Talk:2022 Indianapolis Colts–Minnesota Vikings game

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

What to call this game?[edit]

I was thinking Minneapolis Miracle ll but if someone has something better or should wait for an official name? Hoth Veteran (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If something becomes popular like the Minneapolis Miracle, then the article would be changed. However, if a nickname does not become "official", then the name it has now is fine. Kellis7 23:01, 17 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Game Summary[edit]

I think that the game summary should be moved from the main article to this one. I would assume that it would be copied from that article and pasted here, with attributions going to the editors to wrote it up on that article. Cherrell410 (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Vikings' NFC standing[edit]

@Frank Anchor: - The Vikings did enter the game with the second-best NFC record. The Cowboys had the same 10–3 record ahead of Week 15. This adds to the point of the sentence that the Vikings were in strong position to advance to the postseason as a division winner (unlike the Eagles in the NFC East, the Vikings were the only NFC North team with a winning record). It also demonstrates the strength of their conference position, which further highlights the main storyline surrounding their playoff legitimacy this season. I won't re-add this if other editors are opposed, but I still consider it important context to this storyline. Bluerules (talk) 04:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification. Frank Anchor 13:59, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. I'll only re-add this with the support of other editors. Bluerules (talk) 14:58, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring[edit]

It appears that there have been edit wars involving myself, User:Bluerules, and User:PeeJay among others involving simple content issues. Having been blocked 15 times for edit warring in the past, I am sure PeeJay is familiar with this policy. I am just posting a friendly reminder to all involved (including myself) that engaging in discussion, rather than edit warring, is the most productive way to make constructive edits. Frank Anchor 13:57, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Which of us in here is actually someone who gets paid to write sports content? I'm happy to take feedback, but when you change "The Vikings only needed to avoid defeat" to "The Vikings needed a win or tie" (and nothing else), it feels like you're doing it to be vindictive. – PeeJay 15:43, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Look, I know my response above probably got your back up, but that's no excuse not to engage with the discussion. If you don't engage, I'm just going to restore a version that works for me. If you disagree with that, it's on you to explain why. – PeeJay 00:34, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies for not responding in a timely manner. I just personally see “win or tie” as being more straightforward and encyclopedic than “need to avoid defeat.” Frank Anchor 01:00, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I disagree. Perhaps a third party (or fourth, if the third happens to be User:Bluerules...) would be worth waiting for. – PeeJay 01:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, the more input the better. Frank Anchor 03:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dealing with the differences in this diff, there are some other issues I have:

  • User:Bluerules claimed that they were "fixing chronology" when they put the Colts' playoff prospects at the end of their paragraph in the "Background" section. Considering the paragraph starts with their record going into the game, why does it make more sense to put their pre-game playoff prospects anywhere other than straight after that?
  • I also think the sentence about their division position is worded better by saying they were "third in the AFC South with a 4–8–1 record"; saying they "entered the game with a 4–8–1 record and third in the AFC South" is clunky and doesn't read very well.
  • Saying "Andrew Luck's 2019 retirement" is also fairly clunky, and we would be better off saying "Andrew Luck's retirement in 2019".
  • Finally, it's bad practice to use the "with... +ing" construction as in "This was the 26th meeting between the two teams, with the Colts leading the series 18–8–1." You can see my proposed wording in the diff linked earlier.

Cheers. – PeeJay 03:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For the Vikings paragraph, I concur with Frank Anchor that "win or tie" is more straightforward and encyclopedic. It establishes exactly what the Vikings needed to accomplish. Plus, it gives more agency to the Vikings - saying what they needed to do instead of what they needed not to do.
For the Colts and last paragraphs:
  • The reason the Colts' playoff prospects are at the end is because it ties directly into their tumultuous season and their three-game losing streak. That connection isn't directly established when their playoff prospects are placed immediately after their record and division standing. By placing it at the end, it's fully established despite the Colts' quarterback struggles, midseason coaching change, and three-game losing streak, they still weren't officially eliminated, as slim as those hopes may have been.
  • I do not see how "entered the game with a 4–8–1 record and third in the AFC South" is considered "clunky and doesn't read very well". It is the same way the Vikings paragraph is written ("The Vikings entered the game with a 10–3 record and on top of the NFC North") and it's a good practice to keep the writing consistent.
  • I also disagree with "Andrew Luck's 2019 retirement" being "fairly clunky" as it reduces the wording. I think it would have been clunky if it kept the original wording ("Andrew Luck's unexpected 2019 retirement"), but "2019 retirement" isn't an excessive way of wording it.
  • I'm not opposed to the last paragraph being rewritten, but it should be more than one sentence. There's too much information to contain in a single sentence. Would it be better to say "This was the 26th meeting between the two teams and the Colts led the series 18–8–1."? That removes the "with... +ing" construction.
On a final note here, is it necessary to include the location of the game in the opening sentence? There's a little too much information to begin the article and the sentence comes off as a little awkward. I find the location not necessary to include the opening sentence because the very next sentence establishes the Colts were the visiting team. For comparison, the 2021 AFC Divisional playoff game (Buffalo–Kansas City) article doesn't identify the location in the opening sentence and while this is veering into WP:OTHERCONTENT, I find this to be a more effective and efficient opening. Bluerules (talk) 15:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I disagree about "win or tie" vs "avoid defeat", but I'm not going to quibble over it. They're tantamount to the same thing, and I don't think we always need to spell everything out for readers, but whatever.
  • I will insist on putting the Colts' playoff prospects at the top of their paragraph, though. Their chances of qualifying are more directly related to their current record than to their losing streak; most readers would think that a team with a 4-8-1 record would already be out of contention, but when we specify immediately that they still had a chance, it helps their understanding of the situation. Following that up with a more detailed description of how they got there, including the losing streak, fills out the paragraph nicely.
  • You're right, I hadn't noticed that the Vikings paragraph started the same, and I think that wording could do with changing as well. I might need to come at it with fresh eyes, but for some reason they just look different to me.
  • Reducing wording in the Andrew Luck sentence should not necessarily be the goal. This is not a situation where "Why waste time say lot word when few word do trick" applies.
  • I think the use of the semi-colon is enough to break up the final paragraph. It may not be two discrete sentences, but it's not exactly a single sentence either. Have a go at rewording, but I still think my suggestion works better in the interim.
  • Yes, I think including the location in the article's opening sentence is necessary. You want the five Ws answered as soon as possible, no?
    • Who? The Indianapolis Colts and the Minnesota Vikings
    • What? An NFL football game that finished in the biggest ever comeback win
    • When? Saturday, December 17, 2022
    • Where? US Bank Stadium, Minneapolis
    • Why? ...
– PeeJay 16:11, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not just about spelling things out for readers - it's also about agency. I think it's a better practice to focus on the actions of the subject instead of what they were trying not to do.
  • I'm not inherently opposed to moving the sentence about the Colts' playoff prospects, but I think it flows better by mentioning it at the end. We're only specifying they still technically had a chance because that's factual, but that doesn't mean they were in serious contention for a playoff spot. It's not like winning this game would have dramatically improved their playoff chances. Again, we mention they still had a chance because they technically did, but realistically, their season was over. Their situation was their season was virtually lost, not that they were in a desperate fight for a playoff spot, and putting their chances at the end establishes this best to readers. Despite the quarterback struggles, the head coach firing, and the three-game losing streak, the Colts still technically weren't out of it - but for all intents and purposes, they were.
  • If the Colts and Vikings paragraphs start with the same format, I have less of an issue with how they're written. I do, however, prefer putting the record before the division standing because that's how we usually format it.
  • It's minor change, but if we can provide the same information in less words, we should do it. We establish when Andrew Luck retires without having to add another "in" to the sentence.
  • The sentence is still technically a single sentence. The semicolon helps prevent sentence fragments, but when there's too much information in a single sentence, the semicolon isn't going to cut it. Breaking the sentences up is cleaner and easier to read.
  • I would rather have an opening sentence that's easy to digest than an opening sentence that answers the five Ws and I find this detail to be arbitrary in the context of the opening. What's important is who was the home team and who was the visiting team. This is established in the second sentence and would remain established without spelling out the stadium and its location.
Bluerules (talk) 03:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the venue and city absolutely should be mentioned in the lead but not necessarily the first sentence. Interested in seeing how it is handled in other games (along with the BUF-KC game to see if there is a standard “template” that can be used as precedent). Frank Anchor 16:09, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at some pages in Category:National Football League games, it seems evenly split between articles having venue name in the first sentence and articles not doing so. Also many articles that don’t include this in the opening sentence do so later in the opening paragraph. I have no opinion of where the stadium should be named outside of it needing to be in the lead, largely per PeeJay’s argument that the five W’s should be answered quickly. However, I think there should be a standard for this kind of stuff (and an individual article talk page is not the venue for such a discussion. Perhaps this could be brought to WikiProject NFL later on. Frank Anchor 16:47, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Out of the articles in that category, are any of them at GA or FA status? – PeeJay 17:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure. You are welcome to look into that if you’d like. Frank Anchor 18:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"33-0" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect 33-0 has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 March 17 § 33-0 until a consensus is reached. ~ Eejit43 (talk) 12:55, 17 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2022_Indianapolis_Colts–Minnesota_Vikings_game&oldid=1196912797"