Talk:Chicago Bears

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Featured article star Chicago Bears is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.
This article is part of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Peer review Chicago Bears has undergone multiple peer reviews by Wikipedia editors which are now archived. These may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This Everydaylife article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Contents

[edit] Improvement drive

National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested in contributing.--Fenice 20:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 1919 season

If we are going to include the 1919 season, we need specific sources cited so they can be verified by others. Based on these postings at the nflhistory.net forum [1], there are hard to get. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Including the Decatur Staleys' 1919 season as part of their won-lost chronology would be a like including the Sioux City records of 1893-94 and the St. Paul records of 1895-99 with the Chicago White Sox's history, or including the Arizona Cardinals ("Chicago Athletic Club") records going back to 1898. The NFL (initially called the APFA) dates itself from 9/17/1920, when the league was formally organized amongst what were previously semi-pro clubs playing whenever they felt like it. Anything before the 1920 season is worth a mention historically, but doesn't count as part of the team's won-lost chronology. Wahkeenah 00:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
    • That is exactly why I reverted the edit by an anonymous user [2]. 1919 was still during the period when professional football was in a state of flux and confusion, and thus almost everything during that time is essentially unofficial and hard to verify. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More Information, Please

This article just seems tremendously sparse considering the long history of this organization.

Thank you for your suggestion! When you feel an article needs improvement, please feel free to make whatever changes you feel are needed. Wikipedia is a wiki, so anyone can edit any article by simply following the Edit this page link at the top. You don't even need to log in! (Although there are some reasons why you might like to...) The Wikipedia community encourages you to be bold. Don't worry too much about making honest mistakes—they're likely to be found and corrected quickly. If you're not sure how editing works, check out how to edit a page, or use out the sandbox to try out your editing skills. New contributors are always welcome. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

There should probably be a section on the 2001 season . . . anybody have enough knowledge to do so? This whole article needs to be re-organized. The first paragraph goes from their founding to 1985. What's up with that? Maybe it should be broken up into sections decade-by-decade. Anybody have the time or inclination to do so? We have to make this page far superior to the Packer's page. Come on! 65.204.127.98, 17:35, 21 December 2005

  • Fortunately, that shouldn't be too difficult. That reminds me...
    • Q: What do you get when you have a capacity crowd at Lambeau Field?
    • A: One full set of teeth.

Wahkeenah 00:17, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Nice!  :)


Unfortunately, the content by 65.204.127.98 (talk • contribs) was lifted directly from the Bears' official website, so I had to revert to the last edit before the copyrighted content was added. ErikNY 15:23, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Silly me, I thought 65.204.127.98 was going to actually write something rather than copy-and-paste it. No Bears fan would do that. It must have been a Packers fan. That's the last time I'll give someone unqualified encouragement. >:( Wahkeenah 15:32, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
    • No wonder it looked familiar... Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:30, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
      • I did not realize that is was a copyvio when I split some of that material to that new Bears-Packers article, so I nuked it. [3] [4]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:33, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
        • Good move. :) Wahkeenah 20:41, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Apparently you've never heard of paraphrasing (few sentences were lifted directly). Naturally the information was gleaned elsewhere, as I do not have eighty years of Bears history memorized verbatum. That's why there's a "sources" section with external links. —the preceding unsigned comment is by 65.204.127.98 (talk • contribs)

  • "Paraphrasing" does not consist of copying-and-pasting the text and changing a synonym here and there. Your "uh-oh!" deletion of the footnote in the Bears-Packers article is what gave you away, son. Shame! Wahkeenah 19:58, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Season-By-Season

I believe that the Season-by-season records should be placed alone in the team history article since the team article should be a summary of each section about the team. I think that the current football season should be placed with the Franchise History section of a team article. --Happyman22 17:50, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

  • So what are your feelings when the current season ends? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:37, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
  • And I assume that you also object having one continuous table that all of the other NFL team articles, and all of the NHL team articles, have. And so others like me will have a harder time noticing different trends and stats (like noticing how the Bears made the playoffs 8 out of 11 times between 1984 and 1994) other than the arbitrary division by decade. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:47, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

--All I was saying that since team histories are divided up decades it would make more sense to have the records for that decade together, but if you want to divide the history up some other way such as critical eras in team history that would be fine. I do not object to a continuous season-by-season standings. The objection is that it is way too long to have a whole section dedicated to 85 years of standings without any historical text to go along with it. It would not be appealing to readers and it would never get any NFL team article to be featured on Wikipedia. --Happyman22 03:16, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

  • You're right on that point. I will admit that I have not been a very big fan of the season-by-season tables since September anyway. I started working on them for teams that were younger than 1960, but then I realized how long they were going to be for teams older than 1960 ... but someone else decided to work on them anyway. And then I noticed that they were not being evenly updated ... somebody would update the table right away for a popular team like the Patriots but the Cardinals' table would never be updated for almost a week. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:45, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
  • So what are your feelings NOW that the Bears 2005 season ended with the playoff loss to the Panthers? Should the 2005 season still be on this article? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Now that the season is over the 2005 season moves to the franchise history, and next year around september the 2006 season would be introduced. --Happyman22 17:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA

I reviewed this article and determined it fit the criteria for a "Good article". One problem I saw was that some of the adjectives, such as 'awe-inspiring', come pretty close to POV. ike9898 16:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

  • iirc, one of the criterion for GA is in fact maintaining a neutral point of view. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bears-Packers

I think it should be time to start a Bears-Packers article about their historic rivalry. Any comments? --Happyman22 02:42, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

  • Seems to me there might have been one awhile back, and it got zapped because someone plagiarized the entire thing from another website. Wahkeenah 23:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I personally would rather that this section did not appear on an NFL team page but I did notice a section on the Minnesota Vikings article that was similar about the boat cruise. I think we should consider removing this type of tabloid content from all team pages, it just doesn't seem appropriate for a team article. --Ortega 07:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

  • It is appropriate, if it affects the current team. The infamous Lake Minnetonka cruise certainly affected the Vikings last year. I would leave it there for awhile as part of the "current events" of a team and ultimately delete it, unless it has some truly profound long-term impact, such as the team deciding to move to Tijuana because of it, or some such thing. Wahkeenah 23:37, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
    • This article is currently on peer review, asking advice about how to get it to featured article status. Knowing the culture on FAC, voters tend to be reluctant on tabloid current events. Therefore, I suggest that if we are going to keep it, the content should be moved to History of the Chicago Bears. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 00:47, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • I confess I've read nothing about it. The Lake Minnetonka cruise was a major story that shook the team and the city, much more than the individual outrageous antics of Randy Moss, for example. So, the question is, does the current Bears story come anywhere close to rising to the importance of the Vikings story last year? If not, it doesn't really belong in the summary article. Wahkeenah 01:22, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Now that I've looked at it, I don't think it belongs. It's one player getting himself into trouble. Big deal. Wahkeenah 01:26, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
    • I like your idea about moving it to the Chicago Bears history page. I would like to suggest setting up a similar page for the Vikings if it does not already exist and move the boat cruise article there for consistency. Ortega 08:27, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
      • Especially now that the cruise story is not much of a "current event" any more. Wahkeenah 12:46, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Some things that need to be changed on the main article

  • Expansion of history section to include key players
  • Expansion of the uniform section
  • More indepth information about the stadium (maybe more about the old stadiums?)
  • Expansion of popular culture section

Any more suggestions? Please help us edit this article so it can reach feature status. Thanks, --Happyman22 22:03, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article

Compared to the New England Patriots article, I think this article is slightly more informative in terms of all aspects of the Bears. However, this is also a negative in that some FA voters may find the information to be somewhat in excess. The prose of the two articles is about even; both are fairly well-written and generally in the limits of 2a. I think the major issue at hand is that the ownership section may need to be merged with the history to give it a sense of an organized, chronological order. You may also want to merge the logo and uniforms sections. — Deckiller 03:28, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Is the article FA ready yet? --Happyman22 22:33, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I also really, really like the statistics section, which is quite diffiuclt to merge with the history section, as it contains all-time stats. For the Patriots, we just used an external link to the statistics, which seemed to meet with approval. However, there shouldn't be any objections for including the section for this article. — Deckiller 22:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Why does the article refer to the "Northern Division". It's not a name for the NFC North I've come across anywhere before; a quick look at nfl.com suggests they're calling the division by its normal name. Is it a mistake or an alternative name?

[edit] Output of the peerreviewer script, testing WP guideline compliance

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.[1]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.[2]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a non-breaking space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.[3]
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, please spell out source units of measurements in text; for example, "the Moon is 380,000 kilometres (240,000 mi) from Earth.[4]
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:BTW, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.[5]
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Please alphabetize the interlanguage links.[6]
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Temporal terms like “over the years”, “currently”, “now”, and “from time to time” often are too vague to be useful, but occasionally may be helpful. “I am now using a semi-bot to generate your peer review.”
  • As is done in WP:FOOTNOTE, for footnotes, the footnote should be located right after the punctuation mark, such that there is no space inbetween. For example, change blah blah [2]. to blah blah.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that the it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 2a. [7]

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Wim van Dorst (Talk) 22:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Notable Player Section?

Can we get one together for this article? BIG Tuna 23:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

iirc, it was here but was moved to List of Chicago Bears players. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:59, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

LOL, yeah i just found that "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Chicago_Bears_players" do you think it should be merged since other NFL club pages have thier notable players on the same page? BIG Tuna 00:00, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I believe that all other NFL club pages should have a separate page for notable players because the list can get too long --Happyman22 15:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bronco Nagurksi

Why is his nationality listed as Canadian? I know he was born in Canada but he lived the vast majority of his life in the USA. Did he never get American citizenship? Why is nationality listed anyway? How many foreign nationals (not immigrant Americans) have been great NFL players over the years?

[edit] Honey Bears

DA BEARS used to have cheerleaders, you know? However, I'm not sure about the exact time frame. Chicagonese1 23:11, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Which is why it is clearly mentioned in the 1920-1970 Section. Consider learning to use word search. --ShadowJester07 04:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I believe they had them until George Halas died in '83. --Slyder PilotE@ 02:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
According to this site [5], which squares with what I recall, Halas instituted the Honey Bears for the 1977 season, and they were dissolved at the end of their Super Bowl season of 1985, a couple of years after Halas died. For what it's worth, 1977 was the first time in about 10 years that they had done well in the regular season, and since 1985 they have not returned to the Super Bowl. The Bears management decided they didn't want women exploited this way, so they fired them. That's not quite true, just my cynical take on it. They thought dancing girls didn't belong in NFL games. Oddly enough, other NFL teams have them. The Bears were paying their cheerleaders almost nothing, but as I recall, the cynics at the time figured the Bears were just living up to their reputation of being cheapskates. Wahkeenah 09:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
So I wasn't too far off. --Slyder PilotE@ 12:49, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
Roger. Wahkeenah 13:03, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Missing Facts

I think it should be stated in the table that Ron Turner is the offensive coordinator, Ron Rivera is the defensive coordinator, and Dave Toub is the special teams coordinator. Not to mention all the assistants and the trainer. I also think that the Bears radio team, Jeff Joniak (play-by-play announcer) and Tom Thayer (analyst), should be mentioned. --7-0! 12:00, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

    • Thats not for the main article....a separate page but not the main page --Happyman22 22:32, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
I think 7-0 means that the coaches and trainers should be added to the depth chart. However, adding the radio team and all that jazz is somewhat superficial. It can be added to each game in the 2006 Chicago Bears article. --ShadowJester07 23:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Logo Question

the article currently says the Orange bear head logo was started in 1999. I know for a fact it is older than that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.62.162 (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC). The current version of the orange logo was introduced in 1999, its their, being the Bears, words not mine. --Happyman22 21:11, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect

Just wanted to let everyone know I redirected "the bears" to this article. --ClockFace 02:57, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

It would have made more sense to redirect "Da Bears" to this article. --ShadowJester07 03:02, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChicago_Bears_41f4.html"