Talk:2009 All-Pro Team

SI All-Pro?
What about the 2009 All-Pro Team selected by Sports Illustrated? Should we add that here? --bender235 (talk) 21:27, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, it is just Peter Kings' Assocaited Press ballot. The three here are the ones who are done by polls or writers and/or playersBigmaninthebox (talk) 00:22, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I second the opinion of Bigmaninthebox. - Deejayk (talk) 19:00, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

SN All-pro
I put the offense in, the defense will be out tommorrow. The Ap team is due out the 15th of Jan and the PFWA next mondayBigmaninthebox (talk) 00:25, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Is AP-2 and SN-2 distinction necessary?
I question whether the "AP-2" and "SN-2" distinctions are necessary &mdash; the way the table is laid out, it is evident which are first and second team honorees. It seems to me, the AP and SN designations could be used for both first and second teams. However, before I make this change, I want to see if anyone has strong feelings to the contrary. If I don't get any persuasive objections, I'll make the change in a few days. Thanks! - Deejayk (talk) 20:25, 20 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it should stay the same way it is, there are a lot of years still to do, and I planned on doing them this off-season. But, the way the table was set up is the traditional way the NFL Record and Fact book did it. It is famliar to young and old readers alike. But I think too much editing (bolds, italics, columns), too much change will take away the familiarity of the table. We've had plenty of discussions on this already and it was already settled by consensus. However, I recognize that you ahve right to bring it up again. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:54, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand that the the entire All-Pro article effort is a work in progress, and I definitely appreciate the work you are doing to complete it. I recently created the 1969 article and so I know firsthand just how much effort is involved.  That said, I'm not sure I understand your argument.  As far as I can tell it boils down to "its the way we've always done it, so lets not change it".  With regard specifically to the SN-2 and AP-2 tags, can you explain what value these distinctions have?  It seems to me that with the table layout such as it is, the reader can tell at a glance whether a player is a first- or second-team selection &mdash; adding that information in the tag simply serves to clutter the table and add an unnecessary level of complexity.  If this has already been discussed elsewhere in WP, can you please point me to that conversation? &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 17:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Not interested in an argument. This was done is a time-tested way, either you agree of don't and vote accordingly. I disagree with you that and extra dash and a "2" add clutter. The boxes look very good. The value the distictions have is they make things a bit fmore clear, it gives a second "bit at the apple" to the table sinks in. It seems your philosophy is changes becaue you want it. As far as I can tell you want to change things just to change them, your arguments abotu "clutter, etc are not convincing.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:41, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to have an argument, and I apologize if I came off that way. I'm simply trying to gain an understanding of why things were done the way were done; quite frankly a response that boils down to "because that's the way they were done" doesn't help me much.  Your characterization that I simply want change for change's sake isn't constructive.  If I simply wanted to make change, I would just do it.  I'm making an honest effort to improve these articles, if you don't agree with my suggestions, that's fine, but base your arguments on the ideas themselves. &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 14:27, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I will take it back then, the part about change for changes sake, but I guess I was stung by the criticism that I was for the philisophy of "we';ve done it that way, so let's keep it that way". I am not in that camp. I am, however, in the case of the All-Pro teams to keep the tweaks minor, that's all. I would supprt Opiton 3, for example. Just not the restructure down below the big table. If italics are what the consensus thinks best, then I would support that, but of all the article on the ANFL the ones that need the lest work are the all-pros, imo, that's all. In this specific case, I don't see it as broken, but I will abide by what a consenssu thinks. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Idea to increase readabilty of information
I find the key information in this article (the player names) a bit hard to pick out visually. I would like to propose a change to somehow visually distinguish the name from the other elements (primarily the players' team). Here are a couple of possible options:

Does anyone else share my concerns for readability? If so, which of the proposed options best addresses the issue? Is there any WP standard for this type of situation? Please share your opinions! - Deejayk (talk) 21:39, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding two more options (#5 & #6). Please keep in mind that these two are fairly complex (perhaps hideously so in some case) as far as markup is concerned, which may make them overwhelming for some editors. - Deejayk (talk) 18:57, 22 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Again, I think the All-Pro tables are pretty clean, conicse, informative. I would vote for current state and would mildy support Option 3, with the team name in italics. I would strongly oppose all the others as less readable.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Can we agree that the most important piece of infomation in the tables is the player names? After all it is the player who is being honored, not his team or the publication which created the list.  If we agree that is the case, I would think that it would make sense to devise some strategy to highlight the names.  Do you disagree with that basic notion? &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We agree that name the the most important. That is why the name is listed first. But, as I said I vote for current state and would mildly support Option 3. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I would add that there are other articles, the All-Decade teams, for example, that use this general format. Matching these to those was a priority to have consistent, though not identical, look, so that readers go click to different articles and have the feel of some consistency.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I understand the desire for consistency, but my take would be that the same basic solution could be applied to all of the similar pages. &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 17:41, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate table style
I've been thinking about an alternative way to display this infomation, that might make it more readable and usable. The table below represents my first attempt at this. In the last three columns, "1" denotes first-team and "2" denotes second-team.

The main advantage I feel this presentation has is that it allows sorting, so a user can easily see exactly what each publication's team looks like. I also think that it does a better job of pointing out where the various teams are similar or dissimilar.

I'm not sure I like this as a replacement to the existing format, but perhaps in addition to it. Does anyone know if there is a precedent on WP to present the same data in more than one format on a page? Upon further reflection, I'm not sure what advantages the existing format provides over the new format shown here. I'd like to propose that this format be adopted in place of the existing format.

Please let me know what you think of this idea. &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 15:49, 28 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I stongly oppose this one.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:57, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please elaborate. On what grounds are you basing your opposition?  In my mind, the pros and cons of this alternative are:
 * Pros: user can sort the data, allows user to see (by sorting) which players made each team, makes it easy to spot differences among the various publications
 * Cons: takes up more vertical space (not as much data can be seen on a single screen), has been stated to differ from "NFL Record and Fact Book" format
 * What am I missing? &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 18:01, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It looks like a technical journal, not a wiki article. Look at he All-Pro teams, the All-Decade teams and tell me what is wrong with them. Something significant . . .your 1969 article looks good. It puts in a lot of info into a table. Honestly, I think you are trying to fix things that are not broken, and because there is someone who is opposed to it, it is now a challenge for you. I do not wish that to happen. I think tweaks here and there are fine, but the look of the article is good, the look of the all-decade articles is good, but this thing above is not readable to average people, IMO. The current format is very readable and we've had no real complaints, until now. Why now? What do you wish to improve on? Is this change for the sake of change? Is this a challenge>? WHy so gung-ho on THIS?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the input. I can see your argument.  I honestly don't have any issue with your dissent, I'm just trying to figure out the reasons behind it.  The only reason I'm working on this at all is to make the information more useful.  I thought of a way that I thought might advance that, and I put it out here.  I'm really trying not to be defensive, and I'm sorry if I've come off that way.  Why now?  Because I just happened upon these articles.  Why the urgency?  Because there are still 49 articles yet to be created, and it would be nice if we could collectively come to an agreement on any structural improvement before those articles are created, so that they wouldn't have to be re-done. &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 14:42, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation needed for Sporting News second-teams
The Sporting News articles linked in this article list only the first-team selections. A cursory search of the SN website didn't uncover any online article that contains this information. However the linked articles note that the January 18 edition of the magazine may contain the full lists. Can someone who has access to this edition confirm this and provide a citation? &mdash; Deejayk (talk) 17:17, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

A bigger problem with this article
"The 2009 All-Pro Team consists of National Football League (NFL) players named to the Associated Press (AP), Pro Football Writers Association (PFWA), and Sporting News All-Pro teams in the upcoming 2009 NFL season."

This is OR, creating a single entity that has no basis in fact. The NFL does not recognize any All-Pro teams (their official designation is, of course, the Pro Bowl). The NFL Record and Fact Book does list the various All-Pro lists, but they print the individual lists for each organization separately (i.e., separate lists for AP, SN, and PFWA), not as one cumulative list, and none of the awarding associations would agree with a cumulative definition, either. I see no valid justification for combining the lists, and think that the best way to avoid OR would be separate sections, one for each award. Samer (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I necessarily agree that this article (and the other articles in series) constitutes original research. Basically, this is simply a compilation of the various all-pro teams and everything is properly sourced (with the exception noted previously on this talk page) and noted. I don't see anything here that one would construe as "synthesis of published material that advances a position", which I would assume would be the basis for your argument.  I would oppose the remedy you suggest of splitting each group/publication's team into a separate section, as this would increase the length of the article without providing any real value. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 17:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)


 * "Advancing a position" is exactly what this does—it suggests something exists when in fact it does not. And length is not explicitly a criterion for getting things right. [And splitting things up would solve the problem of having to mention that All-Pro Team A doesn't select position X, etc.]


 * Can you explain exactly what or whose position you feel this article is advancing? I just don't really see it.  The article pretty clearly explains in the lead what the various organizations and publications are that name "All-Pro" teams, and each player is noted with which lists he appears on.  The only real argument I could see is with the name of the article itself, which could be construed to imply there is a single All-Pro team.  (I don't agree with that argument myself, but I could see it being advanced.)  If that's the case, then perhaps the series of articles could be renamed as "YYYY All-Pro Teams" or "YYYY NFL All-Pros" or even something like "List of players named as YYYY All-Pros".  If you feel that the distinction needs to be made more clearly than that, I still disagree that separate sections for each publication's team is the best remedy.  Point taken re: my "length" argument which was weak; I realize that article length is not a valid concern.  The real concern I was attempting to convey in a sloppy shorthand way is that there would be so much duplication amongst the lists that the page would become sort of repetitive and thus less useful.  If consensus emerges for your opinion that the page needs to be changed, then my preference would be to consider my previous suggestion of an alternate layout. &mdash; DeeJayK (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2010 (UTC)