Talk:NFL playoffs, 2007–08

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
American football Portal
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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary on the comment page to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] TBD vs. Listing Possibilities

In concurrence with Zzyzx11's observation about the permutations of who might be visiting teams for Divisional round. I propose we adhere to the Rule of Only Two Listable Alternatives: When we didn't know if TEN or CLE would have the last playoff spot, it was reasonable to say Cleveland/Tennessee would be the visiting team at San Diego in the Wild Card round. But if there are three or more possibilities, it's best to say TBD, especially given that the information is already provided in the automatic footnotes of the Bracket for those who want to know.The Monster (talk) 05:21, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links only on game summaries

Sine names are already linked on the written summaries of the playoff games, after each reacp is posted, I suggest that we delink the names in the Scoring section. Good idea? NoseNuggets (talk) 5:00 PM US EST Jan 12 2008

Well, it's a constant throughout the playoff articles. And I'd say that not all have every single scoring play specifically detailed in the game summary, so the links are sometimes necessary and if not, not really excessive to begin with. Pats1 T/C 02:13, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
How about just listing the players' last name (unless there are more than one player on the field like Peyton Manning and Eli Manning, listed as "P. Manning" and/or "E. Manning") and still delinking the names akin to agate type in the newspapers? NoseNuggets (talk) 8:22 PM US EST Jan 17 2008.

[edit] Game times

The official kickoff times aren't exactly relevant. The actual game start times (i.e. 1:00 PM, 4:15 PM, 8:00 PM) are standard and used throughout all other playoff and season articles. Using the kickoff times is going overboard. Pats1 T/C 04:08, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

PLEASE STOP EDITING THE START TIMES OF PLAYOFF GAMES IN THE NFL! I am using the official start times as posted in each NFL Gamebook report listed in the sources section. The times you posed were telecast times. I insist on this or else I will report you for vandalism. Thank you. NoseNuggets (talk) 111:19 PM US EST Jan 12 2008.
WP:CIVIL, first of all. Secondly, please read edit summaries, and if possible, provide them with your edits as well. Pats1 T/C 04:20, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Third of all, WP:3RR. Please contribute to this discussion instead of revert warring. Pats1 T/C 04:21, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I am now intending to send this to WP:ARBITRATION. NoseNuggets (talk) 1:25 PM US EST Jan 12 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 04:25, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd be glad to settle it here, because it's almost certain that ArbCom will deny the request. Pats1 T/C 04:34, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
NoseNuggets ~ my best advise is "don't go there." The NFL boys club will win. It's not ever worth your frustration to fight the boys club. Been there, done that, still licking the wounds and icing the bruises.KellyAna (talk) 04:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Requesting a good faith strike-through of that uncivil comment and personal attack. Pats1 T/C 04:53, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, I feel for compromise: Let's list both the scheduled start time (the ones used by television) and the actual kickoff time (as listed in the NFL GameBooks). Example:

  • Scheduled Kickoff: 1:00 PM US EST. Game offically began at 1:03 PM US EST.(NFL GameBook reference listing here).

Would that settle it? NoseNuggets (talk) 2:54 PM US EST Jan 17 2008.

  • I guess I'm also not seeing the benefit of including kickoff times. As a reader I'm interested in whether a game starts (or started) at 1:00 PM, 4:30 PM, etc..., not the exact minute of kickoff. Chaz Beckett 20:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Chaz, all sports playoff games don't start as scheduled. The start times that are arbitrallally listed are television air times. Games don't even start at those scheduled times. For example, the Jacksonville-Pittsburgh contest during the Wild Card round started offically (according to the NFL Gamebook recap) at 8:13 PM US EST, not 8 PM as the television schedule says. Duiring the divisional round, the second game each day offically started fifteen minutes following the scheduled start time. NoseNuggets (talk) 8:18 PM US EST Jan 17 2008. —Preceding comment was added at 01:17, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Chaz's points here. The actual kickoff time isn't of any real consequence. Pats1 T/C 02:18, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's necessary to exercise a degree of common sense. If the broadcast time is 8pm, but the game doesn't actually get started until after 8:30, it's worth noting when the game actually started. If the broadcast time is 8pm, and the game got started at 8:07pm, then the difference is immaterial. MrArticleOne (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Cowboys won?

In the box it says that the Cowboys won for the East. However, lower down, it says that the Giants won. I'd edit it myself but I can't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elixer202 (talk • contribs) 02:54, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Where does it say that? Pats1 T/C 03:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Cowboys did win the NFC East, but lost to the Giants in the playoff. NoseNuggets (talk) 2:43 PM US EST Jan 18 2008.

[edit] Stats

I thought I adequately addressed this in my edit summaries, but apparently not. Taking a paragraph at the bottom of each summary to just list stats (i.e. "Player X had 7 passes for 90 yards. Player Y ran for 72 yards. Player Z had 8 tackles.") violates WP:NPOV, as 3-4 players are being chosen subjectively for "listing." From a style standpoint, when stats are used in game summaries, they need to be given context. This can either be in the form of any records the stats set, or by way of just "Player X, who had 72 rushing yards in the game, was held to zero yards on his final three runs." But just listing a few random stats in prose format at the bottom preempts the gamebook links and lacks any flow whatsoever. Pats1 T/C 00:31, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Listing the key stat contributors isn't biased. Practically every sports newspaper does this. Besides, the lising isn't "random". It's based on who the top contributors are for each team or who has an exceptionally bad performance. The context is self evident football. Besides, I've noticed you have been deleting them even when I do list their context. Burleson's franchise playoff record for punt return yards and the fact that Collins' two playoff interceptions were his first ones in over 10 years havn't been able to survive your chopping block. Anyway if you want to rewrite them into the article in a way that has what you call "flow", go right ahead. Just quit removing them. Chainclaw (Chainclaw —Preceding comment was added at 12:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Pats1, including stats for a few players is subjective and unnecessary. Yes, newspapers have similar listings, but Wikipedia isn't a newspaper (that's what Wikinews is for). Different editors will have different opinions on who the top contributors or exceptionally bad performers were for any game. If a reader is interested in game stats, the gamebook will provide them with this. Chaz Beckett 12:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not against such notable records or oddities. But just listing them at the bottom doesn't work. Incorporate them into the prose to provide context. Pats1 T/C 02:18, 24 January 2008 (UTC)