for leads to be inline-referenced. However, this one makes superlative claims with statistics. I think we need an inline reference to the source of those stats.
    • Also, the lead does not full summarize the article, since the merger of the two lists has created a sitution where there is not an accurate lead summarizing the second list. Perhaps a second lead for THAT list?
      • I'm not sure what I can put in here, I'll try to add some text as a mini-lead for the second list. -Phoenix 20:36, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If these fixes are made, consider my vote to me changed to support. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:42, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I know I keep doing this to you, Phoenix, but I was WP:BOLD and made the fixes myself. Does this look OK? Also, I noticed during my edits that the second list is entirely unreferenced. My sense is that this list is probably from a single reference somewhere, however unless we can find out where it comes from, I cannot change my vote to support.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:05, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Thanks for fixing it up. I added references for Lucas Oil and the new Cowboys stadia, because as far as I can see those are the only two new ones coming online. As for the rest of the list, I'll drop a line on Pharos04 since he was the creator of the list. -Phoenix 01:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
          • Or I could give an inline citation for every team to the history section of their official sites. There must be a way to convey that without having to add 32 citations. -Phoenix 02:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
            • The information has to be in one location. For example, I have a book on my bookshelf right now that has the complete stadium history of all 30 MLB teams. A similar book or website exists, and in all likelyhood was used to develop most of this list. A single inline cite in the lead is enough, with additional inline cites only for changes since the publication of this hypothetical source. If the original author of the list has the source, that is the best way to handle it.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
              • Found it. Took 30 seconds and a google search. See: pdf version and google cache HTML version. Just cite this one (probably the PDF version) in the lead sentance and cite any changes since this list in the individual entries.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:22, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                • Lovely, clearly your Google skills are better than mine. I cited it right under the reference heading under bold text "Source". -Phoenix 03:29, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                  • I cleaned up the reference a bit using cite templates. Now, since the file only covers until 2000, we need to add refs for all individual changes SINCE 2000. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:04, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
                    • Found a good ref for modern stadiums, made the changes based on that ref. Now all data should be referenced. YEAH. I support this one now.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Oppose: Looks pretty good, but it should have details about naming rights/eponyms. Things that I'd expect include length of naming rights deal, beginning, expiry, cost (if known). For stadiums without naming rights, it should mention who or what it is named after. Also, the map at the top crowds the lead on my computer, making there only be a few words on a line. Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 21:29, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • What resolution are you running? Any smaller and some of the tighter labels will no longer be legible.
    • This list is already pretty long, I wouldn't think things like naming rights and the origin of the name need to be included...clicking on the individual stadiums and getting that information isn't sufficient? If I added it, I'd probably want to add such information for all of the past stadiums, then we're dealing with a disgustingly long list. -Phoenix 00:52, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with the above. Naming rights is kind of esoteric, and that it is missing does not substantially detract from the article. There is a LOT of information about the stadiums that is not included, simply for space. The table is as complete as I would expect. I mean, what next: Number of Bathrooms? Ticket Prices? Simply because the information is true and verifiable does not mean its inclusion will improve the article. This one is as dense as it can get and still be usable and readable. I disagree that such a small issue should hold up this nomination.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:46, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's like list of Super Bowl champions, which I got featured for being just that. Since then, lots of extra information has been thrown in, perhaps slyly, because no references have been added. -Phoenix 05:23, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very good over all, but there are a number of wiki links that are used more than once throughout the list. --Pinkkeith 16:09, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, there are several, but not to the point that they need to be removed. They provide a kind of , if you catch my drift. -Phoenix 02:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. A very good start, but I feel it can be improved. I think the playing surface is more important to current than to historical stadiums. There definitely should be a surface column in the list of current stadiums; you may wish to remove it from the historical list. I'm sure you spent a lot of time getting the map to look right, but I still think the article would be better without it. Any map lacking dots will be confusing, and on my screen, Paul Brown Stadium shows up around Chicago for some reason. The two paragraphs on how dome teams fare in the playoffs are not necessary. If you're going to point out dome stadiums, you should also point out which stadiums have retractable domes. You mention the Cardinals franchise's pre-NFL names but don't have their pre-NFL stadiums; their pre-NFL names should be removed. Finally, I'm a bit troubled by the "temporary home stadiums" section. For one, it's misnamed -- these were not temporary homes but one-game relocations. I'm also concerned about the completeness of this list. I have trouble believing these were the only 11 examples of teams moving regular-season or playoff games. -- Mwalcoff 01:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Good lord. Forgive me, I'm not American and was thinking northern, instead of southern, Ohio for some reason when placing Cincinnati. I fixed that, and shifted several others. I'm running a resolution of 1280 by 1024 pixels on a standard 4:3 monitor and was doing so when I created it; so I suppose the map is optimized for that, a relatively high resolution. As for the time spent creating it, it took about 15 minutes, so I won't be shattered if it's removed. The two paragraphs concerning dome teams are in the lead because I merged two lists in prior to nomination. If I remove them the lead will be one sentence, and you, among others, will oppose for a short lead. I think they're relatively applicable. If not, what type of information would you like to see added? I'll add in shading, perhaps a light pink, on the current stadiums list for those with retractable roofs. That's all I'll deal with right now. -Phoenix 02:36, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • The list looks better, but remember that Reliant Stadium has a retractable roof, too. I personally won't oppose if the list lacks a large lead... I think the list is pretty self-explanatory. -- Mwalcoff 06:53, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • Forgot about Reliant's roof, I'll fix that. -Phoenix 18:10, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm  Done getting Image:NFL teams locations.PNG in there for the map, and it looks a heck of a lot better. Text is more legible, and there are dots, even depicting conference and division. -Phoenix 19:05, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cleaned up the lead a bit, adding more information to provide context, and tightening up the language a bit. There are some more fixes I caught:
    • For "Playing Surface", some of the artificial turfs are named by brand, and others are just called "turf". This seems inadequate, even with the footnote at the end.
    • The field surfaces in the top list are inconsistant with the field surfaces in the bottom list.
Happy editing! --Jayron32|talk|contribs 01:15, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you like to see the exact brand of turf listed in the table? -Phoenix 01:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Its just inconsistant. Either list them all as "artificial turf", or give the brand for all of them. As it is right now, the specific brand of turf is listed for some of them, and for others it is just listed as "turf" (which is also inadequate. Grass is "turf" too...) Also, we need to rectify the fact that the two lists do NOT agree on which stadiums use grass and which ones use artificial turf. It changes more often than you think, so it is easy to see how they the two lists could get out of sync. --Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I initially thought that when Pharos04 (talk · contribs · logs) did the list used the surface that the stadium had at its opening. -Phoenix 04:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Split?

You know, the more I think about it, the more it seems as though the merge isn't working for this list. What we REALLY have here is two lists. We have:

  • List of current NFL stadiums (the first section)
  • Chronology of home stadiums for current NFL teams (the last 2 sections)

They are tangentally related, but they don't really work well as one list. Maybe we should split them into 2 lists; each might be more suitible apart than the two are together. What does everyone else think?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 04:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Which list stays here as a candidate, though? I think they could be both be featured in time. -Phoenix 22:02, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you ask me, we should withdraw the nomination and then work the split and renominate the daughter articles as needed. The issue with the split is that most of this page is discussing the conjoined lists, and the split lists are more easily considered completely separate articlesl most of the above discussion really applies to trying to make the merged lists work better; the entire discussion then is not relating to the lists as separate entities. The lead and map should go with the first list (current stadiums); the second and third lists (history of stadiums) should get its own lead. At least, that's my opinion. I would like to see what others who have commented so far think about this proposal...--Jayron32|talk|contribs 03:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds good to me, we'll see if anyone else comments. -Phoenix 03:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose
    • There is no need for an horizontal ToC
    • Sorting the first list by capacity makes no sense since it's sortable. Just say "current stadium" instead (maybe mentioning that the initial sort is by capacity)
      •  Not done. There are lots of lists that still say "by whatever" even after the sortable script was implemented, probably because those that aren't running Java still see an unsortable list. In any event the "rank" column has them sorted by capacity, determining the title. -Phoenix 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The state flags are totally unnecessary.
  • Circeus 14:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In any event, I'm withdrawing the nomination per discussion above. In the future, both the lists split from this one will be nominated. -Phoenix 15:50, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_National_Football_League_stadiums&oldid=791875027"