This page 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
Do you guys prefer the statements that say that a player is declaring for the NFL Draft, as well as statements regarding East-West Shrine Bowl and Reese's Senior Bowl participation, to be in the College career section or the Professional career section on any given player's page? I've seen plenty of examples over the years of them where sometimes, these statements are in the College career section, and other times, they're in the Professional career section. My preference is to have them in the Professional career section.
Just because a player declares for the NFL Draft isn't a guarantee that he will get drafted and may never play in the pros. As such, the player would not have a Professional career section on his page. Also, the East-West Shrine Bowl and Reese's Senior Bowl are college related. Therefore, these statements should be in the College career section. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If a player participates in the NFL Combine and never makes it to the pros by not getting drafted and not getting signed as an undrafted free agent, what section would the NFL Combine stats be in, since that player's page wouldn't have a Professional career section? If the stats were to be in a separate section from the College career section since the stats come from a professional league, what should that section be called?
In the rare cases they don't even get a single tryout following the combine, it could just be moved back into the college section or removed entirely. 99.9% of combine performances are not notable and the ones that are should be noted as prose. Honestly, the tables are nothing more than stats cruft anyway and I'd support their removal in a RfD. ~ Dissident93(talk)17:27, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Thoughts on what to do with Football America. The article confusingly declares it is about 3 different pieces of media that are related. In essence, should be a disambig page, right? With links to articles on the book, the film and the Tv show (as long as they are all notable)? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:54, 7 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say so as there are barely any sources anyway. Even if more can be added, I'd still lean towards a disambig page unless the three products were officially connected to each other or are considered spiritual successors at least. Without that, sharing the same concept and name isn't enough as it leads to confusion/misinformation. ~ Dissident93(talk)17:25, 9 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Short descriptions can be seen without viewing the article itself (and thus seeing its infobox), mainly in the search bar and in other places like browsing categories with a user script. That logic would make every short description unnecessary. ~ Dissident93(talk)23:59, 10 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it again @Left guide. Unfortunately, the user seems to believe the more images in an article the better, even if they're low quality and are not contextually helpful (such as encouraging several images of the back of someone's jersey as an example). Unfortunately, they're not one to discuss things and instead insist that the images, which they claim to take, belong on the articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The editor seems cool enough .. if a consensus is reached .. example .. 'nothing blurry or binoculars are needed'. There has to be some photos out there that can be replaced with ones easier to view. I would think the editor would look for those if consensus for this was reached. Then we can remove them with a leg to stand on and no edit war. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:32, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah you seem to insist my images aren't my images pretty frequently and it's a massive headache. Every image I post is my own unless attributed otherwise. Nine times out of ten, they come from old Facebook albums I have made on my personal page. If you reverse image search any of my images, you will not find them anywhere else. Because they are mine. I took this Pickett image with my phone at the preseason Buffalo Bills game in 2023, the George Pickens image you insist on taking down is from training camp. Not exactly sure why you keep reporting my images as it just becomes a massive headache. Every thing that isn't mine I credit appropriately and give why it is in the public domain or Creative Commons. Cramerwiki (talk) 12:52, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Cramerwiki: The notifications on your Commons talk page literally have the link Commons:But it's my own work!. Frankly, your talk page there shows a history of you uploading blatant copyright violations, so you hopefully can respect how your uploads of other low-res images with incomplete EXIF metadata might appear suspicious. I don't know if there has been a technicality as to why you have not been able to demonstrate to VRT's satisfaction that it really is your own picture, resulting in their deletion. Still, given that history, you continue to upload similar new images, like File:Pickens23.jpg this month. Frankly, if you continue uploading new images that you cannot prove are free, you risk being blocked on Commons, as well as Wikipedia, even moreso when you edit war over the inclusion of your own photos, both low quality and with dubious licensing. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is honestly a ridiculous response. I don't respect it. My images are erroneously flagged and they never respond to email. When they do respond, they make no effort. It is not a failure on my end. I don't understand why I am singled out here when I have appropriately credited any images that aren't mine. Ridiculous. Cramerwiki (talk) 16:05, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
On the same article, I'm also concerned about this image, which in my opinion is also pretty low-quality. (Not as bad as the RotY picture, of course.) Also, the file name is "Kenny-Pickett-infamous-drop-at-home-vs-cowboys.png" and its file description is "Kenny Pickett getting thrown by the ball vs the Cowboys" so it seems to me that this picture may have been added to the article purely as a form of trash-talk – this is the play the image comes from. OceanGunfish (talk) 03:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have my doubts about the copyright status of that image tbh. The uploader (who is a different newer user) was involved in the running back image dispute last month that got them blocked for edit-warring as chronicled at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 26#Lead image of running back. In the aftermath, administrator Bagumba discovered that the disputed image they uploaded was a copyvio and then deleted it (at least here from the en.wiki article, the actual image on Commons may have been deleted by another admin). The fact that you can match the image from a YouTube video only strengthens the argument that the same is likely true for this image. Left guide (talk) 04:08, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
As its low res and lacking EXIF metadata, I clicked the "No permission" on Commons for this. If they're the owner, it can be easily sorted out. —Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Pickett being presented the team Rookie of the Year award
As a point of reference, I made a cropped version of the image that shows only what is being described and illustrated relating to the article subject. (see attached image) Left guide (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Poor-quality images—dark or blurry; showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous; and so on—should not be used unless absolutely necessary.
Why are we gathering around then? There's a MOS: for everything here, lol. Would we be wrong or look like we're singling someone out by using that reason when deleting an image? I only ask because I use MOS: on other things, and manage to aggravate some by doing it. It can't be this easy! Bringingthewood (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
There's 4 other images in the article currently, including two that show face quite well and another one that shows him in a Steelers uniform. There's not really anything to be gained by the inclusion of the image at this point in time. The issue, and why we're gathered around, seems to be that it's continued from the previous discussion. The guidelines however seem clear enough that this is a situation in which it makes sense to remove the poor quality image. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's fine if there's a consensus. I won't fight it, but when the image is just removed and there's no explanation other than "useless image" that's when I take issue. I won't read the Pickett image. I have conceded before, not sure why part of this discussion highlights me "not being one for discussion". Cramerwiki (talk) 15:18, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering if we should include low quality photos of players, if there is no other photos of them, or if not, since that is what I have been doing recently
It really depends on the image and how poor the quality above. Looking at the section above, an image that is so poor that you cannot distinguish who the person is should probably not be included. However, for example, Jordan Love has an infobox image that is kind of goofy and not the greatest, but it is good enough to identify Love and provide the reader context of what he looks like. If the image is so bad that it is pretty much "trust me, this photo shows this person", then no, that shouldn't be added. Another item to consider, if the person already has an image or two, adding in another photo 'just because' or to 'pretty up the page' is likely not helpful or worth it, but that requires more editor discretion. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:25, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I take it we should add an "images" section to this project's player style guide at WP:NFLSTYLEPL. Existing MOS guidelines already have broader community consensus, so quoting and/or implicating them seems appropriate; anything beyond that probably requires further discussion for consensus. Left guide (talk) 22:59, 17 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Good and free images of football players and coaches are always going to be hard to come by. I get it, but I really wish Wikipedia would be more lax in allowing non-free use images of biographical subjects because they really make articles come alive. ~ Dissident93(talk)02:46, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do a lot of work at WP:CFDS, and I tagged a couple hundred categories for renaming yesterday and didn't notice these. I've gone ahead and tagged all of these for speedy renaming. Let me know if there's more, especially batches, and I'd be more than happy to nominate them all for renaming. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:40, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think these are because I manually added them to the nomination list after it had already been posted (didn't think it would matter). I'll try and find any remaining ones as there are many layers to this as you can see. ~ Dissident93(talk)15:49, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I did use PetScan for what it's worth, then filtered out anything that didn't contain "National Football League", compared it to anything linked from WP:CFDS (already nominated), and nominated the rest. I did this for both the templates and main NFL category. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Should the |playoffs= parameter only list the final playoff game played in NFL team season articles like NBA ones? (compare the 2023–24 Boston Celtics with the 2024 Philadelphia Eagles) Obviously making it to the Championship Game or Super Bowl means a team won playoff games to get there and it just clutters the infobox with not only the opponent but the score. Playoff history is still noted in prose and schedule tables. ~ Dissident93(talk)23:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with only the team's final playoff game appearing in the infobox like the NBA ones. Less is more per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:
The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.
Should the score still be listed? It's usually omitted in prose unless independently notable; NBA articles have series records instead. And while we're at it (didn't want to flood WT:NFL with yet another thread), the |radio= parameter should also be removed as it's almost never mentioned in the article and not relevant to the team's season even if so. I know some editors remove it locally too. ~ Dissident93(talk)00:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally think the score of the team's last playoff battle is useful for the infobox in lieu of series records, for example, to know if it was a ridiculous blowout or a difference of less than a field goal. But I won't fight tooth and nail over it, and am willing to incorporate their removal in my edit runs if consensus is against me. By the way, I went through the 2024, 2023, and 2022 articles already. I'll have some time later today to continue this reverse chronology. Left guide (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a bit soon for you to have implemented this change, especially since it would mean changing nearly every NFL team season article. Discussions like this should typically last at least a week, if not longer. – PeeJay14:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTBURO, 2–3 days is plenty of time to get a feel for consensus in this project. See how quickly the two image-related threads above attracted replies from a wide range of participants. Happy to pause the changes if someone enters an actual objection that amounts to more than stonewalling, but that has not occurred. Left guide (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just pointing out that some people don't check this page on more than a daily basis, and some check it barely weekly. Why don't we treat the playoffs parameter like the pro bowl and all pro parameters, with a collapsible box to show the team's entire playoff run? It's only four lines at most. – PeeJay19:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why exactly are we doing this though? And i agree that this definitely needs more time before making this change on nearly *every* nfl article.
I'm cool if people disagree, but to be clear it doesn't affect every or nearly every team season article, only the ones that won playoff games, which is generally 6–8 teams per season (so less than a quarter). Left guide (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This is a ridiculous, unnecessary change and just makes things harder for the reader to see the important information at a glance. Changing every NFL season article over this is peak deletionist nonsense. And two people pushing it through in the dead of night after not even allowing for a week’s debate on such a major change is even more ridiculous. Thecourierncrforlife (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be true, I believe listing all playoff games in the |playoffs= parameter provides better clarity on a team’s postseason journey. Whether a team’s season ends in the Wild Card Playoffs, Divisional Round, or Conference Championship, each game played is an important part of their story. Removing earlier rounds diminishes key context, such as how competitive or dominant a team was throughout the playoffs.
For instance, in the 2024 Buffalo Bills season page, the |playoffs= parameter now only reads: Lost AFC Championship (vs. Chiefs) 29–32. This completely omits the Buffalo Bills previous playoff victories, making it seem as if the Buffalo Bills went straight to the AFC Championship rather than earning their way there. The infobox should serve as a comprehensive snapshot, not just a single-game summary. Abhiramakella (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.
I am of the opinion that this is a very unnecessary move to make. Removing note of previous playoff victories in the parameter undermines quick context of the team's playoff journey for the reader. Also, for teams like the Ravens who won a playoff game before eventually being eliminated, I believe it is especially damaging. EZBird (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The 1985 New England Patriots were the first team in NFL history to reach the Super Bowl after winning 3 straight road playoff games. Under this change, that information would be gone from the playoff parameter. All you would see is that they were destroyed by the Bears 10–46 in Super Bowl XX. Which is disingenious to what they accomplished before that. Why make this change? I don't believe the clutter talking point holds much water. EZBird (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They then became the first team in NFL history ever to advance to the Super Bowl by winning three playoff games on the road, defeating the New York Jets 26–14 in the AFC Wild Card Game, the Los Angeles Raiders 27–20 in the AFC Divisional Game and the Miami Dolphins 31–14 in the AFC Championship Game.
I'm assuming you are EZBird, but the information still exists in "quick context of the team's playoff journey for the reader" in the lead. I also didn't delete anything, I simply brought up the proposal. ~ Dissident93(talk)16:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I would say Left gaurd made the change way to quickly, as of now it appears to be in favor of not doing it,
Idk why was this was even changed without a weeks worth (or more because of how big this change is) discussion
Now the articles are split between "playoff finish" and "playoffs"
Was there ever a project discussion establishing consensus for all playoff games to be included in the infobox? I searched the archives and could not find any. Also note WP:ONUS policy clause:
The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.
Such a consensus is perhaps better reached through a move request on the template's talk page, though it's better to have a specific title proposed. Is there one you had in mind? Left guide (talk) 22:26, 22 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think as long as the potential usages of the template are explained in its documentation, the current title is fine. NFL teams are the most prominent ones to use this template, after all. – PeeJay20:09, 23 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This should go back to having the chronological starters-by-year table like every other team instead of the new table that has an alphabetical list of names. The utility of these lists is the chronological history of who a team's starting QB was over time. And the sorting on the new table is not a valid replacement. Even after you sort it, you still have to do mental gymnastics to figure out who the starters were for any given year since a lot of QBs overlap into different years. Imagine if List of Green Bay Packers head coaches or List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting pitchers were alphabetical. That would defeat the whole purpose of those lists. Several people, besides me, have tried to add the old table back if you check the talk page and article history of the Packers list. I'm bringing this up now because another user has recently copied this style over to the Rams list. This really needs to be nipped in the bud. But let's be clear, I am not opposed to having the summary table in the article. It is useful to see how many different QBs a team has had instead of having to manually count down the yearly list while avoiding duplicates. However, I reiterate that the main utility of these lists is the yearly table. I am willing to compromise and have the summary table on top and the starters-by-year table below it like I have done at the Rams list. The Chargers list is featured and has the yearly table, so there is no reason the Packers list can't still be featured with both tables on it. Adding the yearly table back doesn't negate the good work Gonzo has done on the article at all. And as for Gonzo's rationale for removing the pre-1950 QBs. That's fine, we can leave those guys off since PFR QB win-loss records only go back to 1950 and QB wasn't as defined in the early days (halfbacks used to throw passes regularly too). Hopefully, better records come out later for those old timers. See the note I have left at the Rams list: "Note: Complete records for quarterback starts are unavailable prior to 1950". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And as for Gonzo's rationale for removing the pre-1950 QBs. That's fine, we can leave those guys off since PFR QB win-loss records only go back to 1950 and QB wasn't as defined in the early days (halfbacks used to throw passes regularly too). Hopefully, better records come out later for those old timers. See the note I have left at the Rams list: "Note: Complete records for quarterback starts are unavailable prior to 1950". – honestly, I don't know why no one has compiled complete QB starts records – I think if anyone (with newspapers.com) wanted to they could probably do it, since newspapers almost always included boxscores listing the starters. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
BeanieFan11, for the Packers it would be something like 300 separate references to cite this information. I'm guessing that would just be too much work, assuming all the references are available. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not related to the arguments being made, but a ping would have been nice WikiOriginal-9. Regarding the arguments being made, first, both examples you provided (head coaches and opening day starters) typically are held by one person at a time, and in regards to head coaches, its extremely rare to have one season with more than two coaches. This can easily be handled by simple table wikicoding. The other example (opening day starters) is always a single person. This again lends itself well to a single row by year. I don't know what the record is, but starting QBs could have 4 or more starters in a season, with some of those starters starting multiple times over multiple consecutive or non-consecutive seasons. The actual compromise is that we still have a sortable table, this time by year, with separate columns for each starter each year. The old tables are antiquated and static. If the table is added back in, then it needs to be updated to match current table coding.
Note, if someone really felt compelled, they could add additional columns for playoffs during that season (although I feel a separate playoff table makes more sense). But this gives you the gist of it. The second example meets all of our accessibility and functionality guidelines. Lastly, I would remiss if I didn't mention that just because a bad style has lasted so long, it doesn't make it right. I understand the opposing view to see who started in a specific season, but I think an essential aspect of a list of quarterbacks is the total number of games they started and their record. And the old table format fails that. I also try very hard not to have multiple tables hosting essentially the same information. It is confusing and duplicative, and requires more rigorous updating.
.jpg)
Task complete. Left guide (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)
