Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 20Archive 21Archive 22Archive 23Archive 24Archive 25

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders

You may be interested in this deletion discussion on the List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders is up for deletion boggles ze mind [Edit: initially surprised me]. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I could understand how they might assume that the completion percentage page is fluff if they're not familiar with the NFL and their metrics, so I don't fault them. Not everybody is familiar with which stats may be notable and which are not. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
Hey man im josh, you're right. I wasn't assuming good faith. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Potential missing article

Jim Griffin, a DE who played 3 yrs in the 1960s, doesn't seem to have an article. My newspapers.com subscription is pending renewal, so I can't look into it. Leaving this note here if anyone interested to research and possible create Jim Griffin (American football). —Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Now added. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, now I can check off an item from my enormous list of articles needing to be written :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I was somehow possessed to create a page for Charlie Joiner's high school, and Griffin came up as an alumni. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Harper J. Cole: Just a couple quick comments about the article: Number 1, half sacks are presented as as a decimal not as a fraction, just see any box score or sack stats on NFL.com. 2, The sack stats on pro football reference from before 1982 are unofficial and they acknowledge this on their career sacks page. This because sacks were not an official NFL stat until 1982. Because of that I did go ahead and remove it.--Rockchalk717 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Is that a convention? Randomly, I tried Deacon Jones, and his unofficial numbers are in his infobox. Should document this, either way it's decided. —Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Not that I'm aware of, however, I know one of the core fundamentals on Wikipedia is sticking to what is official (like when a transaction occurs, we don't update until it's official) which is what I'm basing this on.--Rockchalk717 16:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
The sack stats for Deacon Jones were added about a month after the PFR link was added by an editor that I've had issues with when it comes to transactions in the past, so it seems like (at least with Deacon Jones in particular) that the editor may be unaware that why try to stay from what isn't official.--Rockchalk717 16:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Should we create a page to document what sources are/are not considered reliable in NFL articles?

Similar to some of the items in Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

It can only be a good thing. People just need to put the time into it, and be willing to discuss the borderline ones. There's an in-progress one for the NBA. My peaves are the bloggy sites like most of SB Nation, SI's Fan Network, much of early years of Bleacher Report (hard to tell even now their full-time vs amateurish writers). If something is important enough to mention, more reliable sites should exist for the same content (esp. for NFL). —Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Dubious "shortest game" fact claimed by both CBS and NBC

All,

The 1996 San Diego Chargers and 1996 Indianapolis Colts articles were recently updated to say that the game the two played against each other is the shortest on record at 2 hours and 29 minutes. While the edits, made by a new editor, didn't carry citations, a search on "shortest NFL game" does yield results from both CBS and NBC supporting this.[1][2]

On the other hand, looking at the game stats, it seems unlikely that a game with 20 penalties, 38 incompletions and 28 possessions could be the shortest.[3] A contemporary newspaper lists the game time as 3 hours 27 minutes.[4]

Should I...

  • Leave the statements as they are and add the citations?
  • Remove the statements as probably wrong?
  • Amend the statements to make it clear that they are claimed by some sources and contradicted by others?

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

  • I must say, even if it was 2 h 29 m I still doubt that would have been the shortest NFL game – back in the early days, there were no commercials and teams almost always ran the ball (I'm talkin' 1920s ball, if any of you remember those days :)), and in a few cases, games were called with as much as an entire quarter remaining. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
    • As for what you should do, I'd go for option three – Amend the statements to make it clear that they are claimed by some sources and contradicted by others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, a statement that has contradicting sources should be completely excluded, not even mentioning that there are contradictory sources. I can't find any policies to point in the right direction, just an essay which is more of a recommendation than a policy.--Rockchalk717 05:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
I think the key is if its a reasonable contradiction. We shouldn't automatically remove, as some sources just have errors. In the end, its up to common sense and consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Since IND was 18-44 passing,[5] it seems like the clock would have stopped a lot. If nobody is clamoring for its inclusion, remove it. If we include something that is reasonably disputed (WP:WEIGHT), I'd at least put an explanatory footnote (often its too cluttered to get into the details in the body). Something like "shortest game" is insignificant to a season page anyways, esp. if its dubious. Maybe more imporatant to a list of game times.—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
Per the official game book (here), the game lasted 3 hours and 27 minutes. I'm not sure why CBS and NBC think it was almost an hour shorter, but this seems pretty conclusive. – PeeJay 17:18, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you bored and looking for an easy, repetitive football task to do?

Currently there's about 3,000 articles that say in the lead "who is currently a free agent" or "who is a free agent." For all those whose last team was in 2019 or prior, we should be changing it to say "[Name] is a former American football ..." rather than "[Name] is an American football ... who is currently a free agent." BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

Should it be 2020 or prior? I thought that, generally, we had concluded that 2 seasons out of the NFL is enough to label someone as "former". Hey man im josh (talk) 19:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
You could do that, too. Though, the reason I chose 2019/prior was because I saw a few people recently who had been out of football since 2020 get signed into the XFL. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Assuming they did not renounce their citizenship, they are not former Americans, but rather American former football players.—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi, Bagumba! In these cases, I think they mean (former) (American football) players, referring to American Football rather than European. Though I understand the point, anyone reading this could easily think they're "former Americans," since it's quite ambiguous. Is there a solution to maybe remove that confusion altogether? SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 19:50, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@Spf121188: It should be like GA Peyton Manning: "American former football..." Per MOS:TIES, use American English, as it's just called "football". All the other non-U.S. soccer players just use "football" as per British English. —Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Looking at our articles, it seems the vast majority say "is a former American football" (over 12,000) compared to "is an American former football" (just over 200). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:51, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I do know of an editor that if it's not at least two years, it'll be reverted. I've been removing 'currently'.
Now if you're really bored .... just add U.S. I'm guessing by 2026 I'll be done with them. I'm believing that BeanieFan11 was correct in his amount of articles out there, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:30, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
There's another 200+ of "is an American professional football". AFAIK, most pro sports bios specify "professional" in the lead sentence.—Bagumba (talk) 01:01, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

ANI section about me and this wikiproject

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:BeanieFan11 and WP:BATTLEGROUND at NFL AFDs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:48, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Seeking further opinions on the sources for LaDainian Tomlinson's combine numbers

LaDainian Tomlinson is currently up for GA review, and the reviewer has questioned whether his pre-draft measurables have reliable citations.

I'm unclear on whether the first two sources, nflcombineresults.com[6] and draftscout.com[7], are reliable. These two sources contradict each other, e.g. on the 40-yard dash times.

Based on their "About" page, NFL Combine Results looks more reliable to me, but I'd appreciate any other opinions on this. Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

I think it's all WP:FANCRUFT. The related {{NBA predraft}} was unanimously deleted in 2021.—Bagumba (talk) 02:15, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I see your point; I don't know whether Tomlinson's measurables are good or bad by the standards of running backs, really. There's a lack of context. Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I'd gather that applies to 90% of our readers. And then we make a bulky box out of it, to get out of writing prose (at least it wasn't dumped into the infobox). —Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
NFLCombineResults.com is not reliable. They are a random standalone website not affiliated with any major website. Their data contains combine results from before combine results were released publicly. They even in their About section of the website openly state "Accuracy is not guaranteed".--Rockchalk717 05:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
First off, no website written by people can be perfectly accurate at all times. Next, their about page says that they get their information by checking major sources such as CBS, NFL.com, and ESPN. And third, several other reliable sources treat this source as a reliable source of information (as shown above). So, I stand by my opinion of reliable. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:57, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
While that is true, they aren't going to openly admit to not being accurate. CBS, ESPN, and NFL.com might be good for combine results over the last 20/25 years. Just to pick a season at random, I cannot locate any websites besides that one that could pass WP:RS with 1995 combine results, while 2005 NFL combine results are extremely easy to find from reliable sources. Pro Football reference (who was even able to research and get data for sacks before it was officially tracked in 1982) doesn't have combine results from before 2000. NFL.com doesn't show any data from before around 2005 (from what I saw), ESPN doesn't provide combine results from before 2005, and CBS doesn't have a database of combine results, so where did they get their information from? If no other major source has data before 2000, where are they getting their information from? I didn't wanna bring this up, but another reason I question the reliability is I know someone who 100% for sure participated in the combine in the 1990s and I cannot find his combine results on that webpage. Just purely based on cross checking their information versus what other webpages have, it is most certainly not reliable.--Rockchalk717 00:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Al Young (American football, born 1902). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Another AFD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Johnny Hendren. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:12, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

Rationale for listing retirements in the following season?

Just wondering what the rationale for listing retirements whilst the YYYY season is on-going in the YYYY+1 season page, and not as I might expect in the YYYY season page? 2A02:C7C:60E0:1100:630B:5EE:BA31:77C7 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Are these retirements happening after the team has been eliminated? I'd be inclined to think of the Chargers' 2023 offseason as starting the day after they lost to Jacksonville, for example, even though the 2022 NFL season as a whole is still ongoing. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:39, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
It would appear not - for instance in the 2023 season it says <!-- Players who played in 2023 and retired mid-season are to be listed in the 2024 season page, NOT this page --> (and similarly in 2022, 2021). The 2023 page says the season starts in September. 2A02:C7C:60E0:1100:630B:5EE:BA31:77C7 (talk) 20:57, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I do think mid-season retirements should be listed in that same season. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I know it has been this way for the last several years and am not sure the reason for this outside of the overplayed “that’s how it’s been for years.” I could go either way as long as it is consistent. But as a comparable, players who are traded during the season (also listed under player movement) are listed during the same season as well. Frank Anchor 00:35, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Tom Brady retired after his team's playing season was completed. The premise is that x players have retired entering the xxxx season, noting who will not be playing in the season that had been considered active in the prior season. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:56, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

See also section of staff templates?

I know I could be bold and just do it, but I figured I'd ask first instead since it would affect every team. I'd like to add a "See also" section to the team staff templates which would point to the team roster template. This would be similar to how the roster templates have a see also section pointing to their counterpart. I'd then also include the staff link under the see also section of the roster templates to keep things consistent.

It's something I've wanted to for a bit for easier navigation and browsing of relevant templates and rosters. Is there opposition to this? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:24, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

 Done Added the staff template to the see also section of the roster and vice versa since there were no objections. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Treatment of Hall of Fame class on lists

All,

A number of lists have a color and symbol for members of the Pro Football Hall of Fame. I'm wondering how we treat the period between the class being named and formally inducted? E.g. Don Coryell in Los Angeles Chargers Hall of Fame. Should his name be in blue, perhaps with a note that he's scheduled for Pro Football Hall of Fame induction? Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:48, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

I see the induction itself as a formality. The voting is over, the results are announced, and at this point the induction is more or less just a formality. They've also already got the inductees' pages up (Don Coryell's page). I believe we should treat them as if they're in the hall. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:55, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

NFL deletion discussions

There's a user who today has been going around and nominating lots of NFL player articles for deletion. See:

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of these are very silly nominations. Someone who played 30 games should not be nominated for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
All of them are questionable, but some are downright bad. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 23:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
As a courtesy update, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Williams (guard) was non-admin closed and sent to deletion review here. Frank Anchor 13:26, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
And now the nominator is saying (on their talk) I do not plan on nominating less for AFD in the future if there's no policy against it – and reverting users asking him to stop! There NEEDS to be a rule against mass afd nominations like this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps see the outcomes of this set. If, in fact, someone has a poor history in a particular area, and discussion does not lead to a resolution, a WP:TBAN might be considered. —Bagumba (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
There's no potential for discussion when the editor reverts comments without responding. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 20:43, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
I vacated my close and reopened the AfD in question. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 21:27, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

List of Canton Bulldogs players

Over at List of Canton Bulldogs players, there's a user who's repeatedly removing all redlinks because he's saying that if they don't have a page they can't be listed at all. I've never seen anywhere say that. Does anyone here know if there's a consensus on this issue? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 As far as I know he is wrong on that part. Per WP:LISTN If the group or set is notable (i.e. the list in question), the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. On a sidenote, I would suggest adding sources and maybe the years the player in question played or the team to make the list more informative. And if the red link is a problem, just remove the link itself. Alvaldi (talk) 16:42, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Alvaldi makes a great point here. If the issue is just with red links, just take off the links themselves and keep the player name. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 20:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
What would be the justification to include non-notable entries on the list? Generally lists on wikipedia don't have those. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:49, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
"Because the subject of many lists is broad, a person is typically included in a list of people only if both of the following requirements are met: The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement. The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources." WP:LISTPEOPLE There are exceptions made, but none of them apply here. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Except that WP:LISTPEOPLE starts by saying "Because the subject of many lists is broad..." This particular list is not broad and so does not fall into that category. Rlendog (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Doesn't say it only applies to broad lists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:01, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Which part? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:03, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The top part that says "Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy." Rlendog (talk) 19:06, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
How is that section title related to this discussion? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:08, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Even structured the way you suggest this would inherently be a list of players that played for this team. So if you are just saying that it would be acceptable under LISTPEOPLE if it were renamed to remove the word "list" from the title, that is just asking for bureaucracy. Rlendog (talk) 19:27, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
No a lot of work would have to be done, not just renaming the article. You'd have to add sources for each one and come up with some sort of organization. You understand the technical difference between list form and prose form, correct? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:34, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Sources should be added to each one regardless. I understand the technical difference between lost form and prose form, but inherently this would be a list of players with some information about them. And that information should be added and sourced. But it would still be inherently a list article, even if structured as you suggest and so LISTPEOPLE would not have any more or less applicability. Rlendog (talk) 19:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
If its a stand alone list it shouldn't have sources at all... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
A stand-alone list shouldn't have sources at all? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:44, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Every single person who played for Canton Bulldogs should be listed here. The point of a list such as this one is to present an exhaustive all-time roster for the team. The population for this sort for a list is a discrete set based on inclusion in definitive sources such as NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com. Contrast this with a moral general list like List of 20th-century writers, which could never be practically exhaustive of all sub-notable writers. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:54, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Exhaustive lists are for important positions like presidents and governors, why would we have an exhaustive list for a football team? Especially since nobody seems to cares about this list... Outside of the bump from the current discussion it gets maybe 12 visits a month. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:21, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
YOU may not care, but I and others do care about these lists. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you or I care about it. We have a content guideline Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists and a policy guideline WP:NOTESAL which both of us have to follow. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree – we have to follow those guidelines. And this article meets those guidelines, so... there's no issue here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
How can that be when there are red links all over the page? We're only allowed to do that in special cases. See the content guideline "In a few cases, such as lists of people holding notable positions, the names of non-notable people may be included in a list that is largely made up of notable people, for the sake of completeness." and just to be clear "Member of the Canton Bulldogs" is not a notable position, owner or coach might be though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 01:02, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
"Member of the Canton Bulldogs" is not a notable position – we'll just have to disagree on that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:04, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Why? Its not a position of important, power, or significance. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:14, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
As I said, we'll have to disagree here – you may not believe that playing for a National Football League team is important, but I do. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
No matter what team it is? Whether its a world famous team or a team that nobody knows about? Again we're talking about a list that gets in the low two digits of hits a month in an ordinary month, that means its not important and nobody cares about it. You can't argue with the numbers, your personal opinion is irrelevant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
View count does not determine if a topic is "important." And you can't say that "nobody cares about it," because right here you have several editors who do, and that automatically makes that statement false. I'm done arguing with you here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Low two digits means nobody cares. You know that. If its an important position then prove it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
For the last time, that does not mean nobody cares. Even if only one person viewed the page ever, that's still a person who cared and so you can't say "nobody." BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
How in the world are you getting the impression that by "nobody" I mean literally not a single person when I'm talking about low double digit visits in the same sentence? I think you know what I mean and I think you know I'm right. Nobody cares, it isn't an important position. I'm open to changing my mind if you can present sources which treat the position as important. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:52, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

This has gotten to the point that I feel like we're running in circles and getting nowhere. Not that I think support will change HEB's stance, but I will say I agree that the list shouldn't be deleted. Some of us believe the list is notable and worth having on Wikipedia, HEB does not agree, and that's fine, we're allowed to disagree. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Who said anything about deleting the list? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 03:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Struck part of my comment, per clarification offered by HEB that they believe the list is notable. They're discussing the best way to present the information, not whether it should exist or not. I apologize for the misunderstanding. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: you need to strike the inaccurate claim you made about me at the very least. You don't have to respond but you do have to strike the lie. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
You were saying (repeatedly) that nobody cares about the list (which is, again, false), questioning why such lists exist, and pointing to notability guidelines saying "we have to follow" them. That sounds like implying AFD to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
"there's a user who's repeatedly removing all redlinks because he's saying that if they don't have a page they can't be listed at all" as you said this is about redlinks, there is no good faith way to say that I proposed deletion or argued for it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Perhaps I'm wrong, but I've interpreted your comments on this discussion to mean that you don't think the list should exist on Wikipedia. Was I wrong in my assessment? I have no issue with someone suggesting ways that a page can be improved, and if that's all you're trying to do, then I am sorry for the misinterpretation. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
At no point has anyone mentioned deleting the list, nothing even close... We're discussing whether non-notable players should be included in it. Strike it. Now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:07, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Though, what does saying "nobody cares" a million times, suggesting we need to follow the notability guidelines, and questioning why such lists exist have to do with redlinks? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
In order for something to be a redlink it has to be notable. We're arguing about this [8] vs this[9]. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:16, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
But it does not have to be notable to be on the list... (and you don't know that players are non-notable, either) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes it does... Except for a few exception like important positions (Presidents, CEOs, owners, coaches, etc). Its not up to me to establish that they aren't notable, that burden falls on you. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:24, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
And playing NFL football is important... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
So this is all about redlinks and redlinks are all about notability... Is this where you apologize? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
This discussion has been a massive waste of time... I'm out... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:55, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
If you're out then so are the red links, you need a consensus to keep them on the page. I don't need consensus to remove them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back, did you really tell Hey man im josh to "strike his comment, now?" I read through this and I'm very confused about why you're so passionate about this, but more than anything, I couldn't ignore your tone toward BeanieFan and Hey man im josh. You don't just tell someone to strike a "lie" when he clearly understands the situation... it would behoove you to check the arrogance at the door and be civil, or else nothing will get accomplished. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 20:30, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
We are required to strike or remove inaccurate assertions we make about other editors, specifically I've asked for "Some of us believe the list is notable and worth having on Wikipedia, HEB does not agree." to be struck. How does he understand the situation? I also believe the list is notable and worth having on Wikipedia, I've literally never said anything to the contrary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
All,
The WP:LISTPEOPLE article gives the following example: On the other hand, a list within an article of past school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses can contain the names of all the people who held this post, not just those who are independently notable. I believe this situation is analogous, so I vote to keep the names in question. Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:38, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
How is being a player on a team analogous to being a school president, headmaster or headmistresse? Wouldn't the analogy for the players be the students of the school and the analogy for school presidents, headmasters or headmistresses etc be the head coach, GM, or owner? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd say it's analogous in that they're both groups of people who meet three criteria:
  • Notable enough as a group to merit a list on Wikipedia
  • Non-notable enough that not everyone on the list will merit their own article
  • A small enough group that the list can feasibly be comprehensive
Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:46, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems a bit loose... Its not analogous in that there is no logical way to order the list. With school presidents etc you go chronologically so that each person who has held that position is accounted for, empty spaces would be awkward and would have to be explained some way anyway. This list is alphabetical and its order conveys no real information to the viewer so it looses nothing from skipping non-notable people. I'd also point out that is much more analogous to the previous line "For instance, articles about schools often include (or link to) a list of notable alumni/alumnae, but such lists are not intended to contain everyone who verifiably attended the school." as players are direct analogues for students/alumni/alumnae. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:41, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd say that the key point with alumni is that there would likely be too many of them to include (my third point of comparison above. I'm not sure about the chronological vs. alphabetical distinction. Perhaps asking a question on the Lists talk page is best? I'm part of the NFL project, which may prejudice my perspective. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:00, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Horse Eye's Back: Thank you for clearing that up. It helps to know that you believe the list is notable, that was not obvious to me and may not have been obvious to everybody involved. I assumed wrong and that makes me an ass, so for that, I apologize and I will strike that part of my comment. With that said, I do appreciate and agree with SPF121188's comment. There was no lie told, there was a misunderstanding. I think you have a lot to offer and I want to hear you out, but I would appreciate a less combative tone. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:42, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: Fantastic. I must say .... you're a better man than I am. Keep doing what you're doing. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:00, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

StatMuse as a Reference

hello :)

Is StatMuse seen by Wikipedia (or at least the WikiProject for the NFL) as a reliable source to use for NFL statistics? HappyBoi3892 (talk) 00:04, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

StatMuse, an artificial intelligence company, is the leader in conversational search for sports stats and information. - They're a sports database and, in my experience, they've always been correct when compared to other sports databases when the question is phrased properly. I've used them as a reference when other sites don't list particular stat tables. When I do so I do it knowing it's likely not the best source, but it's better than no source and I haven't found it to be incorrect yet.
I used StatMuse recently to improve List of National Football League players with multiple 1,000-yard receiving seasons. My only problem with StatMuse is that it cuts off after 25 players. In the query I made to update that page I found receivers who weren't listed but I also found that some receivers were cut off (Henry Ellard and Lance Alworth).
As for the phrasing I mentioned earlier... I just realized the query I linked is flawed while typing up this comment. I asked for wide receivers with the most 1000 yard receiving seasons when I should have asked for players. So it's good when used properly and when you don't need more than 25 results. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh and HappyBoi3892: You may be interested in a discussion currently going on on whether to deprecate the source. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Well that's a case where society, sports, and culture should have been notified instead of Media, the arts, and architecture. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
You don't think that would be a severe case of CANVASSING? :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:12, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Treat them as a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. If a stat was important enough, then it generally should have been mentioned by WP:SECONDARYSOURCEs. We don't want to provide WP:UNDUE weight to random stats.—Bagumba (talk) 15:23, 15 February 2023 (UTC)

Regular season standings

Hi all,

For the regular season standings, the division standings are split so the AFC divisions are on the left and the NFC divisions are on the right. However, for the conference standings, both divisions are on the left, one after the other (Example here). I think it would look cleaner if the conference standings matched the division standings with the AFC on the left and the NFC on the right (Example here). My old edit was reverted (rightfully) for consistency with the other seasons. However, I think this would be a positive change for every season visually, but do not want to make that decision unilaterally.~

Thanks,

Wiki9814 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)

No, the conference standings tables have too many columns to look comfortably on those with 720p-width or smaller monitors and devices. And the recent implementation of the default Vector 2022 skin which has further decreased the width of the available space. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:50, 16 February 2023 (UTC)

Draft question

Okay, so the other day the 2023 USFL Draft was held. Players from college were selected, just like in the NFL Draft which takes place in a few months. My question is: if someone was drafted by a USFL team, do we state in the lead that they are a player for the USFL team or what, since they could possibly later on be selected by an NFL team? I'm asking because I was thinking of doing articles for a few of the USFL picks, but am not sure exactly how to do it considering this. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

It's probably never been an issue for unsigned NFL picks, becuase it's the top league and they presumably will eventually sign. For the USFL, i'd remove it if they are drafted by multiple leagues, but still unsigned. —Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bagumba: So, for the infobox, have the person listed as playing for the USFL team with a status of "unsigned draft pick" (but remove it if they decide to go to the NFL instead)? Also, what about the lead? Do I say, "Beanie McBeans is an American football quarterback for the Philadelphia Stars of the United States Football League (USFL)" or not? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:22, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Just say what the sources say. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:21, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The sources say that the players were drafted by the team, and that's it. Saying in the lead "[Player] is an American football [position] who has been drafted by the [Team] of the [League]" doesn't sound right. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:35, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
What doesn't sound right about that? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's because we typically mention the draft portion in the second or third sentence of a lead on football players. The typical format is roughly: [Player] is an American football [position] for the [team] of the [League] (league abbrev). [Player] played college football at [school] and was drafted by the [team] in the [x] round of the [draft] by the [team]. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
That doesn't seem like the appropriate format to use in this context. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:07, 23 February 2023 (UTC)

More missing articles

For about two years, I've been keeping track of recent NFL players (who have played in a game) who do not currently have articles. Here's the ones still left from my list:

I'm not much of an article creator, but I've wanted to give it more of a shot. I'm starting to work on Mike Brown (defensive back, born 1999) now. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! :D BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I gave it a go. I think it's better than some of the player articles out there, but I know it could be better still. I'll revisit later on to try to improve it further. Hopefully some changes will have been made by others that help me learn for the next article I create. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Impressive! The only issues I found were quite minor (second listing of a team in infobox in playing career should be delinked; for active players, put "NFL career stats as of 2022" rather than "NFL career stats;" and I re-used a ref; then also, although not required, a section with some info about his early life / college career would be nice). Nice work! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for making those changes. I've got a busy day at work at the moment, but if these aren't taken care of before then, I'll try to knock out another one tomorrow. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Knocked out Ja'Quan McMillian. I'll probably take on Vi Jones next. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Vi Jones completed now too. Taking a break from article creation now for the day. Might try again at some of the remaining ones on Monday. Again, please do critique what I've done so that I can get better. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. I took a look and they seemed mostly fine, the only issue I noticed was at the end (one line above the categories) there should be something that says {{DEFAULTSORT:last name, first name}} tbh I don't know why that's needed, but I've seen in the past people complain about it not being on there and it seems just about all bios have it. Also, sorry I haven't been able to help out with these; I've got this one long draft I've been working on, then I also need to save an article from afd, and my three favorite teams are about to play in the conf. championships, plus I've got other things going on. I should be able to get to some of these by Monday/Tuesday if you need a break from writing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Nothing to apologize for, you don't need to do it all! I'll add the default sort in moving forward for any new pages I create. Funny enough the Ja'Quan McMillian article has already been nominated for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

A few missing articles

I see there's a few pro football players who died recently missing articles:

I'd appreciate if anybody could write any of these. Fisher and Bonk would be eligible for the recent deaths section of WP:ITN if of sufficient quality. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:58, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

How do you even find all these all the time? I'd be curious to see a list of players that need articles by number of games played. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:38, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Hehe... Unfortunately I do not have that. But here's a few of the ways I find missing pro football player articles: for the recent deaths, I use this facebook profile which gets just about all of them (and check if they have a page), for recent debuts, I check every week on the main page of PFR under the section "recent debuts" – and if there were more players that made their debut than they list, I check one of their pages which lists all of the debuts from that season (when I see one who doesn't have an article, I add it to a list I have at my home of wiki-stuff to do and at this point I don't even know how many pages long it is) – another way I find players missing articles is to look at Tavix's NFL player lists and check the redlinks (usually looking at PFR and PFA, then looking on Newspapers.com and other sources to confirm notability); I also sometimes look at some of those player lists discussed below, and sometimes look at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Articles to create. Those are the main ways I find missing players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:51, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

More NFL player AFDs

Several NFL player articles have been nominated for deletion:

BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Cbl62 improved a couple of them significantly, so that's pretty awesome. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Mass draftification proposal regarding Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on the draftification of nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:10, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Patti Hammond - Hall of Famer?

While looking through new pages I came across Patti Hammond, a super fan of the Seahawks. She recently died and various news articles are listing her as a hall of famer that was inducted with other fans in 1999, but I'm unable to verify this as she's not mentioned anywhere on the Pro Football HoF's website. There is a Ford Hall of Fans but it started in 2018 and she's not listed there. Can anybody find anything mentioning her on the hall's website by any chance? Do we even consider super fans to be notable? If she is considered notable, do we assess her as "top" importance based on the project's assessment criteria that says to list Hall of Famers as such? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:05, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi Josh, Superfans can definitely be notable. See - https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Sports_spectators. There's many examples such as Clipper Darrell and the Tour de France devil. There's lots of coverage on these people and they are often mentioned or given various awards. The NFL itself listed Patti as a Hall of Famer - https://www.nfl.com/honors/fan-of-the-year/2020/seahawks. It would seriously be the hoax of all hoaxes if somehow the NFL and various news websites could all be fooled. As we've discussed multiple times, direct reports, articles and so forth concerning events are not always easily found, though it certainly does not mean they didn't happen.KatoKungLee (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@KatoKungLee: I'm looking for the hall themselves to recognize and mention it somewhere. Induction as a group does not necessarily mean that an individual of said group is individually notable enough to deserve their own article (think band members being redirected to a band). As far as super fans being notable, this is the first NFL fan article that I've come across, which is why I wanted to ask the group for their take on it. I already know that your stance, as the article's creator, will be that the subject is notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems unlikely that the NFL would be making up or just assuming claims as they are a reputable source. If she was included as a group, other members would likely be listed and the NFL or various articles would have mentioned it as such. I can't find any information on her possibly being included as part of a group. If you find any, please let us know. There are various groups of football fans with articles here including Steeler Nation, Raider Nation, Bills Mafia and so forth. I don't think there would be specific rules to prevent NFL superfans from being including while allowing NBA superfans like Clipper Darrell to be included. That would be unusual, wouldn't it?KatoKungLee (talk) 19:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Hey man im josh - License Plate Guy, Barrel Man (Denver Broncos), Fireman Ed, Chief Zee, Crazy Ray are NFL superfans with an articles here. Hope that helps! Please see this category as well https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Category:Spectators_of_American_football KatoKungLee (talk) 19:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You need to work on replying to people with 1 edit instead of 5+, as you so often do. It makes it very difficult to have conversations when your posts are constantly changing and I encounter 3 edit conflicts trying to reply to a subject. I've been trying to mention that exact category and haven't been able to do so because of the constant edit conflicts. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Found a relevant category at Category:Spectators of American football, though I do still question the notability in this case. Looking forward to hearing other members of the project chime in. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:53, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@ Hey man im josh - What would make you question the notability exactly? How would you say Patti's case differs from Clipper Darrell, License Plate Guy, Barrel Man (Denver Broncos), Fireman Ed, Chief Zee abd Crazy Ray? Do you have any questions about the notability of those people? We want to avoid Wikipedia:Gaming the system and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. KatoKungLee (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
We also want to avoid WP:BLUDGEON. I do question the notability of some of these superfans. If you want to accuse me of disruptive editing, please just do so and take it to the appropriate venue. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:02, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Seem like there was some wing in the HOF where she and other fans were recognized.[17][18]—Bagumba (talk) 20:23, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @Bagumba, that what I was looking for and it clears a lot up. I'm now curious whether the Ford Hall of Fans continues where the Visa Hall of Fans left off. Could be worth an article for somebody ambitious. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 7 March 2023 (UTC)

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions

I've started a discussion that could use this project's input at the idea lab village pump. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

There appeared to be a rough consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21 § Araiza's college in lead to link a player's college football program in the lead (San Diego State Aztecs football) and not the actual school (San Diego State University). In that thread, Bluerules wrote: I don't have an issue with hyperlinking the football program in the lead and the school in the body...At the very least, there should be a hyperlink to the school, even if it's not in the lead.[19] Matt Araiza's page has been stable, per this agreement.

However, Bluerules' recent change to Tom Brady's lead replaced Michigan Wolverines football with University of Michigan, contrary to that past consensus. Also pinging other participants from prior thread: Rockchalk717, Dissident93, Hatman31, GPL93, PeeJay. —Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I prefer the opposite of the consensus but if the school is still getting linked that's fine.--Rockchalk717 15:11, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Link to the football program. If they just attended the University we wouldn't mention it in the lead at all most of the time, we're mentioning it in the lead because they played for a football team not because they attended a school. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:24, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
(uninvolved in previous discussion) I support the rough consensus to link to the football program since the players are most closely associated with the university for playing football, and not for another reason (e.g. academics). Frank Anchor 18:32, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
I think either construction is fine or verbiage where both the school and team are each mentioned and linked. The only thing I object to is where the school is mentioned with a link to the team, e.g. "Univeristy of Michigan". That's poor style. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:38, 1 March 2023 (UTC)
Link to the football team and list their name. (San Diego State Aztecs vs. San Diego State). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
There was not a consensus reached in the previous discussion. And I made that comment before the Damar Hamlin article received national attention, which made the case for using the proper name of the school in the lead. One of the main arguments against hyperlinking the school was MOS:EGG because school names were commonly shortened in the lead. That's fixed by using the full name, which is the approach I've since taken.
A consensus for hyperlinking the football program in the lead creates unnecessary debate and consistency issues because the school hyperlink is more appropriate for many articles. If the individual is notable outside of football, a school hyperlink is more appropriate. It paints a fuller summary of who they are. If the individual is a multi-sport athlete, a school hyperlink is more appropriate. Linking to various athletic programs would create MOS:OVERLINK and it's simpler to just link to the school.
Hyperlinking the school in the lead does not create any substantive issues. We do not have to start taking articles on a case-by-case basis to determine if we need to change the format. Every football player article could have the school hyperlinked in the lead without consistency issues, without limiting the subject's background, without omitting key information, and without creating MOS:OVERLINK. Again, the same cannot be said if the football program takes precedence in the lead.
I am also opposed to using the nicknames of the schools in the lead. These are not formal names and they not commonly used outside of college football. When a player is drafted, the commissioner announces only the name of the school - not the nickname. Bluerules (talk) 17:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Please link the relevant discussion regarding Hamlin that you mentioned. Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 18:33, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
It was a note added to the article that's still there. The note made the point that using the school's full name in the lead is more informative for readers outside of the United States.
If we're using the full name, then the school needs to be hyperlinked because hyperlinking the football program creates MOS:EGG. Bluerules (talk) 03:31, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
A hidden note is not widespead consensus. Nonetheless, others can continue to chime in.—Bagumba (talk) 06:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

My opinion hasn't really changed; at least for schools that have separate articles for their football teams, I think it's best to write something like "he played college football for the University of Michigan Wolverines" or "he played college football for the Pittsburgh Panthers" with a link to the program rather than the school, although I wouldn't object to naming and linking both the school and team as mentioned above. Actually, the latter is done in the example lead at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format#Lead; maybe it's best to follow that. Hatman31 (talk) 05:10, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

@Hatman31 That example seems repetitive with "Arizona State" twice in the same sentence. I'd prefer to mention the most relevant one, preferably the football program or begrudgingly the college, and leave the other to be mentioned in the body. That's what it seemed like was agreed to at the previous Araiza discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 06:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough, I definitely don't want to be repetitive, redundant, or superfluous! Hatman31 (talk) 04:51, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

Requested rivalry article

Browns–Lions rivalry – Described as one of the best rivalries of the 1950s, the Browns and Lions played each other in the championship FOUR times over a period of SIX years. Sources for notability: SI; the Pro Football Hall of Fame website; SB Nation (2); The Herald-Sun; Petoskey News-Review; The Daily Oklahoman; Detroit Free Press; The Akron Beacon Journal; Dayton Daily News; Corpus Christi Caller-Times and several books mentioning it (Detroit Lions, On Being Brown, Cleveland Browns A to Z, Motor City Legends: Michigan's Sports Legacy, Browns Scrapbook). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

U.S. in place of birth/death fields

Per consensus out of recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21#"U.S." in infobox, Bringingthewood and Yankees10 have added "U.S." to what appears to be thousands of American football bio articles in recent weeks. However, Nikkimaria continues to buck the overwhelming trend (I estimate a ratio of least 20:1 across all of Wikipedia) by adding "US". Nikkimaria, what can we do to get you on board with "U.S." in support of consistency across articles?

Also, Cbl62 and BeanieFan11, per your recent efforts on the missing college football coach campaign, we should be adding U.S. to place of birth and death in the infobox of these article to sync up with the efforts of the NFL editors.

Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

@Jweiss11 The infobox tweaks are not going unnoticed. Big thumbs up! Bringingthewood (talk) 06:33, 19 March 2023 (UTC)
The more I'm seeing, I guess it's good that at least "US" is there. Even if editors don't want to add U.S./US to existing pages, maybe when a page is created going forward it could be added at that time.
It's like a salmon swimming upstream to begin with. If it's a personal thing to leave it off -- it really should be brought up now. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:02, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I know Jweiss11 already brought this up above, to 'sync up'. If a page was created and nobody goes back to do it .... swimming ... swimming ... Bringingthewood (talk) 20:05, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What is our criteria for "Notable undrafted players" on draft pages?

I've always wondered what the criteria for "Notable undrafted players" is on the draft page articles (for example, 2022 NFL Draft#Notable undrafted players). Is it, everyone who's notable in a Wikipedia sense? Everyone who's played in the NFL? Everyone who had some sort of notable accomplishment? In the NFL? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:15, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

What do you think it should be @BeanieFan11? To me, a good starting point would probably be the Pro Bowl and/or All-Pro. I understand Pro Bowl is a popularity contest, but if you make it, you're still likely notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I've always thought being a consistent starter (i.e. starting more than a few games as an injury replacement) as a good line. I know that is very vague, but maybe make a rule that someone must start at least ten games in a season? Pro Bowl designation is a good objective criteria, but it may be a bit too exclusive. Frank Anchor 15:05, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
For reference, NBA draft pages list anyone who played a game in the league. But it's more likely that such a player in NBA meets WP:GNG, maybe not so much for an offensive lineman, DB, or special teamer. —Bagumba (talk) 15:24, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
From what I've seen, almost everybody in the draft era (1936-present) who's played (besides probably a few '87 replacements, and there might be a few other scattered ones) has enough coverage for notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:39, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, Josh. I've thought of everyone who's played, like Bagumba said for the NBA, but that might make it too long. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

1985 Dallas Cowboys season

Y'all may want to take a look at 1985 Dallas Cowboys season - some of the tables in the "Game Summaries" section are right-justified. Dunno if this is the project standard, so I left them alone. 76.14.122.5 (talk) 04:56, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Project standards aside, the page should at least be itself consistent, but it uses two styles of game summary boxes. —Bagumba (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Year of birth of Gil Brandt

In the article about Gil Brandt, the date of birth is March 4, 1932. Is this correct, since in e.g. Wikidata his date of birth is given as March 4, 1933? I don't think so, since two years ago an IP changed the date just like that without a source citation. Can the date be changed again or is there a good source to confirm the change? Maschienenbau (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Wow, I thought I responded to this on mobile the day of, but it must not have went through. Based on Gil's page at the Hall of Fame's website, he was born on March 4, 1933. However, based on Gil's own Twitter, he was born in 1932. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
@Maschienenbau: I reached out to the HoF at the time I saw this and they just got back to me. They've corrected Brandt's birthday on his HOF page. I've also manually updated the information on the Wikidata entry and at the Italian Wikipedia for Brandt. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:14, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

NFL team player lists need a lot of work

There's a lot of work that needs to be done for the lists of players by NFL team. It seems all of them are somewhat incomplete or not updated enough, some don't even exist, and some are massively incomplete. Notes about each below (only discussing current teams):

BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:31, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11 Hi BF.
I drop in from time to time regarding the Steelers. The tricky part is the top of their page notes that the list is a player who made at least one appearance in a game. Like the movie Rudy, the Steelers had many on the sidelines. I'll check last years players and see who played etc. Most of these team lists might not ever really be correct. Let's say an editor missed the 1998 season, a player played one game and was let go. He's gone and forgotten by now. You can't just add the current roster every year and leave, sorry to say. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:16, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
  • The formatting is pretty inconsistent across these. There are 23 "lists" that exist (not counting the redirect). 12 of those lists have the same level of detail as a category while some go a step further and list a player's position and/or the years that they were on the team. Other pages only list players of notes. The lowest bar for inclusion on any of these lists seems to be that a player must have been on the active roster for a single game. In contrast, the categories for players of each team do not define when someone is considered a "player" of a team. From what I've seen, just about every practice squad player or person signed to a team for any length of time is added to the relevant player category.
Probably a radical thought, but would it be crazy to suggest we define a criteria for inclusion in the player categories and focus our efforts there instead of maintaing these lists?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree 100% with Hey man im josh, these lists are far from being consistent.
Can we delete all these and not tell anyone?. (Only kidding ... someone will probably notice)

Not sure why these lists started to begin with. If someone wanted to see if a player played for a team, you just go to that players page and look in the infobox. Looking at the Steelers again just now, I have no idea who some of these players are with the red links or just a last name present. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

Those lists seem highly unnecessary. I think a legitimate case could be made for a deletion of each of them. Because these lists can go one of two ways, either every player that has ever played a single game for these teams could be listed, even ones that wouldn't pass notability, or arbitrary names are listed based on the editors personal preference. For example, as a Chiefs fan, I could add the players I think are notable but another Chiefs fan might have a different view, especially one that is younger than me and may not remember some of the players that I do, especially if they are more of a casual fan than I am..--Rockchalk717 01:36, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Per WP:CSC, we could either list every WP notable player, or simply list all players:

Every entry meets the notability criteria for its own article in the English Wikipedia. Red-linked entries are acceptable if the entry is verifiably a member of the listed group and it is reasonable to expect an article could be forthcoming in the near future
...
Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers

—Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have always hated these lists (and I am pretty sure I created the Packers lists way back in the day). I think these would be better served to consolidate specific player lists: Current Roster, Hall of Famers, Retired Numbers, First-Round Draft Picks, Starting QBs, etc. List of Green Bay Packers players sort of has this layout, but obviously needs to be expanded/improved. The lists of all players strays into "database" territory for me, and quite frankly are almost impossible to properly maintain. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Players on current NFL rosters missing articles

Below is a list I made of every player currently on an NFL team roster missing an article; I suspect a decent amount would pass WP:GNG (note: these are players who are currently on a roster, not necessarily have played in a game). Listing it here in case anybody wants to work on the notable ones.

AFC (45–2)
NFC (45)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Acrisure Stadium

Acrisure Stadium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 21:58, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Spotrac/Over the Cap

I apologize if this has been discussed in the past but I don't recall seeing a discussion about this. Are these websites considered reliable sources? I only ask because while researching for something I do outside of Wikipedia I noticed with Chiefs punter Tommy Townsend, both claim he has signed his restricted free agent tenure (here and here), however, I cannot find any news articles backing this up and I don't see any websites that list NFL transactions showing this either.--Rockchalk717 00:04, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This is a very good question and I hope someone can provide some insight. I've hesitated on using Spotrac as a reliable source for confirming signings because I've never found out how they "confirm" things and whether it's official when it's been added to the site. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Thoughts on a Possible Merge

I am curious of everyone's thoughts on a possible merger. I honestly don't know, so very curious to hear what others think. We have the following 3 articles: Don Hutson Center, Clarke Hinkle Field and Ray Nitschke Field. These three articles cover was is technically one training area. The Don Hutson Center is the inside venue, while the two "Fields" border the inside facility. If you are familiar with the area, this whole venue is fenced off together. I'm wondering if this topic would be better served by merging these articles all under one title, either Don Hutson Center with separate sections on the different fields/facilities, or a descriptive name like Green Bay Packers training facilities. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:24, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Josh Harris

More eyes on needed on Josh Harris (businessman) as a user (Country20 (talk · contribs) who has previously been warned for edit warring is removing valid information from his article. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Based on their talk page they're going to end up at ANI sooner or later if they don't start communicating with people. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort after all. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2023 (UTC)
Noticeboards are more effective if there was evidence of a consensus at the article talk page, or failure of a party to engage in discussion. —Bagumba (talk) 14:06, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Missing articles: Volume IV

As the draft starts later this month, I thought I'd compile a list here of everyone who's been selected with a top-32 pick in the draft who does not have an article. Listed by year and number (bold denotes that they were actually selected in the first round - back in the day rounds were shorter):

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:01, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Finch

You may be interested in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Steve Finch. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:24, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

TSL - infoboxes

Curious as to why The Spring League accolades are not put into players' infoboxes? The Spring League has been recognized by established/credible networks such as ESPN, TSN, NBC Sports, CFL, Fox Sports, Sports Illustrated, and The Sporting News- just to name a few. If these valid and reliable sources are recognizing The Spring League as an official league, and the accolades associated- shouldn't Wikipedia also do the same? These platforms reach people worldwide and validify these accomplishments players have achieved. Would think that the players should have these TSL awards included on their pages/infoboxes on Wikipedia, as they have been highlighted on these dependable networks as confirmed, earned achievements. Again- any reason as to why these TSL accolades should not be included in players' infoboxes? Vitaminwaterzero0 (talk) 16:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I myself am against them being added to infoboxes. I felt as though the level of competition was lower than college and it would unnecessarily crowd the infoboxes. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:06, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im joshIt is not lower than college- as a lot of these players have been in the NFL, CFL, etc. meaning they have already graduated from college play - making it a higher level of competition.
In addition, these games/league were televised and put on the internet to hit an audience nationally, and even worldwide and in doing so- the accolades associated with this league have been recognized/validified by these credible sources/networks. (Again, i.e. ESPN, TSN, NBC Sports etc.)
I don't understand how someone would not be willing to credit these players for their achievements they have earned? Just to ensure the infobox isn't "unnecessarily crowded?" Should we not recognize these achievements and efforts these players have put forth? I just feel that these TSL accolades should be appreciated/accepted by Wikipedia as a whole- not just discredited by a certain person's opinion. Looking at the TSL as it's entirety as a professional league-with a high level of play, these accolades should be recognized by Wikipedia as they have already been accepted by extensive, reliable networks.
I am happy to add articles from each source to validate my point. Vitaminwaterzero0 (talk) 19:28, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
I understand that TSL was not technically lower than college, but the level of play and competition that we saw from the league arguably was. Just because something was televised doesn't mean that it should be included in the infobox. We have a whole list of items that are arguably more notable than TSL awards that we leave out of infoboxes (WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT). If you want to acknowledge the achievements you are more than welcome to include them in the body of the article (every award mentioned in the infobox should actually also be mentioned in the article). Simply put, the infobox is meant to represent the most notable achievements. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 4 April 2023 (UTC)
Your entire explanation/argument is based on your own opinion. Not sure how your opinion can discredit awards and accomplishments that have been recognized by credited sources- Again- ESPN, NBC Sports, TSN. I would think these well-established sources should hold higher validity over your or even my opinion- just by the amount of people they reach and expertise? Not necessarily just because they are telivised.
To further validate my point-
There are many players who used TSL to get to the NFL. There are also players who came directly from the NFL to play in the TSL. In addition, CFL players decided to play in the TSL when COVID canceled the 2020 season.
Some examples- McLeod Bethel Thompson- started for Toronto Argonauts who lead CFL in passing yards the year before his time in TSL, then opted to play in the TSL directly after that season- so clearly TSL is not less than college. Also, Zach Mettenberger played in the SEC, started multiple NFL games and then came straight to the TSL to further compete. Thirdly, Johnny Manziel, First Round NFL Pick/Heisman Trophy Winner, who also played in the SEC then NFL came to the TSL by choice. Why would these players choose to play in a league that was 'less than college?' Furthermore, neither of these players dominated the The Spring League, but actually got outplayed by other competitors- so does this not argue that the 'level of play and competition that we saw was arguably' better than college' (at the minimum)?
I do not think TSL should crowd an infobox either, but an MVP award or Championship in any league with the caliber of these professional players should definitely be noted...just as CFL, XFL and USFL have done. If you really compare the 'level of play' in each league dependent on players, you will notice that they have all coincided in the same leagues- including the TSL. To your point- we can argue the 'level of play' across these leagues stays the same.
Again my entire position solely remains in the desire of giving these players credit where it is due. Hope you can understand that. Vitaminwaterzero0 (talk) 20:21, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Minor league info.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:08, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

You can and should create achievements sections for the players in question, as what's in the infobox should also be mentioned and referenced in the article. It's just that I believe the accolades to be of lesser value since it's a minor league and accolades of lesser value should not be included in the infobox. Just because it's mentioned in the media does not automatically mean it should be included in the infobox. For instance, per WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT, we don't include divisional championships for players, Pro Bowl MVP, NFL Top 100 placements, or franchise records in the infobox. That doesn't mean they shouldn't be mentioned in the article, but there has been consensus among the project that those do not belong in the infobox. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

I'm currently sorting and referencing unreferenced BLPs, and many of them are NFL players. Living people have a much higher standard for sourcing, and it's important that all of these articles are sourced. I've already sourced dozens of them to Football Reference (not enough to prove notability but enough to prove that they exist and they played). This is the list of living players with no citations at all, and this is the list of living players that have been tagged for insufficient citations. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:29, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the work you're putting in @Thebiguglyalien, it's very much appreciated! I'm sure that, with this list now handy, myself and others will be putting in work to help you get these articles up to standards. I hope others also chime in to mention that they're making an effort based on these lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

All-Pro selectors

At the bio for Dave Wilcox, it currently shows him with:

  • Lead: 5 All-NFL selections
  • Infobox:
  • Body: ...All-NFL (1967, 1971, 1972, 1973) by the AP...; however, the citation to the Pro Football HOF says Five times he was named All-NFL (1967,1970, 1971, 1972, 1973)...[20]

At WP:NFLINFOBOX, it says When listing All-American and All-Pro selections, there is no need to list the selector. suggesting that we don't limit mention to just AP.

How should Wilcox's page be resolved?—Bagumba (talk) 06:54, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Though I personally would prefer to only recognize AP awards, it's worth noting that WP:NFLINFOBOX notes NEA is a valid selector for MVP but there's no mention of who is considered valid for All-Pro. If you consider NEA to be valid, then you would combine the All-Pro selections and, when selected by multiple valid selectors for the same year, note only the higher selection in the infobox for those years. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:04, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I apologize if this comes over in a sloppy manner, my computer is screwed up. I've corrected pages like this to read: 5× First-team All-Pro ..... 3× Second-team All-Pro. Just combine them and not specify the selector. Or, we can change the WP:NFLINFOBOX to specify AP selector only. I do agree with Josh on that one, but we have to stop the nonsense now. If all these pages have to be looked at again and edited from here on out ... like adding U.S., we'll have them done by the year 2027.

Honestly, it looks like the person who started listing these originally in the infobox didn't read that the selector shouldn't be listed for the All-Pro and All-American teams. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

There shouldn't be double entries for the same year though; just list the highest honor. Per WP:NFLINFOBOX: If a player is selected to both the first and second team, whether by the same or different selectors, the player is listed as a first-team selection. List it as "First-team All-XXXX (19XX)" —Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I agree on not having double entries for the same year. I'm glad you pointed towards that quote, as I hadn't looked under miscellaneous notes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, it looks like the person who started listing these originally in the infobox didn't read...: To be fair, the "best practices" were written relatively recently, and even edits since then have been inconsistent. I've seen some editors removing non-AP MVPs from the ibx.—Bagumba (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
I myself was guilty of this as new editor. I think it stems from AP being the selector that the NFL backs, but I now understand that was not always the case. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

And I thought I sugar-coated that one, lol. By no means do I mean to offend the editors who list every selector. I do know that the NFL infobox can be updated at any moment. I remember running across someone when I was duplicating All-Pro. It does happen. Bottom line, I just hope that whatever is decided on will be the best way going forward. I'll edit accordingly. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

  • Strongly disagree with the suggestion that All-Pro designations in the infobox (or in the article text) should be limited to the AP. I am not particularly knowledgeable about current All-Pro selection processes, but limiting selections to the AP would be incorrect as a historical matter. The AP didn't even start choosing an All-Pro team on a regular basis until the 1940s. For much of the 1930s, there was an "official" All-Pro team selected directly by the NFL. In other years, e.g. 1940, the "official" All-Pro team was selected by 92 sports writers who were members of the Pro Football Writers Association of American (PFW), though AP, UP, and INS all made their own selections and were considered notable. Cbl62 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
    I'm biased about this subject, and I recognize that, which is why I haven't brought it up here before. My thoughts are that each selector has not necessarily been as notable over time but it's not a feasible option to create for instance, a list of the top 3 selectors by year and go off that. AP is now the "official" selector, but that's not retroactive. The fact the Pro Football HOF recognizes the awards from other selectors should be enough to stick with what we've got. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 25 April 2023 (UTC)

USFL

I know this is somewhat outside of the scope of this project. However, I will ask here anyway. Do the original USFL teams deserve individual season articles?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:51, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say yes. It was a very-high level professional league that received enormous amounts of coverage. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:54, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
It's not a matter of "deserve"; if they individually meet WP:GNG, then sure.—Bagumba (talk) 20:44, 16 April 2023 (UTC)
I should have used "merit" and linked WP:GNG over merit instead. Poor word choice on my part. I have noticed a new enthusiatic editor Americanbagel1 creating some of these seasons for 1983. I noticed a few procedural/stylistic errors on their part. I think they can be a good editor, however, they need a little guidance. I don't quite want to WP:Bite them for their efforts.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:50, 26 April 2023 (UTC)

Request opinion

Please give your thoughts here. QuicoleJR (talk) 23:24, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Need eyes on 2023 NFL Draft

WP:NOTHERE editors are vandalizing the page. Is page protection warranted?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:35, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected for 2 days.—Bagumba (talk) 03:36, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Marking career highs for games played and games started and record (for quarterbacks)

This didn't used to happen on Wikipedia but all of a sudden over the last couple of years people started doing it. I've removed a few. I just wanna be able to have something to point to and honestly get some help removing these. In the past, a case could have been made for inclusion because Pro Football Reference was marking career highs in these categories, they have since stopped. Between that and marking a career high for something that has a maximum, I don't see the purpose any more, especially for notorious ironmen who rarely (if ever) miss games for injury like Brett Favre, Tony Gonzalez, Eli Manning, Peyton Manning, and Tom Brady. There is a maximum number of games that can played and that's 18 (player gets traded before one team's bye and after the other team's bye) and a maximum record for quarterbacks of 17–0.

So point blank, should they be removed and if so is anyone willing to assist in the removal?--Rockchalk717 06:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Possible Move

We have Mark Murphy (safety, born 1955) and Mark Murphy (safety, born 1958). The Mark Murphy born in 1955 played in the NFL for 8 years, however he is now the president of the Green Bay Packers and I think arguably that is now his predominant or most notable position. When he retires in 2025, he will have served in this role for 18 years, and it only the 10th person to serve in this role over the 100 year history of the Packers. The Mark Murphy born in 1958 played (confusingly) for the Packers for 11 seasons and his playing career is what made him notable. Thoughts on renaming Mark Murphy (safety, born 1955) to Mark Murphy (American football executive) or something similar? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:20, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

Gonzo_fan2007, I would Support this. It makes sense to me, even though he did seem to have a decent career, and was named of the 70 greatest Redkins (now Commanders.) I would actually support this change now, as his career as Green Bay's CEO is more noteworthy in my opinion. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 20:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
GMs get some press with awards like Sporting News NFL Executive of the Year Award. Not sure if his work as CEO/President is as noteworthy outside of Green Bay. At any rate, a redirect would be suitable tagged as {{R from other disambiguation}}—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
See, I take the other opinion, and think that any such move would be based on WP:RECENTISM. Right now, if you run his name through Google, he's probably most known as the Packers president, but keep in mind that he was a Pro Bowl player, a 1st team All-Pro, and a Super Bowl champion as a player, not to mention being named as one of the 70 Greatest Redskins of all time. IMHO, 100 years from now, that's what he will be primarily remembered for, not for his tenure in an executive role with the Packers. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:37, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
Ejgreen77 I'm not sure recentism is playing much into this. He played in the NFL for 8 seasons, but has been an American football executive for 31 years! Including holding a position that is equivalent to "Owner" of an NFL team. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:29, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

Great work

Hey folks. Yesterday, I checked 2023 NFL draft a couple of hours after the draft and saw no redlinks. I remember a few years back when you could see 5th rounder redlinks 24 hours after the draft. How did this happen? How many years has the draft roster been completely linked so near to the end of the draft.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:55, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Note that some of the articles seem to be failing WP:GNG in their current form. I think it would be wise to go over the list and add SIGCOV where needed. Alvaldi (talk) 15:08, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
From what I've seen some of the later picks were quickly created without much effort or much care to make sure the article is sufficient by inexperienced editors. The majority of the draft picks should pass WP:GNG, the articles themselves need to reflect that.--Rockchalk717 15:16, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
I estimate there's probably about 30-40 of the late-round picks who were quickly created as stubs; I admit I created a decent chunk of those, but I'm currently in the process of going back and expanding them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
You I trust going back and making sure they're sufficient, some of the others that created the late round picks, not so much.--Rockchalk717 16:39, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Now that the draft has ended, we'll have the time to improve them all before the start of the season. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)
Fully agree with the sentiment from Tony, good work y'all and good luck with the cleanup. I'll probs add to NO picks as the season progresses since that's the team I follow :P — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:56, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm glad that the three editors above (RC, BF, and D93) responded to the statement that articles are failing. Sorry that my computer is bad at responding lately. I believe the articles will be top notch at drafts end. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Houston Oilers colors

What happened to the Houston Oilers colors? See any of the Houston Oilers season pages before 1980 for reference.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:32, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

Fixed. The colors were encoded incorrectly. —Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of NFL Draft

User:Dicklyon has begun a campaign of downcasing references to "NFL Draft", e.g. [21].This is inappropriate given that the articles about the subject are capitalized: National Football League Draft, 1936 NFL Draft, 2023 NFL Draft, etc. I've suggested to Dicklyon that in order to downcase references to "NFL Draft" across Wikipedia, we first need a successful move discussion to downcase the subject articles themselves. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Here Wikipedia seems to be leading, rather than following, source usage. Let's get this fixed. Dicklyon (talk) 00:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
The "fix" should gain consensus in a page name change first. I had reverted a similar edit of yours to link to a redirect of a lowercase "draft". I just assumed it was a one-off script error, as you've typically done RMs for page moves first. —Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
I'll launch an RM discussion on this soon then. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Did that at Talk:2024 NFL Draft. Dicklyon (talk) 09:26, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
Dicklyon, c'mon, you knew this would be controversial and yet started to lowercase and move them anyway (hopefully they've all been returned to the standard uppercase). Not cool, and overlays with the concern people have mentioned about your use of the tools. If you want to get to five millions edits by years end you need those, so please use them properly and in good faith, taking into consideration all other Wikipedia editors, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:42, 27 April 2023 (UTC)
What moves are you referring to? The ones I did 10 years ago? Or just talking about the few dozen recent edits I did? Dicklyon (talk) 03:38, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The recent ones mentioned above, I had no idea if it was one or dozens or thousands. The linked one above still hasn't been changed back to uppercase, maybe you can use your tools to revert your edits, thanks. I think that you had to know that this change would be controversial and that it should be brought to an RM before embarking on lowercasing. Maybe I'm wrong, and you went ahead without that thought crossing your mind. That's certainly possible, but in any case it has come to an RM, in a circular route. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
Does it say somewhere that I can't do a few edits that might be controversial? Most of these were in contexts where the over-capitalization just looked wrong; I wanted to see if there were objections, and there was Jweiss11, who said do RM first. No moves were involved. Dicklyon (talk) 07:21, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
In that particular case, I don't find any sources with capitalized Draft in referring to the 1949 NFL draft until 21st century; it was always lowercase before, as were the other old ones, which are the ones I was working on. They're still mostly lowercase, but not by such a huge margin. It's still not a trademark (except for clothing items like tee-shirts and caps) as discussed at the RM. So whether the title is correctly capitalized or not, fixing other uses still makes sense, doesn't it? Dicklyon (talk) 07:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
The articles all start with "The NNNN National Football League Draft was held ...", as if that's the proper name of a named event. But if you search books, you find lots of "National Football League draft was held ...", which is about doing the process, no proper name needed. The only book with capital D there is the one copied from Wikipedia. We're leading the world to over-capitalize when we should be following the decision obvious in reliable sources that this is not a proper name. But Randy, I do appreciate that at least you're consistent in wanting to capitalize things important to you, across a broad spectrum of things. This is not Wikipedia style, though, as I'm sure you're unhappy to know. Dicklyon (talk) 10:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
  • I'm a supporter of efforts to eliminate overcapitalization, but NFL Properties LLC does own a trademark on the term "NFL DRAFT". The registration was filed in 2019 and can be found here. There is a second trademark registration with a stylized version of the words including a shield that extends to education and entertainment services. See here. Why doesn't that support capitalization of "NFL Draft"? Cbl62 (talk) 14:29, 28 April 2023 (UTC).
    It's being discussed at Talk:2024 NFL Draft. Feel free to join there. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
    That supports a full capitalization of DRAFT but it doesn't support capitalizing just the first letter of Draft. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:26, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
...where the answer to Why doesn't that support capitalization of "NFL Draft"? is given; those are not relevant trademarks. Dicklyon (talk) 10:38, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

The RM discussion closed with "no consensus". It's sad that source evidence and guidelines don't carry much weight in such discussions. Dicklyon (talk) 13:15, 8 May 2023 (UTC)

The 3:16 game

I came here to get opinions about a draft I started for a 2012 NFL playoff game - Draft:The 3:16 game. @BeanieFan11: recommended I come here. The title was previously deleted by AfD in 2015, but there have a been a few legacy items (2016, 2017) which may meet help it meet WP:LASTING. I also have no idea what the previous article looked like so {{G4}} probably does not apply, but I messaged the admin who closed the discussion - unfortunately they have not been active for the last five days. Lightburst (talk) 14:01, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

LASTING refers to events that cause change, or have continued analysis. The later sources I see cited in the draft are just trivial mentions of stat lines from the game, which are already at Tim Tebow (if not also other team or playoff pages). The sources also refer to it in conjunction with other 3:16 instances in college for Tebow (also in his bio). Generally, the more recent references are not really about the game, but more Tebow and 3:16. If anything, perhaps there's enough material for an article (or at least a subsection) on 3:16 in pop culture. —Bagumba (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the message - that is the second time this week I cited the incorrect guideline. WP:SUSTAINED is what I meant, but I understand your points@Bagumba:. Since you were the AfD nominator and I cannot reach the closer of the AfD, can you tell me if the article is much different than the deleted article from 2015? Lightburst (talk) 00:48, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
The previous version had more content about the game. Still, the main concern is that the topic still has the same issues outstanding from the AfD. The new sources are not significant coverage on the game itself; hence, my suggestion to perhaps expand the scope beyond the game and Tebow, which then might meet WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk) 10:37, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Should undrafted free agent signings be listed on NFL team season articles?

Dissident93 at 2023 Washington Commanders season doesn't think so, but from what I've seen pretty much all other seasons have them listed (at least for modern times) - bringing it here to see if there's consensus for listing them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the intention to list all FA signings, or just undrafted FAs?—Bagumba (talk) 15:01, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Either is fine to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

@Dissident93: you seemed eager to make an argument in the edit summaries and I would love to get your side of this. From what I'm seeing now if there's sufficient sourcing I don't see why this would be a problem, I am however sympathetic to you if in fact its true that it is "omitting vet free agents." Would you be amenable to listing undrafted free agent signings if vet free agents were also listed? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

We'd still need some sort of cutoff/notability filter as including every single transaction would be WP:INDISCRIMINATE. And at what point do we stop adding them? After the draft? After OTAs? After the cuts to 53? After their final game? Do we also include trades and suspensions? I've always believed that the best way to avoid having to deal with this mess was to just avoid adding them in the first place. Any notable player transaction could simply belong in prose instead (which 95% of UDFAs aren't). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:30, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
That filter is coverage, if the transaction doesn't receive coverage in independent reliable sources then it most likely shouldn't be included. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:33, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Most of the time the transactions are covered in independent sources, although there have been a few cases where I've seen the release of a bottom-of-the-roster guy not get reported except by the team. I don't really think though that we should list the signings that have independent coverage and exclude the signings that don't, since they're all signings and it wouldn't really make sense to only include some of them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
We don't generally cover company hirings and firings unless they're reported independently, why would NFL teams be any different? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Playing devil's advocate: the football players are generally GNG notable, unlike the average company employee. Most companies won't have yearly articles. So while it's insignificant for the top-level article, it's arguable relevant to a low-level season page. —Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking more average company senior executive but your point still stands, they are less likely to be individually notable than your average NFL player. I appreciate the nuance in that argument, that seems like a good compromise. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:53, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps remove ones who don't make the regular season roster. —Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
But what about ones like Britain Covey, who did not make the opening roster but ended up playing in the majority of the games? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
What I meant is include if they actually made the regular season roster at some point. —Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Harvard Crimson in the NFL Draft

You may be interested in the deletion discussion on the List of Harvard Crimson in the NFL Draft. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:01, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Recaps in NFL schedule tables

Do the NFL.com recaps in the schedule tables of team season articles violate Wikipedia:External links? If so is the most simple solution to change these columns into source, similar to what college football articles are adding?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:14, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I have nominated the List of National Football League annual receiving touchdowns leaders article to be a featured list. This is my first FL nomination and any feedback or input would be appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tavon Rooks

More participation at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tavon Rooks would be appreciated, specifically on whether a certain source can be considered reliable BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:17, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Game information now defaulting to unhidden

All,

In the Game summaries section of team season articles, the Game information (consisting of the scoring summary and statistical leaders for the game) have usually been defaulting to hidden, but are now defaulting to unhidden, for me at least. Are they showing up that way for the rest of you? It makes for a rather cluttered page. Example: 1985 Chargers.

HJC Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed it. The issue was caused by this edit by User:Gonnym. Their rationale ("tables should never be auto collapsed per MOS:DONTHIDE") does raise an important point, but I feel this should be discussed before such a sweeping edit is made to a template that is used on literally thousands of pages. – PeeJay 14:48, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I do think the page is more readable if the stats are hidden as a default, but will respect a consensus in either direction of course. Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I agree, the information should be hidden by default, but what we need to do is make sure that the information contained in the collapsed sections is presented elsewhere in the article in an uncollapsed form. To my mind, this means making sure games all have a prose account as well as the at-a-glance statistical breakdown used in the collapsed sections. Prose is incredibly important to any encyclopaedia, and we shouldn't be relying on templates as the sole means of conveying content. – PeeJay 15:16, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
If you want to challange MOS:DONTHIDE then the talk page of the guideline is where to do it. This isn't a template by template disscussion. See WP:LOCALCON Gonnym (talk) 15:17, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I want to challenge your interpretation of MOS:DONTHIDE. Content can be hidden under certain circumstances, and this is one of them. Feel free to get involved in the discussion here about how NFL articles ensure the template doesn't fall foul of that MOS guideline. – PeeJay 15:29, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
@Gonnym: Where did you go? Don't you want to discuss this? – PeeJay 09:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Like I said above, you are trying to challange a community guideline on a page that has nothing to do with it and carve out a local consenous of a minimal group. That isn't how Wikipedia works. The guideline is very explict - Collapsible templates should not conceal article content by default upon page loading. This includes reference lists, tables and lists of article content, image galleries, and image captions. It's also worth nothing that the "hide" button is still available for user's such as yourself who want to hide it, so other than "I don't like it" there is no reason not to comply with the guideline. Gonnym (talk) 09:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Again, content can be hidden as long as it is presented elsewhere in the article, such as in a prose account. I quote: "Collapsed or auto-collapsing cells or sections may be used with tables if they simply repeat information covered in the main text". I'm sorry that's inconvenient for you, but your argument doesn't stand up. – PeeJay 10:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

What players should be listed in the "deaths" section of NFL season articles?

Bringing it here for discussion after Rockchalk717 reverted my addition of several NFL players. I personally think that all NFL players should be listed, though I'm fine if others disagree. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:00, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should make all NFL player pages the best they should be.

Just trying to understand something here ... regarding Dissident93 and Rockchalk717. Since I've been here, I've see see very strong opinions coming from these two contributors. To narrow this down now doesn't make sense. Everyone here tries to do something constructive. Let's move forward. Poking the bear isn't the way to go. Just do what you think is correct. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:48, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

I reverted because they were players without articles. The 2022 NFL season list is an example of why I think we need to make restrictions. Just because we haven't ever narrowed it down before doesn't mean we shouldn't do it now. A list of every former NFL player who died during a calendar year is borderline WP:FANCRUFT. I'm not even asking for a crazy strict requirement either. Even just as simple as like requiring a certain of number of seasons and/or a pro bowl selection or something along those lines.--Rockchalk717 02:46, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
If the player is notable it should be included (think of the player movement and trades sections)it should match that (with a requirement) Hoopstercat (talk) 11:47, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
But player movement actualy affects the play for that season. Not so with deaths of people mostly retired long ago.—Bagumba (talk) 12:41, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Aside from an active player or coach, it seems immaterial to the particular season it occurred. Other major sports seem to track these instead like at 2019 in American football § Deaths —Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
I think I'd actually prefer that over inclusion in the season articles. With the caveat that we have a notable section similar as to what we have now. One thing that always bugged me is that we essentially work on a different calendar, being that we include some deaths in 2023 in the 2022 NFL season article because they technically happened during the 2022 season. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
That's always bugged me to because it doesn't make any sense. I'm ok with doing it like that with a mention on the season article for notable players but we begin only including people who died following the conclusion of the previous season. This doing it based on calendar year doesn't make any sense, why include someone who died during 2022 season in the 2023 season article?--Rockchalk717 15:42, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I do not think deaths should be reported at all on the NFL season pages, unless it involves persons actively involved in the NFL, such as owners or active players (e.g. Dwayne Haskins). These can be combined in the "Notable events" section on each season page. Other deaths should be reported in the "(year) in American football" pages, as is already done for baseball and basketball. The season pages are already extremely long and the inclusion of deaths of players who were in the league decades ago seems unnecessary. Possibly retain the section for Pro Football HOF members. Frank Anchor 14:17, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Agree with what Frank said. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:01, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
That's a really solid point. Maybe keep it to Hall of Famers and active players?--Rockchalk717 05:10, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
I think it is crufty to even include PFHOF members on the season players. Active personnel only would be my suggestion.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:35, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
Disagree on that. Especially when it's a player like the recently deceased Jim Brown who's death caused sports social media to explode.
So it seems most people agree at bare minimum we should retain Hall of Famers and active player deaths. Can we just do a straight up vote? Choices are
1. Keep deaths section as is. 2. Only mention active player deaths (like Dwayne Haskins, Sean Taylor, Derrick Thomas, etc). 3. Hall of Famers and active players. 4. Eliminate completely.--Rockchalk717 15:32, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
I say start a new section and begin the vote. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:01, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Vote

Five options (credit Rockchalk):

  • 1. Keep deaths section as is.
  • 2. Only mention active personnel (players, coaches, owners, GMs) deaths (like Dwayne Haskins, Sean Taylor, Derrick Thomas, etc).
  • 3. Hall of Famers and active personnel.
  • 4. Only Hall of Famers.
  • 5. Eliminate completely.

BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Page move discussion

Talk:Placekicker#Requested move 15 June 2023 to change the article title from Placekicker to Kicker (gridiron football position). I'd like to get some input from project members as the only response is from someone who appears to be outside the project.--Rockchalk717 15:11, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Correct names/capitalization for regular season and postseason weeks

All,

Just looking for some clarification on a few points.

  • Conference Championships: should both Cs be capitals, neither, or just the first one? Similarly, when referring to the AFC Championship Game (or NFC) are the C and G capitalized? My impression is that they usually are, but not always.
  • Divisional Playoffs / Divisional Round: is either one of these considered the correct wording? Again, which words are capitalized? It seems like they are more likely to be written in lower case.
  • (Wild Card / Wild-Card / Wildcard) (Playoffs / Round): Again the questions of capitalization and "Playoffs" vs. "Round", plus there seem to be three different ways of writing "wildcard" in circulation.
  • Week 1 etc.: capitalize "Week"?

I'm never sure how to handle these; I suspect I haven't been consistent in the articles I've written. If we could sort out a preferred style, it could be added to the Naming conventions section on the project page. Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:17, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Pinging Dicklyon who's shown an interest in sports capitalization in the past. Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:19, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes, it's a mess. Per MOS:CAPS we shouldn't cap what are not proper names, and these are mostly not, as evidenced by widespread lowercase use in sources. E.g. this. I've been fixing a lot of wild card, playoffs, first round, week 1, etc., and now and then a sports fan will push back, but in about 99% of cases following MOS:CAPS does not raise objections. Dicklyon (talk) 23:51, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if anyone has vetted out AFC Championship Game or NFC Championship Game. Using the page title name is at least consistent, and is an easy search and replace if an WP:RM ever happens to change the case later on. For the others, they're basic English terms and not proper nouns. —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Those are C&G on 1553 articles and 34 templates; C&g on 590 articles and 1 template; c&g on 240 articles and 2 templates. Source usage is similarly mixed, though on a roller-coaster over time. Dicklyon (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
"Week 1" vs "week 1" or "week one" seems like another discussion thats not really been had. For NFL, i believe the de facto convention has been "Week 1" —Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I've fixed a ton of those (not sure if in NFL or not); so far no reactions to lowercase. Dicklyon (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
The phrase "in Week 1" appears in 2247 articles; "in week 1" in 1118. So yes, it's very often capped even though it's not a proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 01:24, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
My one gripe about current caps MOS is that in some places it has a definitive house style e.g. MOS:JOBTITLES, in others it's left to the whim of usage in outside sources. —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
It's not a "whim". Our house style is to avoid caps unless there's evidence of consistent capitalization in sources, which is what indicates proper name status. None of these are consistently capped in sources, so our style is to use lowercase. But, as we've seen in various topic areas, editors have a tendency to cap what's important to their topic area, or what they've seen capped a lot in tables, ads, logos, etc. That's why I've found and fixed a few million unneeded capital letters in the last year or two. Sports happen to be an easy place to find those in quantity. Dicklyon (talk) 05:54, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
By "whim", I meant WP is dependent on source usage, as opposed to defining a fixed house style like MOS:JOBTITLES does.—Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
I know, but there's no way to make enough very specific rules to cover every situation. And it wouldn't make sense if we had a rule that something is to be lowercase and then found that sources consistently capitalize it. Dicklyon (talk) 14:29, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Week is one that should definitely be lowercased in my opinion because it's not a proper name. I also believe that we should be writing "week 1" instead of "week one" based on the usage that we typically see. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:06, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
  • Indifferent in capitalizing "week." I have generally capitalized it when I add content in but it isn't a proper noun and its use is mixed across sources. I do however strongly support using numerals rather than spelling out the numbers as this is far more common. Frank Anchor 13:19, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, all. Using small case for all weeks except the Super Bowl is clear and easy to remember. Just to clarify, does this also apply to titles, e.g. for this game, should championship game be written in small case for both the section title and the infobox title? Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
In general (meaning always), we use the same case in titles, headings, infobox titles and items, etc., as we would use in sentences (other than the first word, which is capped). Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 22 June 2023 (UTC)

Featured article review National Football League Players Association

I have nominated National Football League Players Association for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 21:03, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

American football microstubs - clean 'em up

Wikipedia guidelines for more than a year have required all sports biographies to have at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV (not counting database entries such as NFL.com or Pro-Football-Reference.com). See WP:SPORTBASIC prong 5. In recent months, there have been efforts to draftify en masse sport substubs that do not comply with this requirement. E.g., pending RfC on cricket sub-stubs. Accordingly, we should prioritize improvement of American football biographies that could be targeted in a similar RfC. I have prepared a list of the worst in terms of non-compliance, which can be found at American football biography cleanup campaign. I encourage everyone to take on at least one of these articles (hopefully more) to expand and source. For any articles that you do improve with required SIGCOV, please apply strike coding on the list. Thanks for your help. Cbl62 (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

That tool may be coming but in the meantime ... Take a breath. Prioritize. And go one step at a time. Cbl62 (talk) 15:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I think the handful of editors interested in the topic area have done tremendous work, my suggestion would be to go to state wikiprojects with a list of American football microstubs related to their state as the members of those wikiprojects often have considerable familiarity with locating coverage in local sources (especially pre-internet ones). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:57, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Good idea. I'll try it. Cbl62 (talk) 20:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@Cbl62: I would be particularly interested in a list of the stubs relating to football players from Delaware. Do you think that would be possible? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:53, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
Not sure. Do you known how to do Quarry queries? You could probably do a search for articles in Category:Players of American football from Delaware, plus either "rated as a stub" or < 2,500 characters. I don't know how to do the coding, but the folks at Wikipedia:Request a query could probably help. Cbl62 (talk) 22:35, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

Colin Kaepernick

I'm engaged in kind of sort of an edit war on his page right now and I'm looking to get a consensus. Regardless of it's 1 or 2 years without a workout (I quite frankly don't really care I don't think there is an official rule either), if any player is eligible for an exception it's gotta be him. He's had 1 workout in 4 years. He hasn't been on a roster since March 8, 2017 and has only had 3 team workouts in that time. So point blank, I wanna vote: Make the page reflect his career is over or make it reflect being a free agent.--Rockchalk717 23:18, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

OVER!! Bringingthewood (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Wow, looks like the civil rights, I mean ex-quarterback hasn't played since 2016. Out of sight, out of mind. Shouldn't be an edit war going on. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:19, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Pinging the other involved editor, Bears247, too.—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Bagumba I hope the ping works. I originally knew who it was. In the past I wanted to know when to remove free agent, is it two or three years? Respectfully I asked, maybe now I can get an answer. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I posted on their talkpage but pinging works too. Also, do you have an opinion on this?--Rockchalk717 01:58, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: Yes, I did see that afterwards. Note that WP:APPNOTE says: Note: It is good practice to leave a note at the discussion itself about notifications which have been made, particularly if made to individual users. I did think of reverting my edit, but figured I didn't write it as an accusation of any sort. Apologies if it somehow came off that way. I'm not up to date on Kaepernick, so no comment for now. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 03:13, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Comment For reference, the last major discussion for Kaepernick seems to be from 2019 at Talk:Colin_Kaepernick/Archive_1#Colin_Kaepernick_Is_a_Free_Agent. Back then, he stated that he was still in the market, but the point was moot once he got a workout. Nobody said back then either what the "magic" number of years was for "former".—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I might describe him as "a free agent quarterback who last played in the NFL in 2016", so that his long absence is noted in the first line. Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

As long as we can remove him as a free agent in .... let's say .... 2025?. I mean after all he is : COLIN KAEPERNICK! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:35, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Medlin

You may be interested in the deletion discussion on Richard Medlin. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:01, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Request for comments

Can some project members please comment on the free agency visit section of Kareem Hunt's talk page? The editor isn't taking what I'm saying about not including an entire section for free agency visits.--Rockchalk717 03:29, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

No longer needed. Please disregard.--Rockchalk717 04:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Team hall of fame members, ring of honor inductees without articles

I wrote Art Rooney Jr., a member of the Steelers Hall of Honor, today, and that got me wondering how many members of team halls of fame/rings of honor currently lack articles. Here appears to be the full list, as far as I can tell, with their positions:

BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:26, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I added some starter sources for anyone who wants to take a shot at these. Cbl62 (talk) 04:33, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll definitely be interested in the WP:PACKERS articles. For those who are also interested, I add Cliff Christl's articles on each from the Packers Hall of Fame. Great sources for starting the articles! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:36, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

John Jones (American football executive)

Thoughts on John Jones (American football executive)? My understanding was that he was named president of the Green Bay Packers but never fully assumed the title. The sources are confusing, as the sources for Jones say he was the 10th president, however when Mark Murphy (American football executive) was named president, the Packers said he was the 10th chief executive [26]. Trying to understand whether Jones should be in {{Green Bay Packers president navbox}} and Category:Green Bay Packers presidents. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Chosen Anderson ➔ Robbie Chosen

it appears robby anderson (Chosen Anderson) has changed his legal name again, this time to "Robbie Chosen". robbie chosen shows up on nfl.com and the dolphins official website, so should his wiki page be moved again? HappyBoi3892 (talk) 01:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

We should change per WP:NAMECHANGES. Most recent news articles reflect the name change and he is listed with the new name.--Rockchalk717 05:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Rockchalk, which is why I've decided to be bold and move the page. With how much coverage football receives, especially because of fantasy, there's no way we don't do this eventually. We might as well pull the trigger. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Gridiron football stub cleanup campaign

The gridiron football stub cleanup campaign is making good progress. So far, 93 microstubs have been improved. Big thanks to Gonzo_fan2007, JTtheOG, Alvaldi, BeanieFan11, Bagumba, Penale52, Themanwithnowifi, and others for their efforts. If you're willing to help, click here to see the list of articles that still need work. Cbl62 (talk) 23:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Kudos to Cbl62 for kicking this off! Honestly really enjoyable to bring a nothing stub into a nice solid article :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
We reached 100 articles improved today. Cbl62 (talk) 21:19, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion regarding List of National Football League career passing touchdowns leaders

Currently a discussion about the lede of this article here. I would appreciate any input :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 19:10, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

New England Patriots

Just driving by, noticed the New England Patriots page is up to 280k, which is over 100k more than the other famous teams (Steelers, Packers, Cowboys) and features a lot of information out of context like all-decade teams that should probably be split into other articles. I'm not sure it's a big problem, but I thought it was odd enough to take the time to compare page lengths and drop a note here considering I was just looking for a little bit of information about the team. SportingFlyer T·C 16:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

It's at 60KB of readable prose. Considering only size, per WP:TOOBIG:

Probably should be divided, although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material.

—Bagumba (talk) 18:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
This is so unnecessarily puffed up. Some quick notes on easy way to reduce the size:
There's a bunch of article splits which are linked using Template:Main but still have extensive explanations listed underneath the links to the main articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Needs a breakoff similar to those in Category:American football team records and statistics. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:15, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
I notice some things can just be removed, like the lists of pro bowl and all-pro selections, and record vs opponents. Several things can get reduced and have a "main article" link.--Rockchalk717 06:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:K. J. Henry#Requested move 28 August 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:K. J. Henry#Requested move 28 August 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. UtherSRG (talk) 11:30, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

NFL transactions - help needed

As roster cuts began pouring in during the last few days, it doesn't seem we've had enough editors to correctly update all the pages (see for example, navboxes that need updating and many of the players who've been released haven't had that added in yet). It would be appreciated if some editors could pitch in to help in updating transactions. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

"He played college football at..."

I suggest that the part of the input text that says "He played college football at" be changed to "He played college football for".

My reasons for doing this are:

  • It is a weird way of writing because you play for or with a team, not at a team.
  • Many of the teams are known the same as the state they play in, the California Golden Bears are known simply as California, the Alabama Crimson Tide simply as Alabama, the Minnesota Golden Gophers simply as Minnesota, and so more. By displaying only "California", "Alabama", "Minnesota", readers, especially those who are new or who know little or nothing about college football, may think that the linked page is the state page (California, Alabama, Minnesota), and not the team page (California Golden Bears football, Alabama Crimson Tide football, Minnesota Golden Gophers football). This situation is described here: MOS:MORELINKWORDS (for some reason the link does not redirect correctly, but scroll down a bit and that is what I mean).

I clarify that the change would not be applied in the infoboxes, for them there is already another rule: Template:Infobox NFL biography#Parameters and instructions

@Hey man im josh, @Rockchalk, I would like to know your thoughts Sergio Skol (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree to link and display the football program in the lead. It's more relevant. This seemed to have been the rough consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22 § Revisit: College links in bios' lead. The university can be mentioned in the body, e.g. "at the University of California, Berkeley." —Bagumba (talk) 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
It depends on the context of the sentence. You can say "he played college football at Minnesota State" or you can say "he played college football for the Minnesota State Mavericks". I feel the former is a perfectly valid way of expressing the same sentiment as the latter; if the college he played for is known simply by the name of the state, e.g. Alabama, then by all means reduce the confusion by saying "he played college football for the Alabama Crimson Tide", but I don't think that's necessary for the likes of Texas A&M or Wake Forest. – PeeJay 09:29, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
If you put "at Texas A&M" in the lead, would you pipe "Texas A&M" to Texas A&M Aggies football ([[Texas A&M Aggies football|Texas A&M]]) or Texas A&M University ([[Texas A&M University|Texas A&M]])? —Bagumba (talk) 14:22, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Linking to the football team makes more sense, and wouldn't affect my opinion that saying "at Texas A&M" would be appropriate wording. – PeeJay 14:51, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem is more specific to Wikipedia. A reader seeing "at" expects a location to follow. However, it goes against MOS:EGG if they click the link and end up not at the college, but at the football program instead. If we agree that the football team is the most relevant link for the lead, using "for" avoids EGG, and MOS:MORELINKWORDS suggests that adding the team nickname, e.g. "Texas A&M Aggies", makes it even more intuitive what the link leads to. Also, any decent sized bio will generally have multiple mentions to the team, even in the lead itself, so introducing the nickname allows it to be reused later. (Smith played college football for the Texas A&M Aggies. He was named an All-American as a senior, when he led the Aggies to a national championship.) —Bagumba (talk) 15:57, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
There have been inconsistencies with linking the university, general athletic programs, and the football team in these links/mentions. I personally prefer listing something along the lines of "played for the [[Wikipedia Tech Fighting Vandals football|Wikipedia Tech Fighting Vandals]]" as that could be the most consistent option.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
As an example, I tweaked Jason Kelce. It used to say "at Cincinnati" but linked to the football program, not school location, then it referred to "Bearcats" without first introducing it as Cincinnati's team name. —Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Using "played college at" as the wording sounds like it should to the college, but that can get confusing when you have schools whose common name isn't the official school name (Texas is University of Texas at Austin, Hawaii is University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa, Nebraska is University of Nebraska–Lincoln). I have typically personally preferred linking the school, but there needs to be flat standard to word it.--Rockchalk717 20:45, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Request some reviews pre-WP:FAC

I'm planning on taking C. O. Brocato to WP:FAC at some point in the near future. I'd like to get some people to review it first and tell me their thoughts. Would anyone be willing to review it / take a look and tell me what they think? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:06, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, as the GAN reviewer I'll hold off on reviewing during pre-FAC, but I will gladly take part on the FAC review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:49, 18 September 2023 (UTC)

See also -> List of TEAM players

Thoughts on thousands of NFL bio articles having See also sections with just "List of TEAM players"? As an example, John Sullivan (defensive back). I see this as not helpful at all are merely filler to make the article see a bit longer. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

It has been in that article roughly since inception. I am in favor of eliminating the link.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:30, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Would be excessive for journeyman. I'd think most would go to the specific team's page to find such lists of all-time players.—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I have been doing *a lot* of stub work lately and see it constantly. Could be a bot task, as long as there is some semblance of consensus from the project (like what is building here in this thread). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:11, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm opposed to it, as see also sections aren't always necessary and the list isn't helpful. I feel as though these lists are added in situations where people feel like they need to include a see also section. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:23, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
That's definitely unnecessary. See also lists have gotten a little crazy on multiple article types and across BLPs covered by multiple projects.--Rockchalk717 22:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 2013 Chicago Bears season

2013 Chicago Bears season has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 07:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)

Featured article nomination for C. O. Brocato

I have nominated C. O. Brocato for WP:FAC here. Feel free to comment. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:43, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Pro-Football-Reference

The article on Pro-Football-Reference.com has had much of its content removed and has had multiple maintenance tags added. Noting here in case anyone is willing to work on it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:52, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Is the site sufficiently notable to warrant even having an article? – PeeJay 14:32, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
I would say so. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
It's an interesting quetion. Pro-Football-Reference is a reference work. It's not likely to be the subject of in-depth coverage, but it is a highly-respected and reliable source for football statistical information -- akin to Baseball-Reference.com and Baseball Almanac in the baseball world. A search of Newspapers.com turns up almost 7,000 hits where newspapers have cited pro-football-reference as their source. See here. Cbl62 (talk) 17:20, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm the editor who trimmed it down and tagged it, the notability tag was added because I could find no significant coverage of Pro-Football-Reference.com per say, it was significant coverage of Sports Reference which just mentioned this particular reference site (they aren't operated independently). IMO we should consolidate the not currently notable sub-pages into Sports Reference and try to get Sports Reference to at least a B (currently a start), if in the future we have significant coverage of a particular reference site in their collection we can just break it out. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:29, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Bart Starr Award/archive1

I have nominated Bart Starr Award at WP:FLC if you are interested and able to review. Cheers « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:35, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Forrest McPherson

Anyone know if this person is notable? If so, the article needs sources. PFR says he played in 37 NFL games between 1935 and 1945. Natg 19 (talk) 07:16, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Glen Sorenson, Pete Tinsley, Alex Urban, Ben Starret, Charley Brock, Lou Brock (American football) also need more sources. Natg 19 (talk) 07:22, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
There is a decent chance since he played nine years. Newspapers.com would be the best place to find sources on him. There are several hits on his name there. I might look better at them after the weekend if nobody else does it in the meantime. Alvaldi (talk) 08:40, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Sack yards for QBs

No idea if this has already been discussed, but why do we include sack yards on stats for QBs? Think this is one of those time where someone could legitimately point to "Wikipedia not being a collection of stats" or something along those lines. That stat is nice on PFR but seems much to include here (I also feel this way about sacks in general, and honestly even the fumbles and fumbles lost but can see arguments to keep those). I think we should implement a stats template in the vein of the one that exists for NBA players; this is for consistency and I think it'd also make the Wiki HTML a little less bloated in that section. I made one for QBs a long time ago, and am open to it being tweaked to a consensus on what stats to include in it. Think the consistency would really go a long way in stats sections. Soulbust (talk) 04:49, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

note: I also find it flawed that we don't (usually) include passing or rushing yards per game stat tables, usually. I think including the longest pass statistic the same I way I look at the sack yards, which is to say that including those stats seem really superfluous.
Looking at the stat tables on just a small sample of QBs: Aaron Rodgers, Patrick Mahomes, Lamar Jackson, and Drew Brees shows obvious inconsistencies among what we include, and was just wondering if others felt the same in terms of striving for some consistent stat tables.
For example:
YPG stat - included on Mahomes' and Brees' tables, but not Lamar's or Rodgers'
Lng stat - only excluded on Lamar's
TD% and INT% - only included on Rodgers'
There's also some odd things we choose to highlight or not. Brees' table highlights his OPOY awards, but I figure the only things that really should be highlighted on these tables are the years in which a player won an MVP, SB MVP, or championship (as well as the standard blue for league-leading stats and purple for NFL record stats). Also, as one can see on the stats table for Brees (or Cooper Kupp to use another example), the colors selected for OPOY highlighting and for SB MVP highlighting are extremely similar and can cause confusion or accessibility issues.
Soulbust (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised no one has chimed in on this. Can you make an example of the template you'd like us to follow? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Bert Jones was missing a stats table on his article, so I implemented the QB stats table I'd have in mind on that. Again, I'm open to tweaking it/discussing how to change or improve upon it. Soulbust (talk) 17:26, 9 October 2023 (UTC)

A little help perhaps?

Any chance some editors can chime in on a discussion at the talk page for Dick Butkus? I'm going back and forth with someone linking Chicago in his birthplace parameter and it is going nowhere.--Rockchalk717 05:26, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

It's not just Chicago. Looks like any major city gets the boot when something else in the infobox has relevance to it. NYC with Alan Greenspan, and try to link L.A. for Ronald Reagan. (DO NOT LINK THIS MOS;OVERLINK). If I constantly saw this message on NFL players .. well, I guess I wouldn't be here right now. This has been going on for some time. Not sure if it can be fixed. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:20, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

BeanieFan11

Hi all, as I am sure everyone is aware, our very own BeanieFan11 has been on quite the productive article-writing streak lately, producing tons of good articles and improving others left and right. If you weren't aware, they have been competing in the WP:WIKICUP, which wraps up at the end of the month. I have committed to BeanieFan11 to try to review all their WP:PACKERS-related good article nominations, but that still leaves 8 outstanding WP:NFL good article nominations currently. I think one way that WP:NFL could help pay it forward to BeanieFan11 is for everyone who is able to try to review these nominations and help facilitate BeanieFan11's Wikicup success. If you are able, please take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Article Alerts and see if you can grab a nomination :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:59, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

@Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth: is this sort of canvassing kosher? I thought that "The Cup is played and won by skill of editing." not by brigading. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Jesus. First off, thanks for automatically assuming bad faith. Awesome. Second, BeanieFan11 is producing nominations eligible for the Wikicup, and inherently in order to score, they need to have them reviewed. Their skill of editing is producing these articles and quickly addressing any comments. How is encouraging relevant editors (BeanieFan produces almost exclusively football articles) to review (not rubberstamp pass) nominations against the letter or even the spirit of the rules? Jesus, stuff like this on Wikipedia annoys the crap out of me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:09, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Asking outside parties to facilitate the success of a particular participant in the Wikicup would appear to be against the spirit of the Wikicup competition, but again I am not sure which is why I queried the judges. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:25, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Gonzo fan2007 – for any editors interested in reviewing, I've currently got non-Packers football nominations in Art Rooney Jr., Doug Turley, Louis Crews, Ira Valentine, George H. Hobson, Oliver C. Dawson, Dave Viti and Henry Bell. I've also got several that I haven't yet nominated but will nominate if there's any interest: Ralph Smith, Jeff Allen, John Lookabaugh, Joe Hall, Jim Dillard, Tony Pajaczkowski, Moses Gray, Doug Fisher, Harry Bolick, and Rick Buffington – let me know if there's any that you'd be interested in reviewing – I'd very greatly appreciate it! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:27, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Each now nominated, so anyone can take them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:02, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Also Lou Daukas, Christian Saulsberry, Hamp Cheevers, DuWayne Deitz, Brad White, Tony Okanlawon, Riley Morris, Bob Vaughn and John Kinch. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:29, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

Super Bowl V needs more watchers ...

This piece of vandalism lasted for nearly three months until I caught it while reviewing IP contributions. I've watchlisted it myself but I know nothing about this subject so perhaps people with more interest in it should put it on their watchlists as well. Graham87 (talk) 07:50, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmmm, the IP who removed it also originally added the text ... so I'm not so sure now. Graham87 (talk) 08:45, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Most of it seems feasible, with the caveat that I can only find Lombardi's widow menntioned in The Irish Times (of all places).[27] —Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Lead mention that a player is a free agent

There is currently a discussion underway at Talk:Colt McCoy § Free agent on how (whether?) to mention that a player is currently a free agent, in relation to MOS:DATED. Please feel free to join. Paradoctor (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

@Paradoctor Hi there. I'll ask a stupid question here first. Do you mean ... the word 'currently' a free agent? Which myself and others are removing. Or is it that ridiculous 'being a free agent for six years' if he worked out with a team? I try to leave nothing to the imagination. Marcell Dareus, Jaelen Strong etc. etc. Thank you in advance, P. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

Review Request

For the better part of 4 years, I have been working on a Good Topic for List of Green Bay Packers presidents. My goal was to bring every president's article up to GA, then pass the list article at WP:FLC. However, just recently I realized I missed John Jones (American football executive), who had a complicated and short run as president of the Packers. Just today I finally nominated the article to WP:GAN. Ideally, I was hoping this article could get reviewed and (hopefully) pass GAN before the FLC nomination is finished. All that said, if someone is interested and willing to complete a relatively quick GAN at Talk:John Jones (American football executive)/GA1, I would greatly appreciate it! And obviously, if you are interested in the list article, additional reviews at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Green Bay Packers presidents/archive1 would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:15, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

Boxes for game officials in season articles?

Do we really need boxes in season articles for who were the game officials in games? This is definitely WP:CRUFT in my opinion. The tables are not cited either. Is this information even verifiable? See, 1994 San Francisco 49ers football season for an example.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 13:36, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

We usually include the referee in the box score. Even that's arguably not of much interest to readers; I don't think we need any of the other officials. Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:59, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

All-Pro for Associated Press only

Hello. Not sure if a vote is needed. Should we only add the AP All-Pro teams to the infobox? Lately I saw PFWA and Sporting News added to the infobox for a players first team All-Pro. I didn't want to revert them until something was discussed. Some of these had the second-team All-Pro there already, Mario Williams, Champ Bailey etc. Thank you. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

It's cleared up for MVP, in that league MVP selections from AP, NEA, PFWA, UPI, and the Joe F. Carr Trophy can all be added to the infobox, but not entirely clear for All-Pro. At the very least, I'd appreciate if we could make this clearer at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format#What to include.
I've long been of the belief that the AP is essentially the sanctioned All-Pro designator (the AP chooses who receives the awards given out at the NFL Honors), but I understand that not everybody feels this way. There are definitely some selectors that we should not be including in the infobox, such as PFF, as their standards for All-Pro are far different than most selectors and don't hold the same weight. For reference, 2022 All-Pro Team includes AP, PFWA, and SN and states: "Any player selected to the first-team of any of the teams can be described as an "All-Pro." The AP team, with first-team and second-team selections, was chosen by a national panel of fifty NFL writers and broadcasters. The Sporting News All-NFL team was voted on by NFL players and executives. The PFWA team is selected by its more than 300 national members who are accredited media members covering the NFL."
I'm curious, have we tried to see what the Pro Football Hall of Fame recognizes as All-Pro selectors? I'm sure we could find some players that have a different number of All-Pros depending on which selectors you look at and player's pages on the HoF website typically mention how many times someone has been an All-Pro. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:53, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
For one date point re: PFHOF, its profile for Dan Fouts (click "Career Highlights") lists multiple selectors: All-NFL: 1979 (AP, PFWA, NEA, PW) • 1982 (AP, PFWA, NEA, PW) • 1985 (NEA)—Bagumba (talk) 09:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I've long been of the belief that the AP is essentially the sanctioned All-Pro designator... At 2023 National Football League Record & Fact Book, p.253, it lists both the AP and Sporting News All-Pro teams. If we refer to a 3rd party book, Total Football II: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League. 1999. p.432, listed AP, Pro Football Writers of America, Sporting News, and Pro Football Weekly selections for the 1998 season.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Thank you for those links. I do need to work harder to get my brain to accept that there are other relevant selectors and that I need to view them as more equal than I have. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:03, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: I probably thought similarly before also, maybe until it was brought up at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 18 § All-Pros in infoboxes that PFWA selections were also used to determine compensatory draft picks. There's also the possibility of recentism, with AP being the dominant wire service now, we might get a skewed impression from mainstream media that AP is the main (or only?) one.---- —Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Bagumba: PFWA selections were also used to determine compensatory draft picks. – That's a game changer for my views for sure, as PFWA is actually the service I thought the least of. I completely agree about the recency bias. Thank you for the history lesson! Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Prior discussion For reference, there was Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22 § All-Pro selectors in April 2023, which did not reach any consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Starting Quarterback Lists

I have been wanting to work on List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks for a while and have just started working on it. However, I am struggling to understand how starting quarterbacks are tracked in the early years of the NFL, when the QB wasn't the field general tat it is today. List of National Football League career quarterback wins leaders says that QB wins/losses weren't tracked until 1950. Looking at the Packers list and the sources added to the early part of the table, I don't see how one can deduce who the actual starting QB was. As an example, the table says that Curly Lambeau started 1 game as QB in 1925. Looking at the source at PFR, the stats for 1925 only show the Lambeau started 7 total games and played tailback. Any ideas? Am I missing something? My initial thought is that these lists should be cut off from 1950 on to only show reliably tracked "QB starts". « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

One option would to look at all the Packers game reports and see who started at QB and whether they won or lost, though that would take a lot of time... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:56, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Also wondering for the Packers list: the team did not play in the NFL from 1919 to 1920, should we list the starting QBs from those years too? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Ya, the game reports are pretty unreliable in the early 30s too. I think the biggest challenge is that in those early days, you could have multiple players throwing the ball from different positions. Take the 1936 Championship Game. Arnie Herber and Bob Monnett threw 14 and 9 passes respectively, while 5 different players attempted a pass for the Boston Redskins. Monnett was a halfback, but threw 336 passes over his six year career. Thinking of the topic itself ("starting quarterbacks"), the topic isn't really notable until the QB position became the field general it is today. Starting QBs in the 1930s weren't notable at all, because that position wasn't the preeminent position it is today. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
No commentary about whether this source is reliable, but here they start at 1950 as well, and the notes at the end of the article are interesting about how starting QB didn't matter much back then. FootballDB.com starts at 1970. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:14, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
How about this from Pro-Football-Reference.com? It lists the team's first quarterback in 1947. The site is very reliable, and not a bad starting point for such an article. – PeeJay 18:39, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
That's awesome. That would be the perfect source to utilize. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:49, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I know multiple players would often throw the ball, but the game reports usually had a box score for who "started" the game at qb, which is what we will want to know in the list. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Capitalization of "Week" in "Week #" in Articles

Sources and consistency on Wikipedia seem to disagree. Take for example the sentence below from Jordan Love:

In Week 3, Love completed his first come-from-behind victory with a 18–17 win over the New Orleans Saints after the Packers trailed by a score of 17–0 in the fourth quarter.

In this example, should it be "Week 3" or "week 3". As I mentioned, the sources tend to disagree. As a general question, this seems to be simplified down to "does 'Week #' act as a proper noun?" Thanks for any input. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:30, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

I've long believed that "Week 3" would not be considered a proper name and, as such, should not be capitalized except for at the start of the sentence. Unfortunately, many publishers capitalize "week" because it makes it easier to read and follow. But being easier to read and follow doesn't mean it's actually correct capitalization. I'd love it if we could standardize using lowercase for week when applicable. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I have no strong preference either way. Anecdotally, I feel like most sources I look at capitalize it, which is what I tend to do. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't believe we're still debating this. This is a tale as old as time. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:04, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is as much a debate as a desire to establish consensus on a guideline. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:16, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@WikiOriginal-9: You've been around a bit longer than I have. Are you aware of this being discussed and a consensus forming in a past discussion? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:17, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
No, I don't remember anything off the top of my head exactly. We probably need to get a firm consensus on this and then document it on the different style guides listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Structure and place links back to this discussion or whatever discussion decides it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:23, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I didn't look that hard but I found this and this. Not really a consensus though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:37, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

As OP notes, "sources tend to disagree". Per MOS:CAPS, then we are not seeing it "consistently capitalized" in sources. So we don't treat it as a proper name (which it's clearly not, anyway). Dicklyon (talk) 21:08, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

@Dicklyon: Do you think it should be "week 3" or "week three"? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Both are pretty common in sources, with "week three" more often lowercase, so I suppose I'd prefer that. But OK with the numeral, too. Dicklyon (talk) 22:33, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm pretty confident I see the numeral used so frequently that I didn't even consider whether it should be the word or numeral. I think that sources overwhelmingly use the numeral while they're split on the capitalization of week. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Here's hoping we stick with the numeral. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:07, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
There's no need to change numerals to written out, but what we have does already include a mix of those, as you can see by doing a search on "week three"; plenty of AFL and NFL hits, including section headings. Some of those AFL playoffs weeks are not particularly relevant, but see the lead at 1987 NFL season. Dicklyon (talk) 00:28, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, numeral is the one used the most in RS and also has the added bonus of looking a little nicer (IMO) ULPS (talk • contribs) 01:12, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with "week 3" using numeral. (FWIW, MOS:SPELL09 says Integers from zero to nine are spelled out in words.) —Bagumba (talk) 09:31, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
We should definitely use the numeral, since "week 3" is part of a set that also includes "week 10", "week 14" and "week 16" among others. If we wrote out "week one", "week six" and "week eight", it would look weird next to "week 11" and the rest. – PeeJay 16:23, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Right, this falls under the "comparable values" exception, whether or not "week" is capitalized. oknazevad (talk) 07:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Definitely no need to cap week and we should be spelling the numeral IAW our guidance. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:55, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Comments:
  • Sources almost universally have the numeral. There is no need to spell out the numeral: MOS:SPELL09 also says Proper names, technical terms, and the like are never altered: 10 Downing Street, Nine Inch Nails, Channel 8, Seven Samurai, The Sixth Sense, Chanel No. 5, Fourth Estate, The Third Man, Second Coming, First Amendment, Zero Hour!, "Less than Zero", C7 vertebra. This clearly falls under "technical terms". We are saying "Week 3", not "three weeks".
  • Some of this discussion makes me lean towards capitalizing as a proper noun. Wikipedia's opening sentence on proper noun says: A proper noun is a noun that identifies a single entity and is used to refer to that entity (Africa, Jupiter, Sarah, Tesla, Inc.) as distinguished from a common noun, which is a noun that refers to a class of entities (continent, planet, person, corporation). In this case, "Week 3" is a single entity that is being referred to a specific thing, i.e. "Week 3 of the 2023 NFL season of the National Football League". I think this falls under the definition of a "proper noun phrase" and should be capitalized as such. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
And hopefully there will be a big red "EASY" button to change every player that has a Wikipedia page when it's finally decided. Because you know someone is going to drop by ... using the reason: It's a rule? But I like it better this way! Bringingthewood (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

One of the most interesting transactions I've seen in some time

Last night, I was looking at list of yesterday's transactions and came across "Eagles waived Bernard Williams from the suspended list" - I thought to myself, who? I've been checking transactions every day for two years and never heard of such a man. Turns out, he was suspended after 1994 and never applied for reinstatement, and so he was technically on the Eagles for 29 years lol... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:14, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought some of our articles were outdated. I remember seeing a case like that before, not sure if it was the same guy. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, the same thing happened with Tyrone Robertson a few years ago. Ironically, another player from Georgia!! LOL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 22:35, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
lol, looks like the infobox there actually says 2001 to 2015. Not sure we should be doing that... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:48, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
There was a big discussion on it back a few years ago. This case is interesting in that Williams actually played several years for teams in several other leagues after being suspended from the NFL. Ejgreen77 (talk) 23:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
So, does that mean they owe him a ring for Super Bowl 52? Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:10, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Some editors here would argue yes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:58, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
Isn't the general rule for players that they played in at least one game during the season? Beyond that it's up to the owners, but I might be misremembering. ULPS (talk • contribs) 16:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
I think Stan Humphries got one in 1991 from his season of clipboard holding in Washington. But yes, I'm sure the owners aren't obliged to make any. Harper J. Cole (talk) 16:54, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
It could be a part of the whole owner's discretion thing, whatever the rules, it would be funny if he got a ring. ULPS (talk • contribs) 16:59, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Stats tables by Beamen432

Not sure what No Type Penalty is supposed to mean...? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:27, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

I assume this means a player was not called for any penalty - like a false start, holding, or offside. I've never actually seen it been used in a state table before. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:13, 18 November 2023 (UTC)

Delvin Williams vs. Keena Turner

Hi. I have an issue in Commons that I could use your help with. [28] shows pictures of an event attended by Nancy Reagan and several football players. The issue is that the man on the right is either Delvin Williams (File:Delvin Williams C37761-19 (cropped).jpg) or Keena Turner (File:Nancy Reagan with Joe Montana and Keena Turner (cropped) 2.jpg) but he can't be both. I looked at pictures of both players and tend to think that it's Keena Turner but I could use more pairs of eyes on this. Thanks in advance. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 03:23, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

I don't have proof but that looks a lot more like Turner to me. I don't how else to say it but Williams' nose is bigger. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:45, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Also, Turner's profile picture on 49ers.com looks a lot like the photo. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Wow, that does make you think. I found this article https://www.upi.com/Archives/1986/10/30/First-lady-says-lack-of-self-esteem-is-key-to-need-for-drugs/3672531032400/ and by the wording/explanation of the event, it would be Keena Turner holding up the jersey in the photo with Joe Montana and Mrs. Reagan. If I had a gun to my head, the photo on Delvin Williams page is not him on the right. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:41, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

This link here on Delvin's revision history page https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Delvin_Williams&diff=prev&oldid=1011882547 shows a more believable photo of when he met Mr. and Mrs. Reagan in 1986. Looks like this photo should have stayed where it was on his page. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Looks like we have a winner! Bless your soul, WikiOriginal-9 for that photo swap. If I attempted that, we'd have a third player. @@ - Bringingthewood (talk) 03:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Lol lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:19, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you all. Cryptic-waveform (talk) 05:01, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
You're welcome. :) Bringingthewood (talk) 05:05, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

High school parameter

I thought we decided this already when we discussed the high school parameter a couple years ago, but guess not. In instances like Travis Kelce where the high school is the same as the city name or Breece Hall where the city's name is in the high school name, I feel like restating the city is utterly pointless and we should leave it to just the state abbreviation. Like for the names I mentioned for example, Kelce: Cleveland Heights (OH). Or for Hall: Wichita Northwest (KS).--Rockchalk717 02:48, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up, RC. I agree that the city is pointless. Also. maybe we need this topic brought up again, regarding the place of birth and high school being the same. I know you've personally seen me removing city and state from the high school. If we all agree on just the abbreviation, that's great. But I've seen abbreviations changed back over to full city and state. That's why I've been removing it completely. Seems to me that it wouldn't take a brain surgeon to see where a high school is located with the city of birth being the same. Honestly, I'm all for a vote to keep things uniformed and not to get into future altercations with other editors down the road. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
...regarding the place of birth and high school being the same...: Template:Infobox NFL biography says:

...Do not wikilink or include the subdivision again if it is the same as their birthplace.

If we're not linking the city, because we assume the reader already saw it in the birthplace, it seems like we should also assume they saw the state in the birthplace as well, and it does not need repeating with the HS. —Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 25 November 2023 (UTC)
Template:Infobox NFL biography reads:

...However, city and state should be mentioned. For example: Breckenridge (Breckenridge, Texas)...

This reflects consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 16 § HS convention poll for the "Use basketball bio format: <school> (<city>, <state>)" option. At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 16 § Next steps for HS, the consensus was to specify the city, even if the school name and city matched.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football § Frank Howard: Is there more than one in AmF?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football § Frank Howard: Is there more than one in AmF?. —Bagumba (talk) 06:32, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for NFL playoffs

NFL playoffs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:27, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Super Bowl XLI

Super Bowl XLI has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:44, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Buccaneers–Packers rivalry

If anyone is willing to do a quick review at DYK, the above titled article would be a great main page addition next weekend when the Bucs and Pack play each other! It would be appreciated :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:35, 9 December 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_22&oldid=1194543878"