Template talk:Green Bay Packers

This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League

Green Bay Packers

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Green Bay Packers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Green Bay Packers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Green Bay PackersWikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay PackersTemplate:WikiProject Green Bay PackersGreen Bay Packers

Wisconsin

This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin

Question

Is "Green Bay Packers American Football Club, Inc." the actual name of the club or is it simply "Green Bay Packers Football Club, Inc." ? Smith03 22:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed a similar thing on the Bears template. I think someone was thinking a bit creatively when they named these. I checked our old friend Google, and nothing comes up on either except Wikipedia mirrors. It's too bad, though, I like the formality. We could have called them GB Packers AFC. Xyzzyva 09:11, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Color

I'm changing the colors slightly to approximate the official team colors, per www.ssur.org's list. Thoughts? --Chancemichaels 19:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels[reply]

WP:BRD

I recently reverted an edit to this template that made it navbox class. Imho, although the it was done to try and form unity (see {{Chicago Bears}}), that in its current state, it did not look good, as it looked very stretched, with massive amounts of white space. To me it looked like someone literally grabbed the old template and stretched it to twice its side. If consensus (or policy?) is to change these to navboxes, thats fine, just let's not make changes until we have a complete, good-looking template (i.e. use a sandbox first). I'll see what I can do today in making a working navbox. Cheers! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:13, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just converted to the {{Navbox}} format. Take a look. --Gwguffey (talk) 02:31, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 05:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bold entries

Does anyone know why a lot of the entries on the template are bolded as opposed to the others?--NortyNort (talk) 23:41, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowls I - IV Comment Comment

This is from the List of NFL champions (1920–1969) article, talking about the first four Super Bowls --
"Teams winning the NFL Championship during these years move onward to compete in the first four Super Bowls. The Green Bay Packers continued on to win the first two Super Bowls. The latter two teams, the Baltimore Colts and Minnesota Vikings, lost in their respective Super Bowls. These two losing teams are still credited with the NFL Championship in their official record. However, they are not considered as world champions, but as the less prestigious league champions."
The Super Bowl wins from 66-69 are not counted as league championships, but rather "World Championships" This has been the standard for all the years I have been editing NFL articles. If anything, the standard has been not to count Super Bowls I - IV in total League Championships. Don't you agree that if you are going to make this the standard, then you should change all the other articles showing KC, OAK, BALT and Minn as league champs from 66-69? And we are talking about a lot of changes to get to your standard of not counting these titles. We know this is not happening, and we should revert back to showing the deserved league titles as it has been for years. Thanks. I am posting this in each talk page on each template so others can give their input. Spparky (talk) 19:35, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I Oppose this change Spparky. I would recommend you find consensus before making this change, as the way you did it is confusing. If we are going to have a change, it would be better to have one row for NFL Championships and one row for Super Bowl victories. See {{Green Bay Packers/sandbox 2}} for what I am talking about. No explanation is needed then. Note that you also left in the cross (†) in the template, which should be removed because it doesn't reference a footnote anymore. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spparky, can we centralize the discussion of this change please? There are too many talk pages involved. This should be moved to WP:NFL where consensus can best be determined. Pinging Levdr1lp as well, as they seem involved too. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:45, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Gonzo, nice to hear from you. The title in the template is League Championships. You cannot leave out the titles earned those 4 years just because they lost the Super Bowl. The teams were still League champs. Also, is there anywhere on any list where the losers of these games have not been called a league champion? SB I-IV were 2 league champs playing against each other. I do not recall these league champs not being recognized as such on any Wikipedia page. Maybe we should leave the losers league wins as is, and remove the Super Bowls won pre 1970 row, just notating SB I-IV wins in ( ) for the winners after the year. I rarely get involved in stuff like this, and did not know proper way to get consensus as you suggested. ThanksSpparky (talk) 20:05, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Two more Packers rivals

The Packers have two more rivals: The Seattle Seahawks and The Atlanta Falcons.

Packers-Falcons rivalry:

Packers-Seahawks rivalry:

108.246.199.105 (talk) 18:28, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you would need to write articles on the rivalries for them to be added to this template. Templates help navigating through similar articles and are not meant to include everything, just stuff that is on Wikipedia. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trivial inclusions

Is That '70s Show in this navbox because some characters are Packers fans, and one episode involves a game? There's lots of fictional Packers fans in media, it seems like too low a bar for inclusion here. That article doesn't even mention the Packers. Is Pitch Perfect 2 here because a few players had cameos? Again, there have been lots of player cameos on different shows or films over the years. The film isn't really about the Packers. It doesn't seem like a sufficiently substantial connection. Ibadibam (talk) 16:55, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not opposed to the removal of That '70s Show, but Pitch Perfect 2 had a lot of coverage regarding the Packers cameo. They are also listed on the soundtrack and won a Teen Choice Award for their cameo. I think that is enough to keep it here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dark mode support

We had some feedback on mw:Reading/Web/Accessibility_for_reading/Reporting/wiki.riteme.site that this template is not compatible with dark mode: "The use of the dark green custom colours for link titles in Template:Green_Bay_Packers makes them difficult to see on the dark mode background. Kabelsalat22 (talk)"

The green used for links in the navbox is not readable: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Green_Bay_Packers_NFL_Anniversary_All-Time_Team_selections?vectornightmode=1

Could somebody please take a look? These guidelines may be helpful: https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Recommendations_for_night_mode_compatibility_on_Wikimedia_wikis

Thanks in advance! Jon (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

cc @Kabelsalat22 Jon (WMF) (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jon (WMF) I recently updated the template. It doesn't appear this issue still exists afterward. There was only one remaining green text link left. I looked in dark mode and everything appears to be readable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still seeing the issue on General: and Rivalries at the bottom of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/List_of_Green_Bay_Packers_NFL_Anniversary_All-Time_Team_selections

Note - this is the Vector 2022 dark mode - not the gadget just in case it's not clear what we're talking about. You'll need to disable the gadget to see it.

Here's a screenshot of what I'm seeing: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/F56537447 Jon (WMF) (talk) 18:29, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha, I think it is fixed now, Jon (WMF). Take a look. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

LGTM! Thanks for the speedy fix! <3 Jon (WMF) (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesaaronthompson, I am not grasping the change you made. Right now, the text renders as black for me. What are you trying to achieve with your edits? Right now it looks like 500 extra bytes of code that does nothing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gonzo fan2007 All I was trying to accomplish was trying to make the color codes in the template match what the team uses. I was trying to hard-code the formatting to use Module:Gridiron color/data, while at the same time addressing WP:ACCESSIBILITY issues for the wiki-link markup in dark mode. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 14:54, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesaaronthompson does it currently show up with color for you right now? It is just black for me, which can be achieved without any of the coding you added. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:22, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Charlesaaronthompson you know what, I just now am realizing that most of your edit is the background color of the secondary headers. I don't mind that change. My main concern now is the link to Green Bay, Wisconsin. This does not appear as a link, it just looks like bolded text. From an accessibility perspective, that should be fixed. That is why I reverted to a plain blue link. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:57, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]