Template talk:Cleveland Browns

message: For the head coaches' pages: 
For the team's seasons' pages: 
For the template in general: 
The general template should only be used on general pages; please use the Coach template and the Seasons template on their respective pages. Try not to use the general template on those pages. Wlmaltby3 03:02, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the starting quarterbacks' pages:  Wlmaltby3 02:34, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using the template properly 

message: I've created this template based upon the templates for the Chicago Bears and Indianapolis Colts, though I simplified its design. I noticed that the templates used within those templates (that is, , etc.) were for soccer, and not gridiron football. Therefore, I removed those elements; however, if it is necessary that they be in the template: by all means, add them in there the way they should be in there. I also simplified the seasons portion of the template, as it seemed too messy on the other templates. That is all there is to say from me, but I shall contribute to the articles as best I can. Wlmaltby3 03:25, 20 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Creation of the template 

message: Don't list the radio section as N/A, as that would be misleading, as some people would think that the games won't be on the radio.
While technically, it won't be officially official until 5/1/2013, sometimes it's better to go with WP:DUCK in cases like this...because God knows all parties involved in The Browns' new radio contract are beating us over the head with the fact that they have the games.
Vjmlhds 19:23, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, there is nothing misleading with "n/a until 5/1/2013".  You yourself acknowledge that the new radio deal does begin until May 1st.  Secondly, WP:DUCK is an essay, not policy, and it only pertains to "internal processes" like interactions among users on talk pages or in discussions.  Clearly you are reaching here to find a justification to include these stations.  May 1st will come soon enough.  Until then, "technically" and "officially" (your words) there is no existing deal between the radio stations and the Browns.  WP:VERIFY  Levdr1lp / talk 21:35, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: "The duck test does not apply to article content, and does not trump or even stand aside policies such as WP:NOR, WP:VER, WP:NPOV or WP:SYNTH..."  Levdr1lp / talk 21:42, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don't list as N/A 

message: Doug Dieken
*45 years with Browns as player/broadcaster/ambassador
*1980 Pro Bowl selection
*1982 NFL Man of the Year
*Ohio Broadcasters HOF
*Greater Cleveland Sports HOF
*Cleveland Browns Legends Club
Joe Tait
*39 years with Cavs as broadcaster
*Curt Gowdy Award winner
*Multi-time Ohio Sportscaster of the Year
*Ohio Broadcasters HOF
*Greater Cleveland Sports HOF
*Commemorative banner at the Q
Herb Score
*40 years with Indians as player/broadcaster
*1955 Rookie of the Year
*Two-time All Star
*Ohio Broadcasters HOF
*Greater Cleveland Sports HOF
*Indians HOF
Vjmlhds (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I think an important thing being overlooked here is that Dieken's professional association with the Browns is ongoing, unlike Score w/ the Indians (retired in '97 & died in '08), or Tait w/ the Cavs (retired in '11).  If/when the Browns recognize Dieken with something on par to the 2009 Indians wearing a patch w/ Score's #27 & a microphone all season long, or Tait's "commemorative banner", then I wouldn't necessarily have a problem with listing Dieken in the culture/lore field.  Until then, his inclusion feels forced and promotional.  No one is questioning Doug Dieken's notability.  No one is questioning whether or not Dieken's current role as the team's radio analyst should be included in the Browns article, the Browns Radio Network article, or the List of Cleveland Browns broadcasters article.  But singling him out in this manner?  One could make a much more compelling case for Bernie Kosar, and yet I don't see sufficient reason to add him, either.  Levdr1lp / talk 18:58, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fair point.  I stand down.  Vjmlhds (talk) 22:25, 9 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparisons

message: I don't know why User:Levdr1lp (talk) feels like they need to continuously undo my edits to Template:Cleveland Browns, specifically when it comes to the list of the team's seasons in the template. this is my revision of the template. this is Levdr1lp's revision to the template. I don't know why there needs to be bullets in the list of seasons to indicate that the Browns did not field a team from 1996–98; I feel like blank spaces should be enough to signify to readers that the Browns did not field a team during those years. As such, all I've tried to do is ensure that the formatting of the template is consistent with other National Football League (NFL) team templates, such as Template:San Francisco 49ers, which has blank spaces in the season templates for the 1940s to indicate that the 49ers didn't field a team until the 1946 AAFC season. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:47, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any reason to include the bullet points when no year is present, not to mention the aesthetics of the random bullet points floating (particularly the 1940s). Bullet points are to separate the text to make it easier to read. If there is no text, there's no need for a bullet point, especially in instances like this with consecutive years missing. I could understand including them if one year was missing (though I don't think it would be necessary), but not in cases like this. --JonRidinger (talk) 17:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello JonRidinger.  Charlesaaronthompson- I appreciate that you have opened a discussion on this talk page (if reluctantly).  Your preferred formatting is not consistent from desktop to mobile devices.  Note that the 1940s & 1990s are misaligned vertically, and that the older format creates different dot sizes (I realize both are aesthetic concerns, but it appears we're all mindful of how this template looks).  More importantly, however, I am not certain your formatting complies w/ WP:HLIST; the older method of actually inserting dots has been practically phased out, and it may interfere w/ blind users (bouncing back & forth from "span" markup to hlist).  I also don't find "other NFL templates do it this way" very convincing.  Levdr1lp / talk 17:25, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. Why do we have all the seasons listed here and then right below we have Template:Cleveland Browns seasons with the exact same data? Are the seasons templates getting phased out? --JonRidinger (talk) 18:14, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I've wondered the same myself.  That said, my primary concern is how to format these seasons, not whether they are listed.   Levdr1lp / talk 18:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi, I've opened a discussion of these changes, here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#UX: Team templates decade treatment when fewer than ten played seasons. Cheers. UW Dawgs (talk) 00:27, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:   The use of greyed-out text to support vertical alignment in NFL templates was discussed in the above thread.  Cleveland for whatever reason is/was a holdout and still displays inline text for 1940~1945 seasons, prior to its inaugural season in 1946.  Hiding this text still achieves the alignment goal, while avoiding user confusion from our general sports convention that greyed-out season years indicated temporary non-participation (such as sporadic participation in early 1900s college football, suspension in WWII, etc). What is your goal with reverting away from the NFL-wide convention of hiding years preceding the inaugural season, to instead show 1940~1945 as inline grey text?  Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 21:05, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm well aware of the discussion at the NFL WikiProject; I weighed on, as did many others, and there was no apparent consensus aside from *possibly* duplicating some of the formatting used in college football templates.  The problem with your formatting, as has already been noted in this thread, is that it misaligns the decades w/ hidden years from the decades w/o the hidden years.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  How is the 1940s row misaligned? UW Dawgs (talk) 21:43, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  It is somewhat misaligned on desktop devices, but moreso on mobile devices.  More importantly, and as noted last October in this very thread, your preferred formatting likely does not comply w/ WP:HLIST.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:50, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Got it, re mobile.  Calling it "my preferred solution" is inaccurate, as my interest was and remains solely in reverting Charlesaaronthompson undiscussed, global change. Will reopen the discussion on NFL, as this feels like it can be resolved prior to the 2016 season. UW Dawgs (talk) 22:04, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  My mistake.  You're right, it was another user who first raised the issue.  Levdr1lp / talk 22:10, 22 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting in Template:Cleveland Browns 

message: I think DePodesta should be added.
He doesn't have the "title" of GM, but essentially that's his job - "Chief Strategy Officer" is a recently "in vogue" corporate title when you get right down to it - he pretty much has GM powers.
He's certainly plenty notable, given his "Moneyball" connection and MLB resume.
Vjmlhds (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Chief strategy officer is not a traditionally defined role within NFL franchises, & the linked article covers the CSO topic in general, not how it applies to professional football specifically.  I also don't know whether the term is "in vogue" or not, or why that would even matter (claim sounds like original research).  Podesta's notability w/ respect to "Moneyball", etc. is not a reason to list him here.  Still, I'm not entirely opposed to the idea.  I simply would like to see coverage equating this newly created position w/ other more traditional "key personnel" like owner, GM, head coach, etc.  Levdr1lp / talk 20:26, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's an article from Sports Illustrated, which explains that DePodesta is essentially the top man regarding football decisions.  He answers only to Haslam, and that the coach, GM, player personnel guys all are underneath him, and that he can delegate decision making to them if he chooses.  Long story short, he's at the top of the pyramid regarding football matters. Vjmlhds (talk) 21:02, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: The hiring of DePodesta received pretty significant media coverage not only for who he is, but how the Browns are planning on using him. Having him in the template makes sense to me given his authority in the organization on top of his notability. --JonRidinger (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  No OR...just look for yourself - they have both EVP JW Johnson and GM John Dorsey listed above CSO Paul DePodesta in the front office hierarchy. Vjmlhds (talk) 02:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  DePodesta 

message: Mr. Manziel barely lasted through two troubled seasons.  I suspect he will become largely forgotten in the minds of Browns fans as more time passes.  Little or no lasting influence on the team's culture.  Levdr1lp / talk 23:48, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: All of his infamous shenanigans happened while with the Browns (the inflatable swan ----> beating his girlfriend and everything in between).  All of his BS certainly had an effect on the Browns (helped cost Farmer and Pettine their jobs), and his failure as a QB is why we had the number 2 pick in the draft (later traded for #8 and extra goodies)  Manziel is a cut above the 8 bazillion other QBs that have come and gone in relation to his what kind of damage he did to the team on the field and and all of the negative publicity and effects he had on the club in regards to image (he was a mainstay on ESPN and TMZ). He will live in infamy with Browns fans...he won't be quickly forgotten, (IMO) he'll be regarded by a lot of fans as the Browns biggest bust ever...he'll be the one by which all future draft busts/knuckleheads will be compared. Vjmlhds (talk) 00:32, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: "...as more time passes..." My point was that Manziel likely won't have a lasting, meaningful impact on the team or its fanbase in the years & decades ahead (though I could always be wrong- we'll see).  Art Modell's thirty-year ownership began w/ controversy (Paul Brown's firing) and ended in outright revolt (move to Baltimore), though during his time the team also won its last league title and achieved far greater success than anything since 1999.  It's a complicated tenure that may take decades for the fans to come to terms with, if ever, but Modell casts a long shadow on this franchise.  While Manziel could certainly find his way into either the team or team history articles, I think it's a real stretch and entirely premature to add him now.  The tabloid fare is far more relevant to Manziel himself than his association w/ the team.  Levdr1lp / talk 03:22, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: As is usually the case, we have a stalemate.  Let's get a third voice to break the tie, and I'll live with however the cookie crumbles. Vjmlhds (talk) 15:06, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: - I've asked for input at WikiProject Cleveland.  Bear in mind that consensus isn't necessarily a vote.  Also, please consider leaving the discussion open for a few days before making any changes, even if a third person weighs in.  This will allow more editors to participate and broaden the consensus.  Levdr1lp / talk 21:31, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

text: Fair enough.  I asked for the third voice, and got it.  Consider the issue dropped.  Vjmlhds (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Johnny Manziel in culture/lore