Talk:History of the Chicago Bears

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Illinois This article is part of WikiProject Illinois, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Illinois on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
B This article has been rated as B-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
A summary of this article appears in Chicago Bears.
This article is part of Chicago Bears Subpage portal, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Chicago Bears and 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.
To-do list for History of the Chicago Bears:

Here are some tasks you can 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.
    B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. See comments

    Contents

    [edit] Standard Score Notation

    Scores are noted either one of 3 ways:

    • 21-17
    • (21-17)
    • 21 to 17

    Which is preferred? KyuuA4 09:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

    I'm recommending the 3rd option: 21 to 17. This will differentiate from win-loss records, denoted like the 1st option. KyuuA4 09:04, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
    Alright, use the third option for the scores, and the win-loss records would be denotated as (10–5–1) or (15–1).

    [edit] Wordyness and Too Much Detail

    Reading through some of the material here can be a headache - as trivia tends to dominate the text. KyuuA4 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    "Omit Needless Words" - 'nuff said I will go through the article sometime later, and try to consolidate it. Perhaps even add some references too. ;-) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:11, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
    It'll be best to minimize the number of games mentioned where scores are included. Games such as playoff games, Super Bowls, and maybe critical season games should be fine. Critical season games should be those that made an impact on the season as a whole. KyuuA4 07:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Expanding

    I think we need to expand more information the Bears decade history. Alakazam has done a wonderful job with the 2000's so far. A goal is to write this history section better. The 1920s-1990's are too shallow. Does anyone agree? --Happyman22 02:59, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

    • Personally, I am not in favor of the arbitrary division by decade. For example, Ditka's reign from 1982 to 1992 should be all in one section because he took the team to the playoffs in 7 of his 11 seasons as head coach, and made a significant impact on the popular culture of the team. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
    • Exactly, redivide the Bears history into eras.
      • Indeed, Era's make more clear and distinct divisions than decades. KyuuA4 19:51, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Comments

    I commented on the ratings comment page for this article, also the History of the New York Giants, would serve as a good example for this article. Currently the main article and it's 3 subarticles, all are GAs. Quadzilla99 01:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

    [edit] Fair use rationale for Image:1946Bears.jpg

    Image:1946Bears.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

    Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

    If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

    BetacommandBot (talk) 04:08, 12 February 2008 (UTC)