Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

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

Using Template:Gridiron alt secondary color

[edit]

OK. What does everyone prefer to be used in the |above= field of all 32 NFL team templates? Should we use Template:Gridiron alt primary style or should we use Template:Gridiron alt secondary color? Please comment? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 03:48, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you share some examples here of the differences so that people can comment without digging and testing to view the differences themselves @CharlesEditor23? Typically that works best when proposing changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Here's the coding difference for the Cincinnati Bengals:
Mine:
* Based and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio
Hey man im josh's:
* Based and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio
Admittedly, it's a slight difference, and I know you'll all say it's indistinguishable, but it makes a difference if we ever decided to add |border=2 to the |basestyle= of NFL team templates. Here's how the template looks with and without the |border=2 wiki-code formatting:
With:
| basestyle = background-color: #FB4F14 !important; color: #000000 !important; box-shadow: inset 2px 2px 0 #000000, inset -2px -2px 0 #000000;; brings this:
 Cincinnati Bengals - primary set (with border)
Without:
| basestyle = background-color: #FB4F14 !important; color: #000000 !important; ; brings this:
 Cincinnati Bengals - primary set (without border)
OK. That said, here's what the visual difference in the wiki-code formatting using Template:Gridiron alt primary style & Template:Gridiron alt secondary color looks like:
Gridiron alt primary style (with border):
 Based and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio - primary set
Gridiron alt primary style (without border):
 Based and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio - primary set
Gridiron alt secondary color (with border):
 Based and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio - primary set
Gridiron alt secondary color (without border):
 Based and headquartered in Cincinnati, Ohio - primary set
That's what I was trying to show you all when I was attempting to make my edits. Again, I'm sorry if it came across as me engaging in WP:Editwarring. Also, for the record, Template:Infobox NFL team uses |border=2 as its wiki-code formatting in the infobox as it currently stands. Here's how that looks:
| rowstyle1 = background-color: #ACACAC !important; color: #000000 !important; box-shadow: inset 2px 2px 0 #DCDCDC, inset -2px -2px 0 #DCDCDC;; text-align:center; padding:5px;
I'm just saying that all I want is consistent wiki-code formatting in the infobox & main templates. It does not make sense to me to use |border=2 in the infobox, but not in the |basestyle= of each NFL team template. Either we use |border=2 in both the infobox & main team template, or we don't. That's the WP:CONSENSUS I'm trying to achieve. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 20:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll repeat my (unanswered) question from #Wiki-Code Formatting Adjustments using color data from Module:Gridiron color/data above: I'm pretty dense when it comes to all the colors stored: "primary color", "secondary color", "tertiary color raw", "alt primary", "alt secondary". Is there a primer on how we typically use one color setting versus another? —Bagumba (talk) 16:02, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. What I was trying to get across was that I wanted to see the Baltimore Ravens' template look like this:
Baltimore Ravens by Module:Gridiron color and Module:Gridiron color/sandbox (this is the wiki-code formatting for the |titlestyle=):
 Baltimore Ravens - primary set
Notice how  purple  is the primary background color,  white  is the secondary text color, and  gold  is the tertiary border color. That's how it is now. This is what it looks like in the |basestyle=:
 Baltimore Ravens - secondary set
Notice how  black  is the predominant color in the |basestyle= (because black is the secondary color for the Ravens) and  white  is the alt secondary color. Also, notice how the |border=2 color changes from  gold  to  purple . All I'm trying to do is unify the |border=2 color for both the |titlestyle= & the |basestyle= that uses its color data from Module:Gridiron color/data & uses Template:Gridiron tertiary color raw. I'm trying to make sure the |border=2 color in the |basestyle= of the Ravens' template specifically uses  gold  (because metallic gold is the Ravens' third team color). I believe the wiki-code formatting should look like this: <div style="background:# black ; color:# white ; border:2px solid; # gold ; in the |basestyle= for the Ravens. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 20:28, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
CharlesEditor23, can you elaborate on what downstream changes or unintended consequences this would have for other templates using these modules? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:03, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not 100% sure on what downstream changes or unintended consequences there would be. Also, what do you mean by downstream changes? Hopefully there are other editors smarter than me that can help me out? I definitely see your point. These changes probably should not be implemented until we can figure out what downstream changes or unintended consequences there are and how to work around or bypass them completely. CharlesEditor23 (talk)! CharlesEditor23 (talk) 22:57, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As an example, you may only intended to make changes that impact certain teams, but by implementing this, you end up making changes for other team templates you don't necessarily intend. That would be a downstream change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:13, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK. That's actually helpful. Thank you for that. Now that I think about it, I don't believe there would be any downstream changes or unintended consequences for implementing these changes, though I think further discussion is obviously warranted here. Waiting for Hey man im josh to comment. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 00:08, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I didn't immediately implement your requests a few weeks ago. The thing is pretty convoluted and making formatting changes for individual teams could easily break another's. The intent when I was editing them myself a few weeks ago was to inverse the primary and secondary colors for the alt style, but I guess I either overlooked something or broke it myself. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:46, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've been here and watching. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:26, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the proposed changes be done to specific team templates, or would it be to a generic template used by all teams? —Bagumba (talk) 00:38, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a very fair and very valid question. In the interest of fairness, I would vote for these changes to be implemented to a generic template used by all teams, but we need more discussion about any downstream changes or unintended consequences first. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 00:45, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per your earlier response (didn't see it), but Template:Gridiron primary style and Template:Gridiron alt primary style are the only ones we use within templates. The other ones aren't really directly used and both baseball and basketball colors work fine with only five modules (gridiron uses nine), so I don't see why we couldn't simplify them here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:56, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93 I would 100 percent definitely vote for what you're proposing, because it seems to me like it's the most reasonable and straight forward solution (to only use color data and wiki-code formatting using Template:Gridiron primary style & Template:Gridiron alt primary style). What does everyone else think? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 01:02, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't think of a single case where one of the other templates are directly used, at least anymore. They surely had a use prior to the color module's creation in 2018 and could probably be safely deleted now, but we'd need to ensure nothing would break on account of that. Where's a link to that tool that can check to see where a template is used? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:10, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if there is a link to a tool to check to see if a template is used, or where it would be. That I don't know. Would anyone else be opposed to deleting all the other unnecessary templates linked to Module:Gridiron color? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 02:22, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does entering hastemplate in a search box suffice? —Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No better than using the "What links here" tool, but it does look like all of the "raw" templates aren't used anywhere while the other templates have occasional uses. Just to be safe, I've merged the raw templates with their respective templates for now to see if anything is broken before I request deletion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:04, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are there concerns regarding accessibility? I'm noting that some past discussions did center around this. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe the majority of them were addressed. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:41, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Color contrast ratio says that normal-sized text should have contrast >= 4.5, but teams like the Dolphins (3.95) and Chargers (4.28) are below that at Module:Gridiron color/data. If the alt primary and alt secondary should be used instead, is that swapped at Module:Gridiron color/data or it's the responsibility of the calling templates to swap the colors? —Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, my whole thing is that the Miami Dolphins template needs to use  #008E97  as the shade of aqua, because that's the shade the team uses, even if it means that the text color needs to be black for WP:CONTRAST purposes. Likewise, the Los Angeles Chargers template needs to use  #0080C6  as the shade of powder blue, because that's the specific shade that team uses. So if the color codes for the primary team colors for the Dolphins & Chargers need to be changed, then so be it. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 05:33, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no traceability of where these colors come from. At Module:College color, it has citations at least. If we don't use the "official" team colors due to accessibility, how is that tracked so someone later doesn't come along and fix the "wrong" colors? —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 11 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is why any time I have changed the team color codes over at Module:Gridiron color/data, I have always tried to give a URL source so that other editors can check it or use it as a reference, or for traceability purposes. I have never tried to insert color codes based on WP:OR. Most of the time, the current team color codes for all 32 teams are referenced from CreativeAssets.NFL.net. The NFL Throwback YouTube channel also has a video called "Evolution of EVERY Team's Logo and Helmet | NFL Explained!" (that video is found here). Admittedly, this video is now more than two years old, but it's the most recent video published by the NFL that gives historical HTML color code data (some of the historical HTML color codes are approximations) for all 32 teams. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 05:30, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So my question is this: where does the community land on the debate as to whether the |border=2 parameter should be included in the |basestyle= of all NFL team templates? I obviously would like to see it included because I feel like having a |border=2 in the |basestyle= improves the visual appearance of the template. I also know there's opposition to having it included, so if at all possible, could I get some feedback as to why other editors don't want the |border=2 parameter included in the |basestyle= so we can continue to discuss it to reach a WP:CONSENSUS? CharlesEditor23 (talk) 04:27, 14 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Tip (American football)

[edit]

I would like some opinions on this article. Right now, it is very much written as an article on the play itself, Sherman's tip in the end zone that was then intercepted. However, in the realm of notable plays, this doesn't seem to hold muster. Deflections that end in an interception happen often. And interceptions to end games, even playoff games, happen often. I am not seeing anything that truly makes this notable as just the play. That said, there are some confusing aspects that may come into play: the article uses {{Infobox NFL game}}, it is categorized in Category:NFC Championship Games and Category:National Football League playoff games, and it includes info commonly found for game summaries (starting lineup and officials). I am contemplating AFDing this, but if the article were rewritten to be about the entire NFC Championship Game itself, I think it easily holds muster. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gonzo fan2007: Agree with all of your points 100 percent. I would support this article being renamed, retitled and moved to 2013 NFC Championship Game. Admittedly, the only notable part about the game, IMO, was Richard Sherman's post-game interview with Erin Andrews. Sherman's interception and subsequent post-game interview are only notable because they were the culmination of a closely contested conference championship game. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NARVESON IS BACK

[edit]

NARVESON IS BACK BABYYYYY


Anyway…


Once again Narveson is signed back to the Tennessee Titans… and his height is 5'11" again. I am not going enter into this mess again so I will let you all decide what it should be since PFR and ESPN both say 6'0"


thats all… have a good night WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 03:48, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The pfr links are present in almost all NFL infoboxes, it shouldn't stir up the mess from months ago. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:08, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, thanks. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 04:28, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not a problem. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:30, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Best 2nd place team?

[edit]

I feel sure that the 1999 Tennessee Titans (13–3) have the best record of a team that failed to win its division, at least in the 16-game era, but I don't see this mentioned in the article and I can't find a reference for it. Where might I find a source for this? It feels especially relevant as Detroit and Minnesota both have 13 wins already in 2024, albeit we are now in the 17-game era. --Jameboy (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The 1967 Baltimore Colts would probably be the overall best, but I don't know where you'd get a source. If the Lions and Vikings both reach 14–2 there may be some talk in game previews about the record being set by the week 18 loser, so you could probably pick up something reliable then. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute regarding images on T. J. Watt

[edit]

Looking for a third opinion on whether there's too many images / use of specific images is appropriate on the T. J. Watt article. Reading the article, in its current state, causes 4 different section headers to be indented due to images spilling over on the left side between sections. There was an overzealous use of external links before, which I've removed quite a few of, but several images, specifically File:Watt 2018.jpg, File:TJWATT90.jpg, and File:Campbell Casey and Watt.png are blurry and don't improve the article from my perspective. We have enough high quality photos that we shouldn't be using blurry ones that aren't adding anything of value except to add images. There was also the recent addition of File:SOF honored at Pittsburgh Steelers Salute to Service game (241117-F-SI788-1942).jpg, which now sandwiches the text at the 2024 section between external media and an image, while also indenting the below section header for me.

The other editor claims the addition of these images makes the page more engaging, but I do not agree. Looking for an outside perspective from those who interested in the subject matter but not involved in the dispute. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also have similar concerns regarding blurry image usage and MOS:SANDWICH concerns with Mike Tomlin and other Steelers related articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh Blurry images should never be added. In this wide, wide world, there has to be something better to use. Saw it on the George Pickens page yesterday. I'm not familiar with WP's formal rules on adding or deleting an image, so I don't touch. But I will delete a blurry image in the body of an article. I agree with Josh, it doesn't improve an article at all. Nor do those super-skinny images, just saying. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
agreed with blurry images should not be added, and there's usually an excessive amount of them on current/former Steelers' player pages, usually from the author trying to show off their grainy photos. Does not improve the article either. HappyBoi3892 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Low resolution images with incomplete metadata claimed as "Own work" can be questionable. See Commons:But it's my own work!. If I'm in doubt, I usually click "No permission" (available on QuickDelete gadget on Commons), and the uploader can then verify the licensing by submitting written permission to VRT, any perhaps other proof like personal ID or the original image. I tagged File:TJ Watt 290.jpg.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely not. That is my own work. Anything posted taken by others on my commons page is credited appropriately. Some images come from private Facebook albums I have posted through the years that I transfer to Wikipedia. Cramerwiki (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
VRT can help you sort it out. Unfortunately, others who have uploaded low-res images w/ minimal metadata can make life more difficult for honest contributors. —Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another relevant guideline is MOS:IMAGEQUALITY re: blurry images. Tall, skinny images can sometimes be managed by using MOS:UPRIGHT.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Should have pinged @Cramerwiki to allow them to chime in, but I did leave a notice regarding this discussion at Talk:T. J. Watt. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
None of these images are blurry nor excessive. They are no different than what is found on multiple other athlete’s pages. I don’t know how you see these images and say they’re “blurry” when you can see exactly what the image is being taken of with visible details. I’ve been thanked by multiple users for additions of images and now suddenly it’s a problem? Cramerwiki (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't take it personal, others' intent is only to improve the article. I personally don't understand why photos were added that aren't a closeup and/or show his face. I would suggest keeping the best three and removing the rest. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay here's my question; I am following the standard set by other pages. Why is this suddenly a problem after a decade of having pages like Ben Roethlisberger's and Hines Ward's (for example) where there are multiple images usually equating to one per season and not being any different in quality from images I have supplied? Cramerwiki (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no standard as to the number of images that should be on a page. As examples, his brother J. J. Watt has seven images on his page, whereas his other brother Derek Watt only has a single blurry image. The purpose of a photo is mainly to show what the person looks like and at some point they become too much. If the other pages that you mention have multiple images too, then perhaps they need to be deleted as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are nine images on T.J. Watt's page. I strongly, strongly disagree that is excessive. Also none of them fall under the category of "Poor-quality images—dark or blurry" as per the guideline of "showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous". Cramerwiki (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The scale of Wikipedia is such that it's always a work in progress, and bad examples do exist. The established community guidelines are at MOS:IMAGES. A good standard might be to look at featured articles. However, be aware of Wikipedia:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. —Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As stated at MOS:IMAGES "If an article on a military officer already shows its subject in uniform, then two more formal in-uniform portraits would add little interest or information..." So, how many images of T.J. Watt in a football uniform do we need? Assadzadeh (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Completely agree. Too many images as is and the blurry ones can go. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have removed all the {{external media}} templates. These aren't meant to link to "fun" videos that show something happening. Rather they aren't meant to convey information that readers would expect in an encyclopedic entry about the topic but that we are unable to provide because the video is copyrighted or unable to be included for another reason. There is no way I would expect to find a video 0f his 100th sack, for example, in his encyclopedia entry.
Regarding images, File:TJ Watt.jpg is the least encyclopedic imho, and it should be removed. This would provide space for File:Watt 2018.jpg to be right justified. I would also recommend File:T.J. Watt (51653079007).jpg be cropped to his waist up, which will help with the length of the infbox and some downstream layout. Writing a longer, more complete lead would also help with some of the layout in the first few sections. I also question whether "1 touchdown" in his infobox is relevant, and why "(tied with Mark Gastineau and Reggie White)" needs to be included in his infobox. I think his college photo is relavent and we should try to work around it to find better formatting, instead of removing it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the 1 touchdown and 'tied with' being removed. But just before I removed them months ago .. I realized several other players have the same thing on their pages. If I did it for Watt, I would do it across the board, which could ruffle feathers. So I stopped. I'm a big fan of his and would do it for everyone else if there's consensus. Also, is it one touchdown only and tied with more than one player? Bringingthewood (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the other two players. Mark Gastineau has 2 touchdowns and just the word 'tied'. Reggie White has the same as Gastineau. I think that's why I stopped earlier before deleting everything. I have seen editors deleting defensive touchdowns, even as many as three or more TD's. If there isn't a problem, I would delete the names of the players 'tied'. That would make a mess if more were added down the road anyway. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I made some changes to the article. I won't go back and forth on any of them, so feel free to revert if you aren't in love with any of the changes. When I have a few minutes, I will try to expand the lead. Overall, I think this probably is a good compromise with the images. The alternating left/right photos looks good in many articles, but those articles typically have more text and less portrait images, which help not to break the section headers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Everything looks good to me, I won't be the one to change it. Just now I amended the White, Gastineau, and Strahan pages to look like Watt's consecutive/sack record lines in the infobox. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw Watt's one touchdown removed, so I deleted the same from Seau and Garrett. Honestly, I'm going to stop now being that I tend to run with things. Someone will probably get pissed off in the future. Two touchdowns yes ... one no, still wondering about consensus with that. P.S. I think I handled it well .. Watt being the guinea pig. ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If anyone wants to chime in on if we should continue to remove defensive touchdowns, if only 'one', please leave a comment. I'm seeing more and more players with that in their infobox. So far, T. J. Watt, J. Randle, M. Garrett, and J. Seau have been removed. I can remove the 'one' only from players if there's some sort of agreement here. Another question, if Garrett or Watt get to 'two' in their career, do we then add that line back? Bringingthewood (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to standardize on which stats are displayed in the infobox, like WP:BASEBALLSA/PL does. Using Rod Woodson, Speedy Duncan and Darrien Gordon as examples, there's no consistency on how return TDs (punt, kickoff, int, fumble) and return yards (punt, kickoff, int) are displayed, and whether they are itemized or combined. —Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency, that's the operative word. Special team stats may be tough, the conversation above sounds like a defensive player would have to have two or more touchdowns to be infobox worthy. Fine with me. But we can't have 100 players and 50 have one touchdown, the others removed because a few of us don't like it. I would either add the stats back to the four mentioned above ... or everyone should lose it. Being honest here, if T. J. Watt doesn't have it listed, Myles Garrett never will. I would just like to have that good old leg to stand on when I remove something. Too bad we can't just add certain things to the WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT. Example: No 'BOLD TYPE' for games played and started. Yes, it would take time and effort to remove all that, but we then can revert an editor and tell them to read WP. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a defensive player thing to only display 2+ touchdowns? Does it apply to offensive and return specialist TDs? Why? —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, I asked that same question above. I understand what was said -not relevant -- not a skill player. But I also wondered if it applied to 2+ also. Personally, I wouldn't apply it to offense or return specialists, that really is their goal. Maybe the '1' upsets people because it elongates the infobox. I knew an editor that removed 3 and 4 touchdowns for a defensive player, it upset him. I just reverted what I did with Seau and Randle. I can't force others to like what I do .. because it's an opinion not a consensus. Watt and Garrett can stay with their stats removed. When an editor comes by and adds it back .. it'll then give me something to do. Bold for GP and GS should have a vote. Several editors go with not adding it. Again, now we argue with IP's due to our opinion. See the history on Myles Garrett. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a preference yet. I just wanted to know the rationale to help reach a decision. —Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, infobox stats are about relevance. For a defensive end/edge, touchdowns usually aren't that relevant or notable because they don't score many over there career. Reggie White didn't score 1 TD in his career. It's like listing touchdowns for a place kicker. I mean, cool, but not really relevant. I support removing all defensive touchdowns for these type of players. That said, if some guy played 2 seasons and happened to score a touchdown, then have at it. But for the very accomplished players who have plenty of other good counting stats to have in the infobox, having touchdowns is just not helpful. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I only follow the NFL casually these days. For Watt, how would I decide if TD belongs? His ibx shows him as a LB and not "edge". —Bagumba (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think someone should fix Reggie White's page, he's listed as having two defensive touchdowns. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We would definitely need consensus and something in writing if all defensive end/edge touchdowns will be removed. An outsider won't get that -- it's splitting hairs. Pfr might have a player listed as a DE, but he's really playing outside linebacker. A whole can of worms opened here. Nick Bosa is DE .. Pfr has him as EDGE. Watt is an outside linebacker .. but called an edge rusher also. See what I mean? Should be all or nothing. The less we make people think about something, the better we are.Bringingthewood (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I'm left scratching my head as to why touchdowns aren't a "relevant" stat for defensive players. I personally would err more in the direction of considering touchdowns the most relevant stat, regardless of position. But any step toward standardization would be good, in my opinion. OceanGunfish (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I never said that touchdowns arent relevant, just that for some players they arent relevant for the infobox. The infobox is supposed to show the most pertinent info, not everything. Keenan Allen has an interception in his career, should that be added to his infobox? Obviously no, because in todays NFL interceptions by wide receivers arent common and arent the key information people are looking for when seeing Keenan Allens wikipedia page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If it was just you and me, I could agree re: Watt's TDs. But for a crowd-sourced environment, what are the objective criteria for listing TDs or not for defensive players' infoboxes? —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I love all you guys, but I have to keep Watt and Garrett the way it was. We don't even have common ground over here. Positions, established players or not etc. .. I'm getting a headache. It's not fair to anyone having half-ass pages. Maybe we can start a vote and I give you my word that I will not buck the majority. But for now, it's not right. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd recommend hashing out the various rationales before voting. —Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that for the smart people. I have no say if players A, B and D are eligible to have it ... but maybe player C on every other Thursday. Not touching this one. I'm just leaving the pages consistent for now. Just remember, as an IP user in 2022, I added bold to games played/started and I removed U.S. from the infobox. People can change. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, though there is discussion in this thread about including defensive touchdowns if the player has scored more than one. I certainly am unclear about where the bar should be for infobox inclusion - if Travis Hunter ends up listed as and playing primarily as a CB, is there a percentage of offensive play participation that makes his WR stats infobox-worthy? It would be really helpful, at least to me, to have a standard to follow. OceanGunfish (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As a reference point, this was Deion Sanders' infobox before stats were removed because of the silly switch to {{Infobox college coach}} from {{Infobox NFL biography}}. No receiving stats shown—he had 60 career receptions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just changed it back. There was only a banner for the College HOF but not Pro... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox NFL biography articles with line breaks?

[edit]

Hello (and Merry Christmas) from the other side of the Pacific! I'm in the process of trying to clean up a bunch of the maintenance tags on WikiProject New Zealand articles, and I've come across the above maintenance tag in relation to Tevita Finau. I haven't quite been able to get my head around exactly what's needed here other than something to clean up the list structure in the |teams parameter, so I'd really appreciate a bit of guidance here. I'm happy to do the work myself if someone can point me in the right direction, but also it may be quicker if someone with more experience in this space has time to take a look at the article itself. Cheers! Turnagra (talk) 02:03, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the creator of Category:Infobox NFL biography articles with line breaks has WP:VANISHED. —Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Decker Reported

[edit]

The above nomination at AFD is pertinent to this WikiProject. Please feel free to participate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"player who was"

[edit]

Thoughts on this new lead formation that has been popping up lately (not naming any names). I'm not sure about it... I understand why some people may write it like that and it reads fine but it's still a tad wordy/clunky in my personal opinion.

I think "played" tells the reader that the article subject is a player. This isn't Simple English Wikipedia. And I don't believe "football quarterback " is a SEAOFBLUE either. It may be a puddle of blue but that's not enough of a reason to change all of the leads to "player who was". The leads used to be "American football quarterback" for like 20 years and it wasn't a problem.

The discussion that changed "American football" to "football" didn't even say anything about "player who was". There were only 4 !voters, one who said "no prejudice to replacing player with the exact position." and another who said "Instead of player, identify the position". All of that said, I'll go along with whatever consensus decides. I just think we need to get a firm consensus and end these lead debates once and for all. Perhaps we should post a link to this discussion at the manual of style or do an RfC to get wider participation. I don't want to have to go through and change 25K leads and then just have to change them all back again later. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Out of curiosity, would "Gridiron football" be acceptable instead of "American football" and football? Alvaldi (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think so. People don't really call it that. That's kind of a wiki-ism. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I only use that to avoid saying something like American Canadian football player in a short description. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's all generically plain football in North America (MOS:TIES). An American's lead mentioning Canadian Football League gets the point across that they played outside of U.S. —Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've stated it elsewhere but I'm in opinion that the "player who was" is unnecessary and does not flow nearly as well. "Sea of blue" never seemed to be an issue for all these years.-- Yankees10 20:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I wasn't even aware this was a thing as I tend to stick to active players. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing I most dislike about these configurations is the tendency to describe players in the opening sentence as a "professional" football player. Why can't we just call them football players? Many players are far more notable for their college careers (e.g., Tom Harmon, Archie Griffin, Herschel Walker) and had relatively unimpressive pro careers. Especially in such cases, the emphasis on "professional" in the opening sentence is a mischaracterization of such players' core claim to notability. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    The exceptional college players can be tweaked on a per-case basis. Some drive-by editors don't handle nuance too well, and might rv for "consistency" or add "college" to the lead sentence of players more notable as pros. And former players who only went to pro training camps might be better referred to as a "former college player" in the lead sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    My preference would be to simply say "American football player" rather than "professional" or "college" in the opening sentence. Most professional players also played college football, and it's therefore not an either/or situation. The details of teams (both college and pro) are addressed in the following sentences of the lead anyway, and there's therefore no need to pigeonhole each player in the opening sentence as either a college or pro player. They are all in the broader sense American football players, and that seems like the more logical and encompassing descriptor for an opening sentence. Cbl62 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
    What would your revised lead for Archie Griffin be? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not that new Randomly, Don Martin (American football) had "American football player who played defensive back" from Day 1 in 2010. Dirtlawyer1 was reguarly changing to "player who was a" as early as 2014.[1]. The relevant guideline MOS:SEAOFBLUE says:

    When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link, as in chess tournament ([[chess]] [[tournament]]). Instead, consider rephrasing the sentence (tournament of chess)...

    This is consistent with the accessibllity spirit of MOS:OVERLINK:

    For example, because inline links present relatively small tap targets on touchscreen devices, placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult for readers, especially if they have limited dexterity or coordination.

    —Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi–protection request for Jake Bates January 1, 2025

[edit]

I do not know if this is the right place but random IP's keep on changing Jake Bates's photo to copyrighted images, but if it can be semi–protected so other editors do not have to keep on reverting them. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&oldid=1266566039"