Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks/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 Dabomb87 16:54, 28 November 2009.

List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks

 * Nominator(s): – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I am nominating this for featured list because I believe that there is a lack of featured content covering the Minnesota Vikings and I have worked fairly hard to get this list to a standard comparable to that of List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks. All of the content of the list and the prose extracted thereof is suitably references, and I believe that the lead section introduces the content of the list effectively. Since the list is based on the list of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks, there should be no issue with the style or structure, and there are also images showing both a former starting QB and the current one. Information does not change from day to day, except to update the number of games started by the team's current starting QB, which only happens once a week during the football season. – PeeJay 00:30, 6 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment: main reference missing publisher info & access date— Chris! c / t 01:10, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – PeeJay 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

 Conditional Support from KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils )  – contingent on the resolution of the sorting issue below.


 * Comment from KV5 (yes, again)
 * Now that there is a statistical table, I think there should be some discussion of those statistics in the lead, and/or in the section containing that table, because the lead should be a summary of the list. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I've added a couple of paragraphs of discussion to the statistics table. Let me know if what I've added isn't what you were looking for. – PeeJay 01:10, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Great work. You make me proud to be a Vikings fan. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:15, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Aw, thanks man :) Not bad for a Brit, eh? Now I just need someone to teach me the tune to Skol, Vikings! – PeeJay 01:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment - 1) In the lead, it says "The club was founded by Minneapolis businessmen Bill Boyer, H. P. Skoglund and Max Winter in 1959..." - Only one of these is linked, yet I would assume that co-founding a pro football team is probably notable enough to have their own article. These two should probably be wikilinked. 2) "Starting" could be ambiguous to someone not familiar with football. There's no real explanation of what a "starting" quarterback is. Those of us familiar with the game know it means starting a game, but others may think it means starting a season, starting a half/quarter, or something else. A brief explanation might be nice. 3) I don't like how the list is set up. I scrolled down expecting to see a list of 28 players in chronological order of first appearance (with a section explaining exact seasons played, etc.) and instead there's a list of seasons with the QBs that played next to it. As is, I wouldn't call this article "List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks" so much as I would call it "List of Minnesota Vikings seasons by starting quarterback". I took a look through the other "starting quarterbacks" pages and see they all follow this format (including at least one FL), and I have to say I strongly disagree with the format that these pages are in. I think my solution rather than changing the whole thing around would be to keep that section, but before it add a list of each of the 28 quarterbacks by order of first appearance, along with appropriate notes. My philosophy is that you shouldn't have to work to figure out the actual 28 different QBs, they should just be right there in a chronological list rather than having to sift through every season and determine which ones are duplicates, etc. VegaDark (talk) 03:11, 9 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Replies
 * I don't see how this has anything to do with the quality of the list. I could link those names, but they would just be redlinks, and I don't know enough about those individuals to create decent articles about them at this time.
 * I've added a note and moved all three notes in the article to a single section between "See also" and "References".
 * I would rather not act on this until more people have commented. I have added a statistics section to the article, which lists every starting quarterback in his own row. It is currently in alphabetical order, but I could re-order it chronologically. The only problem with this would be that the players who had two spells with the franchise would only be listed at the point of their first spell. I'm also not too happy about the amount of statistical data in the table, but I added the stats that seemed most pertinent to a quarterback. Comments on this new table would be appreciated.
 * You may also notice that User:Gilliganfanatic has added a table with a season-by-season account of the Vikings' postseason starting quarterbacks. I'm not sure how this could be integrated with the other table(s), but I am certainly of the opinion that it should be. Again, more comments would be welcomed. – PeeJay 23:20, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) While it may not affect the quality of the list portion itself, it does effect the quality of the page as a whole, which we are to consider in FLC nominations. I would rather have them redlinks than unlinked. 2) Looks good 3) I would welcome more comments on this as well, although the new "statistics" table looks like it could satisfy this by simply adding a sortable column with 1-28 next to each QB in order of first appearance. VegaDark (talk) 22:37, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) OK, I've linked them. 2) Thanks. 3) I think that adding a column with 1-28 in it would be a bit confusing as readers might think that the numbers refer to the players' jersey numbers. I would much rather default sort the table by the date of the player's first appearance and then let readers sort by any other column should they so wish. – PeeJay 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Like Killervogel5, I like to wait a while for more comments before supporting (or opposing, for that matter). VegaDark (talk) 14:39, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Quick comments' - I didn't go through the article in depth, but the statistics table doesn't seem to have a key. Also the "Record" column of that table doesn't seem to sort correctly.  I am also curious about why the list should be limited to just starting quarterbacks.  The statistics table shows the record of each quarterback including games started and not started, so just a little piece of the team's QB story seems to be missing with the quarterbacks who played but never started a game.  An alternate approach, but maybe over complicated, would be to show the stats for each (starting) quarterback in for each season, and the current statistics table would serve as the totals. Rlendog (talk) 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The statistics table uses tooltips (see Template:tooltip) as a key. If you hover your cursor over the column header, an explanation of the abbreviation will appear.
 * I'm not sure how to fix the sorting of the "Record" column. Any suggestions would be appreciated.
 * It looks like the record column has been removed, which is fine, but to sort you could use the template, and sort based on a 4 digit number with one or more leading zeros and the number of wins. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Is the sort template really necessary now? The content of the "W", "L" and "T" columns is now purely numerical with no positive or negative symbols, so the sorting should work perfectly without the need for an extra template. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I could be wrong here, but in my experience, teams rarely substitute their quarterback during a game. It does happen, hence why we need to refer to "the starting quarterback" and not just "the quarterback", but changes would only occur if the player is injured or the team is so far ahead that they can afford to bring on their second-string QB. Either way, it is only really the starting QB who matters, which is why only the stats for the starting QBs have been included (although those stats include times when the player was brought on during the game).
 * The starting QB usually finishes the game, but not always. For example, the backup will enter the game in case of injury or a blowout.  So Fran Tarkenton played 177 games but only started 170.  Or Brooks Bollinger played 7 games but only started 1.  But if he didn't start that one game, he would have played 6 but started none, and wouldn't have made the list.  So I am suggesting that the QBs who only came in as substitutes should be included, at least in the master list. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but I don't agree with this. If the article was "List of Minnesota Vikings quarterbacks", then perhaps including all of the players who played at QB for the team would be appropriate, but this list and all others like it focus only on starting quarterbacks. The fact that the statistics cover all appearances is a bit of a peeve, but it's not worth breaking the custom over. – PeeJay 17:45, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just one more small point: how would you define a QB? If we're talking about anyone on this list, then that seems to include anyone who has ever made a pass for the Vikings whether they are a recognised QB or not. How would you suggest we filter the QBs from the FSs? – PeeJay 18:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good point. I am not sure whether or not there is a reliable source for who actually played QB.  I thought pro-football-reference would have that, but they only list who was a QB on the roster and who threw passes.  I still think the chart seems incomplete without including the players who played QB but didn't start.  And I realize the the list is titled "Starting QBs" and not just "QBs", which is the basic issue - why have a list that limits to just a subset of the Vikings' QB, rather than have a list that includes everyone.  But the answer may be that there are no RSes for everyone who played QB, just those that started there.  So I can support. Rlendog (talk) 01:36, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I think the approach you suggest would be too complicated, but please feel free to create an example list in your userspace so that we can see what your suggestion would look like. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * You are probably right. Rlendog (talk) 16:44, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Support – The hyphen work-around for the sorting is not ideal, but it is the best solution possible given the situation. Everything else looks fine.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Quick comment
 * "The Vikings are (plural) a member (singular)" - maybe it's just an ENGVAR issue (I'm in the UK), but this seems completely grammatically nonsensical to me..... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. – PeeJay 11:03, 18 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Support. Despite the lingering issues with the sorting of the rushing yards column, I feel this meets the criteria for FL. Let's hope somebody out there knows how to resolve this ongoing sort issue or Favre finishes the season with positive rushing yards.—NMajdan &bull;talk 17:49, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Comment I've asked to take a look at the table to see if he can get the negative number to sort properly. Dabomb87 (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
 * OK; so it seems there is no way to sort correctly with a minus sign. The question is now this: do we want the table to be typographically correct, and allow a slight sorting error; or do we want to the table to sort correctly, disregarding a slight typographical error? Dabomb87 (talk) 02:51, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Personally, I would prefer to have the table sort correctly. Most people wouldn't give two shits whether we use a hyphen or a minus sign (and to be honest, I find WP:DASH to be a bit restrictive anyway), so a hyphen should be fine IMO. – PeeJay 08:17, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Though I am a WP:DASH fanatic, I agree with that assessment. Dabomb87 (talk) 14:43, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I am also a stickler for WP:DASH, and I suppose I can live with it for the sake of sorting, and we'll just hope that Favre breaks a 4-yard run sometime later this season. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 15:07, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Y'all will be happy to know that I've fixed the sort issue. KV5  ( Talk  •  Phils ) 01:48, 28 November 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.