Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons/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 PresN via FACBot (talk) 00:26, 1 May 2025 (UTC) [1].[reply]

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons

Featured list candidates/List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons/archive1

Featured list removal candidates/List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons/archive1

Nominator(s): Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This is the second former featured list I'm attempting to bring back up to featured list status, and is my sixth NFL seasons list nomination. The Bucs are interesting in that they were the first winless team (in a non-strike shortened season) in the Super Bowl era, going 0-14 in their first season, but they've also had highs in the form of two Super Bowl wins. As always, I will do my best to respond in a timely fashion and to address any and all questions, issues, and critiques that are brought up. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

OlifanofmrTennant

Why are some notes in the table and some in the refs column?
The second mention of Malcolm Glazer should just be Glazer and not the full name
Is there any reason as to why they moved around?

That’s what I found ping me when done Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 20:52, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @OlifanofmrTennant, I'm sorry I didn't answer this yesterday, I must have missed it in my watchlist!

Why are some notes in the table and some in the refs column? – When a note could apply specifically to a column, I included it there, such as when teams changed divisions or conferences. When it applied to the season as a whole, such as increasing the number of games in a season, I added it to the reference column. To me this makes the most sense, as it's presenting the notes at the immediate point they'd be relevant, where possible.
The second mention of Malcolm Glazer should just be Glazer and not the full name – Fixed
Is there any reason as to why they moved around? – I added a note about this, but, in short, there were 28 teams in the league, and the schedule for teams involves playing teams in other conferences and divisions. Well, the Seahawks and Buccs were expansion teams, and they wanted them to play every single team in the league within their first two years. To make this happen they had each team play all 13 other teams in the conference they were placed into, with the 14th game being against each other, and then switched the conferences so that they play everybody else in that conference! It's silly, but that's how it went. I added to the note, which now says The Buccaneers were moved from the AFC West to the NFC Central division prior to the start of the 1977 season, switching with fellow 1976 expansion team, the Seattle Seahawks. The Buccaneers and Seahawks played unique schedules in the 1976 and 1977 seasons, playing every team in their conference as well as one game against each other. The goal of this schedule, and the division swap, was to have the expansion franchises play every other team in the 28-team league by the end of the second season. Following the 1977 season, the Buccaneers and Seahawks played a normal schedule.

Thank you for the review and the good questions which prompted improvements and made me think about the choices I made! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support Questions? four Olliefant (she/her) 18:46, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

"The team has played their home games" - I've given up trying to understand whether this construction, where the subject changes from singular to plural inside three words, is valid or not
"The team made the playoffs" => "The team have made the playoffs" (as they may yet do so again)
" Super Bowl champions (1970–present)" - is the bit in brackets needed, given that the table only starts in 1976.....?
"Won Wild Card playoffs (at Football Team)" - huh? They played a generic football team?
That's all I got :-) -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 17:33, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
- "The team has played their home games" - I've given up trying to understand whether this construction, where the subject changes from singular to plural inside three words, is valid or not – :Spinning eyes: I change it to The Buccaneers have played their home games at Raymond James Stadium since 1998., is this appropriate/acceptable?
- "The team made the playoffs" -> "The team have made the playoffs" (as they may yet do so again) – Would it not be has instead of have? Have feels wrong coming out of my mouth.
Yeah probably. More US/UK English confusion
- " Super Bowl champions (1970–present)" - is the bit in brackets needed, given that the table only starts in 1976.....? – Good point, removed
- "Won Wild Card playoffs (at Football Team)" - huh? They played a generic football team? – CLOSE! Washington Football Team, an absolutely terrible but also amazing name that was used for two seasons after the team changed their name from the Washington Redskins.
That makes sense -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 18:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the review @ChrisTheDude, I'll get better about my singular and plural tense, I swear! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:03, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Tweaked, I hope your concerns have all been addressed, and if not, I welcome any further criticisms you may have @ChrisTheDude. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:08, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:23, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility Review

Alt text on the image currently reads "...showing the feat and a large portion..." Should it read "...showing the field and a large portion..."
Already good usage of row and column scopes! +1
I would include "W", "L", and "T" in the legend table.
I would also include abbreviations in the "Awards" column in the legend table.
Additionally, the "Legend" row of that table could turn into a caption for that table instead of a 2-column header.

That's all I got! --Mike Vitale 02:52, 30 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestions @MikeVitale.

Alt text on the image currently reads "...showing the feat and a large portion..." Should it read "...showing the field and a large portion..." – Oof, it should. I've fixed the alt text.
I would include "W", "L", and "T" in the legend table. – The items outlined in the legend are those which would not be considered straight forward from my perspective, and it's consistent with other lists of sports seasons in this regard. It's also why we don't typically ask people to include what "Ref(s).", "Refs", or "Ref." are short for. You'll note these abbreviations actually utilize an abbreviation template as well, making it easier and quicker to decipher, which isn't the same as those entries in the legend.
I would also include abbreviations in the "Awards" column in the legend table. – I think that runs the risk of making a legend far too large. My perspective is that the abbreviation link template should be appropriate for adequately describing and helping those out who might be otherwise unfamiliar with the abbreviations.
Additionally, the "Legend" row of that table could turn into a caption for that table instead of a 2-column header. – It could, but I personally think it functions fine as a table title in this instance. Without that then what would we put above the two different columns?

Appreciate the feedback, and I hope I've adequately addressed all of your comments. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:53, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support. --Mike Vitale Mike Vitale 00:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by Birdienest81

I only have one comment for now. On ref 5, the title "NFL-Profile of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers" has a hyphen. It should be changed to an en-dash (–) per MOS:ENDASH. Otherwise, could you review List of Los Angeles Rams starting quarterbacks for featured list promotion? Be warned, this list more closely resembles List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks since the team history dates to the 1930s, but quarterback wins and loses weren't recorded officially the starting quarterback until 1950 per User:Gonzo fan2007.

--Birdienest81talk 09:31, 5 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the delay, I missed this and I haven't been very active lately. Fixed @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:14, 11 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Just following up @Birdienest81. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: This list looks fine

Birdienest81talk 00:20, 15 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

MrLinkinPark333 verification check

Table:

I think a note with this reference at 1980 win percentage would be useful to clarify that a tie equals a half win/half loss.

Personally I don't see that as necessary, as the concept of a winning percentage is explained at the target and immediately shows that ties count for half a win there.

1982 division should say Central. There was at least 1 game per Lowitt 1982 reference before it became a conference only season, so the division should be included.

The division should not be included, as the season was treated as though there were no divisions. It did not mean that teams were not still a part of one technically, but for the sake of the season, they were treated as such.

Postseason results needs a reference in the heading, like this one. The individual seasons at PFR dont specify the names of the rounds like Wildcard.

The game log is not the reference used, the season page is the reference used in all these cases, and it does specify the names of the rounds like wild card. See the 2020 season reference here as an example, it specifically states it under "Playoffs" at the top of the page.

1982 Postseason should specify it was Wild Card playoffs, to align with the rest of the table.

That's not actually what it was referred to for that season, due to wild card playoff matches including teams that did not win their division, and there being no divisions that season. Teams were seeded based on their final record, so it was a regular 16-team bracket, in which you were sorted based on your regular season record, not based on any sort of division victory. A few examples of where it's explicitly mentioned as rounds, instead of what would be expected (divisional round): 1, 2, 3, 4. Additionally, see page 454 of the Bucs' media guide here.

Note B: "switching with fellow 1976 expansion team, the Seattle Seahawks" - This quoted part needs to be moved to the next sentence with Dugar 2022 as it's not verified with Reuters.

I re-used the reference instead of rephrasing it, as the phrasing is fluid and better than what would be written if moved to the second portion of the note.

- "The goal of this schedule, and the division swap, was to have the expansion franchises play every other team in the 28-team league by the end of the second season" - Not seeing this part in Dugar 2022. It can be removed as the previous sentence already explains that the Seahawks and Buccaneers had played every team by '77.

I read it as as a reasonable interpretation of the text in the source personally, and I think it's important to mention it explicitly. Otherwise it makes it sound like a mistake that was corrected the next year instead of being intended.

Note E: Snider 2023 does not specify that that the 1987 season was reduced to 15 games. New reference needed. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:53, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced the reference. It has also been replaced in other similar seasons lists in which it was used.

Prose

"was originally awarded to Tom McCloskey, a construction company owner from Philadelphia, but was later awarded to Culverhouse after McCloskey backed out." - The bolded parts need removing/rewriting as it copies Sports Illustrated.

I don't believe the text is close enough to be concerning, and when I sought a second opinion from someone else, they also agreed. I think this may be overthinking, because the franchise was awarded to someone, not granted, and there's not a better way to say that McCloskey backed out of ran a construction company in Philly

"at which point the team passed on to his six children" - Malorana 2021 doesn't say all 6 children became owners. This Guardian source said 3 siblings became chairs while the other 3 already held executive roles. If you want to keep Maiorana 2021, then I suggest changing six children -> children.

The source says: Malcolm's children – sons, Avram, Kevin, Bryan, Joel and Edward, and daughter, Darcie S. Glazer Kassewitz, who were all born in Rochester and co-inherited his business holdings... Additionally, the Buccaneers website itself lists all 6 as owners.

"first in Super Bowl XXXVII during the 2002 season and again in Super Bowl LV during the 2020 season." The sentence needs this PFR ref or another ref that specifies the Super Bowl names/years.

Reference added

"in the Super Bowl-era to go winless in a season that was not shortened by a strike" - needs rewording to avoid copying of NFL Quick Take and NFL Those 1976 Buccaneers in order to pass WP:LIMITED. --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:10, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree on this one. The bolded parts are the entirely key component of what makes the stat significant, and there's no other way to word those, nor is it actually a copyvio in any way.

Thank you for the review MrLinkinPark333, I've responded to all of your points. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:30, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Replies: Here's my replies on what I think is left to resolve @Hey man im josh::

PFR has them as Central in 1982. If you want to keep 1982 division blank, I think it would be better to add to Note D that they started out in the Central division (with a ref) before they became divisionless.

The reference for the note clearly verifies that divisions were out for that season, and would adequately override the general reference for the specific aspect of the row that it's verifying. Additionally, since teams were not playing in divisions, it'd be inappropriate to add it in in this instance.

Same source also calls 1982 playoffs as Wild Card. If you have a different source that calls it First Round, it'll be needed here instead.

So, I shared 5 sources in my previous reply that specifically referred to it as rounds instead of wild card, including one from the Buccaneers themselves. I also, prior to this, added a reference to the Buccaneers media guide (which was linked in my previous reply) which calls it "1982 NFC FIRST ROUND PLAYOFF GAME" on page 454.

Note B: the source says "by the end of their second seasons, both teams had played every opponent in the 28-team league." It does not indicate that this was a "goal". Therefore, I suggest "The goal of this schedule, and the division swap, was to have the expansion franchises play" -> "This schedule, and the division swap, had the expansion franchises play"

While I believe the existing reference should be enough, I went ahead and added 2 more references that clearly verify that this was the intended goal.

For McCloskey/Culverhouse, I suggest rewriting the sentence to "was originally awarded to Tom McCloskey, but was later awarded to Culverhouse after McCloskey withdrew." - My main concern is the "a construction company owner from Philadelphia" copied part. This can be resolved by removing it entirely.

Saying he withdrew implies that the deal was not already made. He backed out of a deal that was made. I don't think removing the source of the wealth that allowed him to bid for an NFL team makes it better, nor do I think stating that is close enough paraphazing to be problematic. I sought out yet another voice on the matter who agreed that it would be not be considered a copyvio in its current wording.

In 1976 Buccaneers, it says "The Baltimore Colts went 0-8-1 during the strike-shortened 1982 season". In Quick Pick, it says "a regular season winless in the Super Bowl era" - Therefore, this is close paraphrasing. My main concern is the "winless in the Super Bowl era" part. Here's a suggested rewrite: "the Buccaneers were the only team since the Super Bowl started to lose all their games in a season not effected by a strike.

-MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:43, 29 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

It is not close paraphrasing to use common terminology, there's not another way to say that without saying it in a way that sounds awful or clunky. The Super Bowl era is a frequently used term, and it's half of the qualifying factor (time), while winless is the other aspect of the qualifying statistic. The Cowboys for example went 0–11–1 in 1960, pre-Super Bowl era. Some other examples can be found at List of winless seasons#National Football League.

I've replied to all of the points MrLinkinPark333. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:10, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support on verification check. Although I disagree with the 2 sentences that I believe are close paraphrasing, this is not one of the Wikipedia:Featured list criteria listed. I thought I should mention them as well. Perhaps another user can take a look at these sentences and leave their opinion in their section. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 20:53, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Source review passed; promoted. --Pres N 21:39, 30 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FLC/ar, and leave the {{featured list candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.