Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Players who were suspended

I noticed that players like Ricky Williams and Adam Jones were suspended for a whole season (Williams-2006) and (Jones-2007). Ricky Williams Dolphins career keeps getting split even though NFL.com has Williams listed as on the team in 2006, but with zero stats. If I look on the 2006 Dolphins roster, he is listed on there, but on the reserve list as suspended. Adam Jones' infobox has 2007 even though he was suspended. NFL.com doesn't include him as a player the year he was suspended. It is confusing that we have two suspended players and their infoboxes are different. I think that Adam Jones' shouldn't have 2007 since NFL.com doesn't show he played, but I think the Ricky Williams' Dolphins career shouldn't be split because NFL.com lists him as a player in 2006. What do you guys think? —RoyalsLife 23:11, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Ricky Williams also retired in 2004 and didn't play that entire season. Lizard (talk) 00:01, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Lizard but NFL lists Williams on the roster in 2006 though... which means that his Dolphins career shouldn't be separated —RoyalsLife 03:08, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure. The reason I reverted your edit was because you had listed his Dolphins career as 2002–2010, when there should at least be one gap, in 2004 when he was retired. Lizard (talk) 03:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

From what I've seen, missing time for any reason, be it of a player's own volition or otherwise, the years are separated on the same line by a comma if the player didn't join a new team after missing said time. See Ken Kavanaugh, Tony Canadeo, and Bill Dudley, who each missed time to serve in WWII. Paul Hornung and Alex Karras each served a year suspension for gambling. Lizard (talk) 03:20, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Lizard I changed Adam Jones' because he missed 2007 due to suspension. This means that Josh Gordon should be changed, which I will do now. —RoyalsLife 18:11, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Tough to say what to do with a player that's currently suspended. Clearly he's still on the roster, which makes me question our omission of other players' years. Lizard (talk) 18:15, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Lizard this means Ricky Williams Dolphins career would be (2002–2003), (2005–2010)....—RoyalsLife 18:25, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

• Josh Gordon is still on the Browns roster and Adam Jones was still on the Titans roster in 2007. There's no reason not to include those years because they were suspended.--Yankees10 18:26, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Yankees10 NFL.com doesn't consider Adam Jones a player that year though.. This means that Paul Hornung and Alex Karras should have their years changed. —RoyalsLife 18:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

NFL.com doesn't list IR players either (Jordy Nelson's 2015 is not there). It also doesn't have practice squad/offseason years like we do. So i'm not sure we should be basing it off what NFL.com has.--Yankees10 18:38, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

@Yankees10: I know this is different leagues, but was Alex Rodriguez on the Yankees rosters the season he was suspended? Lizard (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Never mind. "Rodriguez will go off the Yankees' 40-man roster and onto a restricted list." Not sure if the NFL has anything equivalent. Lizard (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Template:Pros vs. Joes

I have nominated Template:Pros vs. Joes for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:17, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Are numbers retired by the current team, or by the team they played for?

An IP contends that LaDainian Tomlinson's number should be listed as retired by the San Diego Chargers. However, in every other instance of a player's number being retired, the team name that's listed is the current iteration. That's because most of the time, when a team relocates it takes its history with it, thus retired numbers remain retired. This is true across all three North American sports projects (that lists retired numbers in the infobox). Earl Campbell played for the Houston Oilers; his number is retired by the Tennessee Titans. Wes Unseld played for the Baltimore Bullets; his number is retired by the Washington Wizards. Roy Campanella played for the Brooklyn Dodgers; his number is retired by the Los Angeles Dodgers. I've asked WP:MLB and WP:NBA for input as well, since this also pertains to them: Should we list numbers as being retired by the current iteration of a team, or should we list numbers as being retired by the team as it was named when the player was with the team? Lizard (talk) 22:15, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• It depends. Sometimes a franchise doesn't recognize the numbers retired under a former iteration. For example, the Washington Nationals don't recognize numbers retired by the Montreal Expos. I don't think that's the case with the Chargers though, as they haven't changed their identity with their move. -- Tavix ^(talk) 22:20, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

• "That's because most of the time, when a team relocates it takes its history with it." Lizard (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

IMO if it is listed as an achievement in the infobox (like with Tomlinson) it should be the current name for the team. So Tomlinson's infobox should read "Los Angeles Chargers No. 21 retired". That's because there no such thing as the San Diego Chargers anymore and it's not possible to have a retired number if there is no organization to keep it retired. The same goes for the Chargers Hall of Fame. If it's in a text regarding the moment of actual retirement then I would use San Diego as that was the name of the organization at the time.DragonFury (talk) 22:23, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

At least for NBA articles, we list the team when the player played for it, for example, Spencer Haywood. The team might not exist anymore, but it was still retired by them. Johnny Unitas is a good example and there are edit wars about this from time to time... – Sabbatino (talk) 11:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Sabbatino: That's because the Thunder didn't keep the history of the SuperSonics. They fall under the same case as the Expos/Nationals. Lizard (talk) 22:49, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of where the team is retired now, I would argue the "highlight" that goes in the infobox would be the team that retired the number at the time, whatever that name was. Think about putting together a highlight reel of a person's career. Would you highlight "San Diego Chargers retired this player's number!" or "Los Angeles Chargers still had the number retired X years later!". The former, obviously. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:09, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

If we list LT as being retired by SD as an exception, I don't agree it's a general rule of where the team was located at the time. What if his number had not been retired until after they moved to LA?—Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

I don't think we should make any exceptions here. Not to mention it's misleading because it gives the impression the number isn't currently retired. Can you name me every player who's ever worn 19 for the Indianapolis Colts? No one has, because it's retired. Lizard (talk) 06:26, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

"... it gives the impression the number isn't currently retired": This sways me toward listing the full name of the active team that currently has the player's number retired.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

That just sounds like a matter for the prose to me. The highlight is whatever team retired the number (note, this takes care of Bagumba's concern; I never said use the team they played for). We can include the fact that the number remains retired with whatever team in the text of the article. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 16:01, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Plea for help

Okay, so here's the deal, proper English is for numbers, less than 0-9 to be written out as zero-nine when in prose, and numbers 10+ to be in numerical format. People fail to do this when inserting stats in prose, they put "9 catches" etc, which is incorrect. So, I'm pleading with ya'll for help. If / when you see this, would you please be so kind as to fix it? I'm doing it as much as I can but I'm just one man. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 01:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

I apologize if this seems like a tangent, but what about the numbering for NFL weeks? Ex: 'Jay Cutler had four turnovers against the Buccaneers during Week 8?.' Is that acceptable? --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:29, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

It's arguable wether or not that's a proper noun, but we seem to have accepted that it is when using the numeral. This may be a whole other issue worth discussing. Lizard (talk) 02:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Not precisely the correct policy. See MOS:NUMERAL. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:54, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Week 1–9 should be written as such, as they're advertised by the NFL under those names and known to the public as the same. But I agree, we need to clean up prose for the 0–9 nonsense. It's lazy writing. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 03:16, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, and on that note, QB, RB, TD, INT, etc should also NEVER appear in prose. This is an encyclopedia, not Twitter. Lizard (talk) 03:27, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

^^^^^ YES! YES! YES!!! A thousand times yes! Also, I'm perfectly fine with the Week 9 format. That's the way I've been doing it. I figured it would be exactly as Rob said. lol ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 03:41, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. The use of these and other abbreviations has really proliferated, particularly in prose game summaries, and really should be eliminated. Cbl62 (talk) 16:54, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

• MOS:NUMERAL says "Comparable quantities should be all spelled out or all in figures" Example: "There were 3 winners and 206 losers, even though 3 would normally be given as three". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

WikOriginal-9 raises an interesting nuance. The quoted passage from MOS:NUMERAL seems to suggest: "Joe Quarterback gained 128 passing yards and 8 rushing yards in the game." It might also suggest, "Randy Receiver caught 8 passes for 128 yards in the game." Also, "Joe Quarterback completed 8 of 16 passes for 128 yards." I've generally spelled out "eight" in these circumstances, but now I'm not so sure that's right. What say others? Cbl62 (talk) 16:47, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I saw that too and had a momentary crisis. I'm just going to take it at face value and assume it only applies when the numbers are separated with "and." After all, carries and yards are not directly comparable. Also, I've never had an editor point this out to me in any GA reviews and I'm pretty sure I've written something like "eight carries for 120 yards" in nearly every article I've written. Lizard (talk) 16:55, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Here's a line from Billy Cannon: "Against the Red Raiders, Cannon had five punts for a 40-yard average, completed two of four passes for 31 yards, caught a 59-yard pass for a touchdown, carried thirteen times for 36 yards, and returned a kickoff for a touchdown". Quite the smorgasbord. Lizard (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

I dunno, Liz. Maybe you can argue that "carries" and "yards" aren't comparable figures, but the quoted passage seems pretty clearly to apply to things like "Joe QB completed 8 of 16 passes". Just because it's an "of", rather than an "and" separating the figures, seems like a distinction without a difference. Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

• I think MOS:NUMERAL applies more to prose than what this is suggesting. Week numbers in the NFL officially a proper noun too, so they should be listed as such (capitalized W, and 1-9 over one-nine). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:30, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding Lizard and their example, that's how I've been writing it as well: "eight carries for 47 yards", etc. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 18:45, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Flaw in how we denote "off-season and/or practice squad member only"

PlayerA plays for Team1 from 2010 to 2016 and is traded from Team1 to Team2 on March 8, 2017. His infobox will read:

• Team1 (2010–2016)
• Team2 (2017–present)

PlayerA dies after drowning in his bathtub on March 9, 2017. His infobox now reads:

• Team1 (2010–2016)
• Team2 (2017)*

PlayerB has also played for Team1 from 2010 to 2016. He is not traded. He also dies in his bathtub on March 9, 2017. Regardless, his infobox will read:

• Team1 (2010–2016)

Did PlayerB not also spend his final days on a team during the 2017 off-season? He did, but there's no way for us to show that with how we currently list teams. An actual example is Paul Hornung vs. Gale Sayers. Hornung was traded to the Saints in 1967 and retired during training camp. Sayers retired during the 1972 preseason with Da Bears but the infobox shows his career ending in 1971. Just throwing that out there. Lizard (talk) 00:11, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: The easy solution is that we can (and should) use the ending date of the last season he was a signed member of the team, including if that means in the pre-season. I would say if one is traded or released in the off-season, that's different, but the year should be lifted if the player spent a single day on the roster after the start of training camp. I've done this with CFL biographies from the beginning, I believe (assuming I have good sourcing - not always the case). ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:14, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It seems to me that a player's presence on a pre-season roster should be treated the same whether there has been a change of teams or not.

Case 1: Player spends 2014 season with Team A and is released by Team A on 8/31/15 without ever playing in a regular season game

Case 2: Player spends 2014 season with Team A, is traded to Team B in the offseason, and is then released by Team B on 8/31/15 without ever playing in a regular season game.

Case 3: Player spends 2014 season with Team A, is traded to Team B in the offseason, and is traded again, this time to Team C on 8/31/15 for whom he plays during the 2015 season.

My inclination would be to exclude the 2015 preseason in all three cases. In Cases 1 and 2, the infobox should make no mention of 2015 "preseason only" play. In Case 3, we would identify his 2015 team as Team C without mentioning his preseason appearance with Team B. We should treat "preseason only" tenures consistently. I can think of no valid or logical reason for including the 2015 pre-season in one infobox but not the other. Either we list pre-season participation or not. Cbl62 (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I concur with Cbl62 here. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like neither MLB nor NBA list off-season participation. Should we follow suit? I'm strongly against listing tenure without some sort of designation for off-season years; you'd be hard pressed to find any source that includes 1972 in Sayers' Bears tenure. Lizard (talk) 06:34, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Cbl62: So you'd remove the Bills, Packers, and Browns from Vince Young's infobox? Lizard (talk) 15:35, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

I would leave practice squad players, as we've done previously with an asterisk. But, yeah, and assuming we're correct that Wikipedia doesn't do this for any other sport (I haven't seen preseason references in MLB articles), I'd support removal of strictly preseason play from NFL player infoboxes. Such "preseason only" participation could, of course, be discussed in the body of an article, but does not rise to a sufficient level of materiality to be included in infoboxes. Cbl62 (talk) 16:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

That would get a support from me. Lizard (talk) 16:34, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Lizard so guys like Terrelle Pryor, Terrell Owens, and Jerry Rice wouldn't have Seahawks/Chiefs/Bengals (TP), Seahawks (TO), or the Broncos (JR)? RoyalsLife 21:00, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Correct. Lizard (talk) 21:08, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

Actually Lizard, JR and TO should be left alone because they played on the Broncos and the Seahawks in preseason. TP played with the Seahawks in preseason, just not with the Chiefs and Bengals. RoyalsLife 01:32, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Malcolm Butler (American football) Requested Move (RM)

Hello. I have proposed that Malcolm Butler (American football) be moved to Malcolm Butler. Please have a look at the discussion if you are interested: Talk:Malcolm Butler (American_football). --Tocino 12:19, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

High school name format

Could someone please explain to User:John from Idegon the high school name format for the infobox, so that they stop screwing it up on Bill Wightkin? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 15:09, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Naming conventions for individual playoff games

There seems to be a gap in the naming conventions. The current naming conventions detail how the playoffs for an individual seasons should be formatting 19XX-YY NFL Playoffs. However, it doesn't say anything for an individual game in the playoffs.

This issue has come up as it pertains to the article 1998 NFC Championship Game. I originally created it under the title "1999 NFC Championship Game," as the game itself took place on January 17, 1999. However, another user moved it to 1998 to reflect the regular season which this championship game followed. The user added 3 inline citation to support the year 1998, but I can easily find sources that also refer to it as 1999. There does not seem to be a journalistic standard in regard to this naming convention, so it appears we'll have to agree on a Wikipedia standard in its absence.

I do not like the idea of naming it 1998-99 NFC Championship, because it implies (to me at least) that the game had occurred over two different years. Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:20, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

For reference in college football bowl games, the game is labeled according to the year in which the game was played, not the season in which the game was a part of. — X96lee15 (talk) 19:48, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

If it wasn't clear from my previous post, this is is my preferred methodology. Helltopay-27 (talk) 19:59, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Yes, it does not help that the NFL's playoffs are held in the following calendar than the regular season, which may cause confusion to recent reliable sources. Many of the sources that were used to originally build up a majority of Wikipedia's NFL articles back in 2005 and 2006 (including the offline books Total Football II: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League and The Sporting News Complete Super Bowl Book 1995) used that "regular season" dating convention for both the NFC and AFC conference championship games. Back in 2005 and 2006, that was more definite. I should also note that particular article was originally at Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game (emphasis added).

My preference? Let me say that the NFL has uploaded the full game on its official YouTube channel.[1], and a list of several other full games.[2] Throughout last year, the NFL was uploading several full games onto YouTube after a contest.[3] We should match that, or else Wikipedia will not be in sync. Imagine someone trying to look up "1981 NFC Championship Game" in Wikipedia after watching it on YouTube: would they expect this game played in January 1981 after the 1980 regular season or this game played in January 1982 after the 1981 regular season? Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:49, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

First, a point of correction: the original title of Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game was changed from 1999 to 1998, then changed back to 1999 NFC Championship, then moved again to 1998; quite honestly, without checking the article's history, I had presumed it was you who had initially moved the "Gary Anderson" article. To avoid an edit war, I've let it be until we clarify a new convention with this discussion.

Anyway, I believe that confusion may also be created in the sense that casual fans may note that the calendar year does not match the year in the title, regardless of the year of the regular season, and may not immediately understand the connection.

In addition to the CFB format mentioned above, Wikipedia already formats Pro Bowl articles with the year of the game, not the year of the regular season which it followed. I think it would also run contrary to the 19XX-YY format we currently use for playoff articles; why delineate the YY years if we do not reference them in relevant playoff games? Helltopay-27 (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

No, it looks like someone else made the original date change.[4]

Back to the matter at hand: CFB is irrelevant, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, especially since they really do not have a consistent, official dating/naming convention for these annual bowl games to rely on, and so we are thus forced to do these Wikipedia-only disambiguation schemes that result in titles like 2016 Fiesta Bowl (December) and 2016 Fiesta Bowl (January). Conversely, Wikipedia can date the Pro Bowl articles that way because that is how the NFL officially does that.[5] Then, I assume that the consistent 19XX-YY format we currently use for playoff articles has largely been an acceptable consensus over the years because the NFL use to start the postseason in December (2000–01 NFL playoffs appears to be the last time a December playoff game happened, and in the early and mid-1970s the playoffs usually began around Christmas).

On the other hand, the NFC and AFC Championship Games are a bit different. You just admitted that "does not seem to be a journalistic standard" for the dating, so that cancels each other out. And you stated that you are against 19XX-YY format. Thus we are left with either the NFL's official dating conventions,[6] or the personal preference of a single Wikipedia editor. Under Wikipedia's policies, which of those two would be generally more recognizable with someone familiar with the topic, and should thus win out?

In fact, this "casual fan" reasoning should be revisited because that was decided around 2005-06 when WP:AT had this different "readers/general audience over editors/specialists" principle, and before WP:NAMINGCRITERIA was fully implemented, stating that the article title should be "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize" (emphasis added). Wikipedia articles titles are now suppose to educate, not cater to casual fans who would likely be more unfamiliar to the article's subject. Otherwise, you could get more similar edits from very semi-active users like this one, who I would assume is familiar with this subject. Zzyzx11 (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

If needed, any possible title confusion can be handled using {{distinguish}}, {{about}}, or other hatnote templates. Or it may in fact not need one, like Miss America 2017 where the event took place in a different calendar year than what the article title says. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:07, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any reasonable counter. Unless anyone else finds any objection to the naming convention, I think that this line of reasoning should be explicitly stated as the proper format under Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Naming conventions. Helltopay-27 (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

NFL biography infobox

I made an edit to a current NFL players biography infobox (Andrew Turzilli) where I added the college that player played for the first 3 years of their eligibility. They were actually on that team for 4 total years, as they redshirted one year. My edit was then reverted with the reasoning only the last college the player played for should be listed. But, upon reading more at Template:Infobox NFL biography I noticed under the college section information which seems to back up my edit as being appropriate. It says, If a player attended multiple colleges, usually only the last college team is displayed (usually the one listed on NFL.com); however, if important to understanding a player's college career history, an additional college team may be included. So, my question is, doesn't the school the player spent 4 years at, played 3 years of their 4 years of eligibility at, and received their undergraduate degree from count as being important to understanding the player's college career history? Thanks for any input. Kmanblue (talk) 04:20, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Well, as you and I have discussed, I'm personally, last college / university only. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Obviously, I'm not. I think the college the player spent the vast majority of their time playing for is important enough to also list. Especially with graduate transfers (Turzilli was one of these) becoming so much more popular these days I think it will become more and more important to list more than just the last school they played at.Kmanblue (talk) 04:26, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

If a player has significant playing time as a starter with two Division I FBS programs (e.g., the increasingly common graduate transfer situation raised by Kmanblue), both schools should be listed in the NFL infobox. If the players was simply on the roster of a different program and/or saw minimal playing time, I'd say no need to include in the infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 02:52, 9 March 2017 (UTC)'

Examples of graduate transfers where both teams appear, and rightly so IMO: Houston Bates, Charles Sims, Ryan Smith, and Russell Wilson. Jack Rudock (starting QB at Iowa 2013-2014 and Michigan 2015) is another where IMO both should be listed. Cbl62 (talk) 03:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I think I'd agree with the last college theorem, under the general "what have you done for us recently?". A player's draft prospects are mostly determined by the last year he played, not the earlier years. Unless there is a documented reason that the earlier years matter (probably vanishingly rare), I'd say they don't belong in the infobox. In the particular case of Turzilli, the Kansas years appear in the article, but don't seem to be necessary in the infobox. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:55, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: is "what have you done for us recently?" a principle of Wikipedia? Or is the goal of a Wikipedia article to comprehensively summarize its subject? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:18, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Not a principle of Wikipedia, a principle of relevance. The infobox should be the minimal information you need to have a snapshot of the career. The relevant piece of information for moving to the pros is what did he do in the year before that move. The information about his previous college is relevant, and belongs in the article, but under the principle of parsimony, it isn't the most relevant piece of information for the infobox line saying which college attended. Again, there will be rare cases where a previous college is documented as being significant - but this doesn't look like one of them. I guess a case might be something like the player was drafted in a way where his last college experience didn't make any sense, but he was drafted by his previous ex-coach who had moved onto the pros, or something like that. Again, probably vanishingly rare cases where a previous college experience belongs in the infobox. You want the infobox to be concise, not exhaustive. Tarl N. (discuss) 04:46, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Tarl N.: Why are you placing a player's college career within the framework of how he was drafted into the NFL? Isn't it possible that his entire college career could be as relevant and notable, or even more so, than his pro career? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: Again, parsimony. You want infobox to be concise, not exhaustive. Generally, the highest level someone achieves is the most relevant for a biography, and generally the pros are considered higher level than college. Someone who only did college football (never went to the pros), attended two colleges, was all-american at the first and didn't achieve anything in the last school, indeed, you'd put the prior school in the infobox. But again, parsimony - you'd put one college on the line, not multiples. The cases where you have to cram multiple entries onto a line should be vanishingly rare. That's information for the article, not the infobox. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:59, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

In the case of Turzilli, he achieved at least as much at Kansas as he did at Rutgers. And his college career is more distinguished than his pro career so far. If it's parsimony you're after, why omit one line in the infobox representing Kansas, where Turzilli was a multi-year starter and received all-conference honors, yet spend three lines plus a line for notation to represent stints on NFL pre-season / practice squads? Jweiss11 (talk) 07:27, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

I just realized, I should've expanded my statement some. lol. The way I see it, NFL.com, ESPN.com, etc. only list the last school played for, ala Ryan Mundy and Steve Smith Sr.. So, are we really saying they are wrong? (Note the question is sarcastic lol.) ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 03:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Some web sites may simply not be set up to have multiple entries in the "college" field. Pro-Footall-Reference.com appears to use a nuanced approach where multiple schools are listed if the playing time was significant at both. E.g., Russell Wilson (both schools listed). Cbl62 (talk) 03:15, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I definitely think both should be listed for some, if not all players. Russell Wilson certainly. Then there's an extreme example in Crazylegs Hirsch, whose number is retired by Wisconsin yet he last played in college for Michigan. Lizard (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Crazylegs is a great example. See also Bill Daley (won two national championships at Minnesota, then a consensus All-American at Michigan) and Fred Negus (first-team All-Big Ten at both Wisconsin and Michigan). A one-size-fits-all "last school only" approach doesn't make sense. Judgment needs to be exercised on importance of the player's career at each school. Cbl62 (talk) 03:25, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

The College Football Hall of Fame lists all colleges a player played at. I agree that if a player spent a RS year somewhere and/or 1 RS year and then 1 year of minimal playing time then transferred, there's no need to list the 1st school. But in the case of someone playing the majority of their playing time on 1 team then spending their final year at another, or even if a player played equal amounts of time at 2 schools, then I think both should be listed. It would also appear from the link to the original discussion on this topic linked by UW Dawgs below that a similar conclusion was reached to what this discussion seems to be reaching and why the text I bolded was put in to the template page. Kmanblue (talk) 07:33, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

I would be grateful if anyone reading or partaking in this discussion weighs in on the specific page which initiated my posting here, i.e. Andrew Turzilli at Talk:Andrew Turzilli. I've already laid out my initial argument for including both Kansas and Rutgers in his infobox, but can expand if need be. Thanks in advance. Kmanblue (talk) 08:29, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Displaying multiple colleges is allowed per current consensus. See "Including "all" colleges attended in Infobox?" at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography/Archive 9 for the reasoning for allowing multiple colleges and updating the Template's help text accordingly. My goal when initiating that discussion wasn't to require display of all colleges attended (such as an irrelevant lone RS-FR season followed by a transfer and playing four years), but to allow multiple colleges to be displayed when relevant to covering the player's college career (such as Cam Newton, Russell Wilson, Trace Armstrong -an absurd story and worth the read). UW Dawgs (talk) 03:57, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Clearly, in the case of Turzilli, Kansas should be displayed in the infobox. He was a multi-year starter there. Are we ready to tell CrashUnderride that we have a consensus here so as to avoid reversion of further common-sense edits? Jweiss11 (talk) 16:54, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

As I told you on your talk page Jweiss11, there's clearly no consensus either way. No consensus against doesn't automatically mean there's a consensus for. Also, I'd really appreciate it if you didn't try to insult me, 'kay? Thanks. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:06, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Crash Underride, four people have weighed in now in favor of listing Kansas, with good reason. Simply put, playing at Kansas is a material element of Turzilli's biography that would be mentioned with detail in the lead of a GA article. You are the only one in favor of listing last college only and you haven't given a reason other than "that's just how we do it", or "that's just how some other websites that aren't in the business of describing full biographical detail of NFL players" do it. What do you need to acknowledge a consensus against your position? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

@Jweiss11: is it too hard to ping me? Really? Last time I checked an RfC didn't end after less than 24 hours. lol. What's with the rush? They're usually open long enough for as many people as possible to voice their opinion. Got some kinda agenda? lol. Personally, I don't care, but I'm not gonna say okay until a consensus is reached. And four people in the group in less than 24 hours a consensus does not make. Let the discussion sit open for a few days and then come back to me, without the smart ass attitude, 'kay? Thanks. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:20, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

You certainly seemed in a rush to revert my common-sense, consistency-reflecting edit at the Turzilli article. I have little patience for borderline obstructive editing like this and editors who feel the need to take personal insult when someone knocks down a bad argument. I can surely wait a few days if it will put this nonsense to rest for good. I do indeed have an agenda here. My agenda is making a quality encyclopedia. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:31, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

No, the insult is your condescension and complete lack of respect for a fellow editor. As for my reverting your edit, do not how quickly it was followed up with my post to your talk page telling you to see this discussion. So, either start showing some respect to fellow editors and don't be so condescending, or just go away for a few days and come back. Because I will not tolerate your insulting me with your holier-than-thou, "what I think is right" attitude. WAIT for a firm consensus, that is common sense. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:41, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly, no one bats an eye at multiple high schools in the infobox, such as on Dominique Rodgers-Cromartie. Lizard (talk) 16:48, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Spelling things out in prose

I think it's obvious we should be spelling out things like touchdown, reception, etc. as well as positions like quarterback, wide receiver, etc. in prose. However I've come across countless articles were this hasn't been done, most likely by IP editors more worried about getting information into the article, rather than uniformity, and consistency. So, do you think there's something we could add to articles, like the notice you get when you're editing a BLP article? You know, you click edit and that red box is at the top of the screen. I think it's because of the blp=yes field in the talk page template about biographies. That or a script that can go through all (gridiron) football articles and detect those things, in prose only, and correct them? Just a thought, input from WP:CFB is welcome as well as WP:CFL. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 07:59, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Score format revisited

For those interested in such things, the question of score formatting, previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_14#Score_format is under review again at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Score format in season article schedule tables. Cbl62 (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Note, the CFB linked discussion was spurred by the recent NFL discussion which failed to change this project's 9 years of consensus, and has now morphed into justification for changing the CFB project's 10 years of consensus. Wonderful. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:09, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

Wrong and wrong. The recent NFL discussion was intended to reach consensus for a standard formatting for scores, and the consensus there was in favor of "winning score first". Even in tables, the "winning score first" format is used in the vast majority (well over 1,100) of NFL schedule tables. See, e.g., 81 Giants (1926-1947, 1949, 1951-1963, 1965-1966, 1968-1980, 1983-1985, 1988, 1992-1999, 2002-2008), 79 Cardinals (1920-1943, 1945-1946, 1949, 1951-1966, 1968-1972, 1974, 1977, 1979-1995, 1997-2002, 2004-2009), 71 Lions (1930-1946, 1948-1951, 1953-1966, 1968-1970, 1973-1981, 1983-2000, 2003-2006, 2009-2010), 63 Redskins (1932-1941, 1943-1960, 1962-1966, 1968-1980, 1985-1986, 1988-1990, 1993-1998, 2000-2001, 2004-2007), 62 Packers (1921-1932, 1934-1943, 1945-1949, 1951-1958, 1960, 1964-1965, 1968-1969, 1972-1978, 1980-1982, 1988-1990, 1992-1995, 2005-2009), 60 Eagles (1933-1949, 1951-1959, 1961-1966, 1969-1984, 1986-1987, 1989-2003, 2005-2009), 58 Rams (1937-1944, 1946-1949, 1951-1961, 1963-1966, 1968, 1970-1978, 1980-1983, 1986-1988, 1990, 1992-1997, 1999-2002, 2005-2007), 57 Chicago Bears (1943-1949, 1951-1964, 1966, 1968, 1970-1972, 1975-1976, 1978-1984, 1986-2001, 2003-2007, and 2009), 55 Jets (1960-1966, 1969-1977, 1979, 1981-1995, 1997-2009), 51 Browns (1946-1947, 1951-1963, 1966, 1968, 1971-1975, 1977-1995, 1999-2003, 2005-2009), 49 Chiefs (1961, 1964-1966, 1968, 1970, 1972, 1974-1976, 1978-1984, 1986-1996, 1998-1999, 2001-2009), 48 Steelers (1941-1943, 1945-1949, 1952-1960, 1962-1965, 1970-1972, and 1979-2002), 40 Chargers (1960-1962, 1964-1966, 1968-1981, 1983-1993, 1995-1997, 1999, 2002-2004, 2007-2008), 38 Bills (1960-1966, 1968-1972, 1975-1979, 1981, 1983-1988, 1990, 1992, 1996-2000, 2002-2006, 2008-2009), 38 Raiders (1960-1962, 1964-1969, 1971-1974, 1977-1978, 1984-1986, 1988-2007), 36 Dolphins (1966, 1968-1971, 1973, 1976-1977, 1980-1997, 1999-2000, 2002-2007), 33 Saints (1969-1974, 1976-1979, 1981-1989, 1991-1997, 2000-2005, 2007), 33 49ers (1946-1962, 1964, 1966, 1968, 1971-1980, 1982, 2004, 2007), 31 Oilers/Titans (1961-1966, 1968-1971, 1974-1977, 1979, 1981-1994, 1996-1997), and 30 Cowboys (1961-1966, 1968, 1972-1976, 1978-1981, 1987-1991, 1998-2004, 2006, 2008), 25 Bengals (1968, 1979-1987, 1989-1992, 1996-2003, 2007-2009), 20 Falcons (1966, 1968-1972, 1977, 1979, 1981, 1983, 1987-1989, 1995, 1999, 2002-2003, 2007-2009, 15 Dodgers (1930-1944), 9 Yellow Jackets (1923-1931), 8 Independents (1920-1927), 7 Steam Roller (1925-1931), 6 Pros (1921-1927), 6 Red Jackets (1921-1924, 1929-1930), 4 Stapletons (1929-1932). Cbl62 (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

I didn't request you produce evidence of non-compliance with our project documentation, but thank you. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:58, 11 March 2017 (UTC)

It looks like a slightly different conversation to me. I would agree that prose should be winning score first. A 23-7 result, for instance, is either a 23-7 win or a 23-7 loss. You don't change the order. However, I believe that if we're making a chart of a given team's season, that team's score should go first every time. This would be similar logic to standings, which always show points for the team in that row first even if collective opponents have scored more points. Theknightswhosay (talk) 21:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Jonathan Willard

Created this draft based on WP:REQ but being that he was only in the NFL one season, was unsure how notability would be viewed by the community. Would love some input from this project if possible. Page is here. Feel free to make any changes if you feel necessary. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:38, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

@CNMall41:, first use {{Infobox NFL biography}} and fill it out properly, secondly and most importantly did he play in at least one regular season game? If not, then no, he would fail GNG. He would fail notability as he never played in a single regular season game. But, if he played in the CFL or AFL, then he would qualify, if they were regular season games. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:23, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

See also: List of American Football League players

In the early days of Wikipedia, when man and the dodo bird coexisted, a "See also" section with a link to List of American Football League players was added to the articles of every player that ever played a snap in the AFL. "See also" sections are largely based on editorial judgement, but they should contain links to tangentially-related topics. There were over a thousand people who played in the AFL; I don't think most of them can be considered tangentially related to one another just by that criteria. It basically serves the same function as Category:American Football League players (or it will soon). See Roger Kochman, Pat Holmes, Harry Schuh. I think we should eliminate these sections. Lizard (talk) 23:49, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

• I agree. Cbl62 (talk) 05:24, 27 March 2017 (UTC)
• Well, not all See Also sections contain just those sort of things. For example, Kevin Dyson's article could easily contain a See Also section with a link to the Music City Miracle article. I think the question question should be, "Should we get rid of List of American Football League players?" ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 08:50, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, more specifically, remove the link from the See also section if there's more than one link in said section. Otherwise remove the whole section. Lizard (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Super Bowl sort order for categories

I have a suggestion, not sure where to put it, so I'll try it here...

On the individual Super Bowl pages (i.e. Super Bowl IV), the Category designation for Category:Super Bowl is listed as "Super Bowl 004" so as to ensure the proper sort order of the roman numerals. (Note: I appreciate the foresight in avoiding the Y2K problem in 2066.) However, on the category pages for the participating teams, as well as for the host city, the sort order is still not correct. It seems to me it would be optimal to just set the default sort order and be done with it. (Although there could be a reason I am not considering as to as why the default sort order should not be set. In which case my suggestion would be to set the sort order individually for each of the teams as well as the host city.) Maybe there is some kind of script which could be run to make these updates? Thank you for your consideration.Jb45424 (talk) 01:15, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

You're invited...

 Note: You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Navigation boxes in coaching articles (again), which involves articles in your WikiProject, regarding the issue of whether or not the navboxes in coaching articles should be collapsed or stay as is. Please comment there and not here. Thanks, Corkythehornetfan (ping me) 06:01, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Nearly 3,000 player pages using wrong infobox

A few months ago, Infobox gridiron football player was moved to Template:Infobox CFL biography, since that infobox should only be used for current and former CFL players. BU Rob worked some magic and determined we currently have nearly 3,000 pages using this infobox that never played a snap in the CFL (for example, Marion Motley and George Halas). If someone could come up with a way to automatically/semi-automatically convert these to Template:Infobox NFL biography that'd be swell. Otherwise we'll have to convert them all manually and that's not fun. Lizard (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I really want to stress this is not a good use of time. The reality is that what infobox an article uses only matters to the extent that the infobox can display relevant information. I use {{Infobox gridiron football player}} for everything because I primarily handle CFL biographies. I'm annoyed by plenty of things on Wikipedia, but I think nothing has annoyed me more than the couple times an editor has come along and changed the infobox to a substantial article I created to a different infobox I'm unfamiliar with. If you do a lot of work on a particular article and want to convert it or if you need to make a change for different functionality, by all means, go ahead. But a systematic change of 3,000 articles is unproductive, unnecessary, and likely to alienate some of the few gridiron football content creators we have left. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 22:01, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

While I agree manually changing all of them would probably not be worth it, I don't believe the infobox chosen for an American football player is so inconsequential it can be left to the whim of editors. The CFL biography infobox is severely limited and often inapplicable for NFL players. Not to mention reader familiarity through standardization. There's really no good reason why Halas should use a different infobox than his contemporaries such as Curly Lambeau and Vince Lombardi. Other than, of course, the time it would take to convert it. Lizard (talk) 00:09, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Why doesn't the CFL project use the same infobox we use? As far as I know, it handles all the same fields as the CFL one does, but looks much better with the team colors, and format. Honestly, the CFL one looks kinda amateurish (to me at least). ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:44, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Crash Underride said it. Perhaps the CFL and NFL infoboxes should be merged into one infobox for gridiron football? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed to that. That seems to be the direction we had been trending anyway; there was once several pro gridiron football infoboxes, but now we're down to just these two. It would be a massive undertaking though. Lizard (talk) 05:43, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: actually, I don't think it would be. I think all we would need to do with the NFL one (besides a neutral name change) would be to add the International field for players that aren't from Canada for the CFL (or America for NFL), as well as CFL stat fields. We've already got the default ones as well as ones for the Arena Football League (AFL). I think CFL team colors are already in there. The CIS field is already in there for Canadian schooling, so I don't think it would be too massive at all. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 05:49, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

As the person actually creating the CFL articles, can we maybe not trample over the content creators in that area? Unless you plan to add many parameters to {{Infobox NFL biography}} (import status, CIS/U Sports, numbered parameters for years/teams, numbered positions that automatically abbreviate, our all-star parameters, etc), it would be extremely off-putting to have a bunch of editors with zero intention of creating CFL biographies come in and decide that those who are creating them must use a different infobox. There are many aspects of the NFL biography infobox which are objectively inferior, such as the awful use of a bulleted list for player history. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

And yes, the merge would definitely be a massive undertaking, as converting the numbered parameters to a bulletted list wouldn't be trivial. I'm the person who actually completed most of the difficult merges of other infoboxes after they sat there for multiple years. Needless to say, I would not do the same for the merge being discussed. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 17:28, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, this is what I had come up with. As can be seen, many of the fields aren't directly transferable. That's what would make it a massive undertaking. We've already established that just converting 3,000 of them would probably not be worth the time, much less all of them. I say, what's done is done; blame our Wikipedia ancestors for what we have now. Lizard (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: well in the NFL box the CIS is already in there. We could add a simple field like was done for the "off season and/or practice squad member only" field where all we have to do is enter "yes" and it will display "International". The numbered parameters for teams / years why couldn't we use {{CFL Year}} like we do with players like Cameron Wake that play in Canada and then come to the NFL? With the CFL stat fields, all that would take is just copy the code for the Arena Football League (AFL) stat fields and change the A to a a C. As for the "inferior" bulleted list for teams, I think it's better myself, it's much cleaner and sleaker. The CFL one with the box surrounding the years looks clunky. Also, don't think that I "trampled" on anyone and if I did, I apologize. Also, I never said I had zero intention of creating CFL related articles. I've worked on plenty, even helping one (so far) reach GA. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 08:02, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh, George Halas now has the proper infobox. Only took 5-10 minutes, if that. :D ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 08:21, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

As now does Marion Motley, even faster than Halas. (Yes, I'm bragging lol. :D) ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 08:30, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

@Crash Underride: First, CFL editors don't want a different infobox, as others has some superior functionality (mainly the numbered teams/years). NFL infoboxes have an (in my opinion) horribly outdated teams/years system where you just throw everything in a bulleted list within a single parameter. Instead, the CFL infobox has parameters like playing_team1/playing_years1 ... playing_team10/playing_years10, which then creates the list. It's easier to edit and the direction that almost all sports biography infoboxes have been moving since I joined the site. Second, your infobox has an (in my opinion) inferior "highlights" parameter instead of several parameters specific to different types of awards. Lizard the Wizard can explain in detail what that leads to - shitty highlights sections with lots of non-notable awards and arbitrary statistical trivia. I don't want to have to clean that nonsense up in CFL articles when we already have very detailed parameters that encourage editors to put exactly what should be in the infobox in the infobox and nothing more. Third, it's just totally unnecessary. The use of a particular infobox is subject to consensus for each individual article; this was decided years ago in an ArbCom case. Converting from one infobox to another when the former infobox was fine for displaying all necessary information is not a good use of time. There's no "proper" infobox. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 11:24, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

The much maligned (by me) highlights section. After nearly a year of researching and deliberating, I think I've finally got a good idea of what should and shouldn't be considered a "highlight" for an NFL player. As for the matter at hand: I'll continue to convert infoboxes of high-importance NFL figures if they appear to be using them in error (as in, the reason for its use being that it was the only infobox available back when it was added, and not due to editor preference). I suggest we discuss ways to improve Template:Infobox NFL biography to eliminate the aspects that editors or readers may find off-putting. Lizard (talk) 05:44, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: such as? As for what Rob said about the bulleted list for team (seasons), I, personally at least, think it looks better. Now, if we could find a way to do it without the ugly (again, my opinion) box that the years are in in the CFL infobox, I wouldn't be opposed to the multiple fields for the NFL one, though I could see how it could be confusing over the format that's currently used. Also, the like Lizard said, the highlights section should really be clamped down on some what. The way I see it, Conference championships (professionally), Super Bowl championships, League MVPs, college awards (Rimington, Groza, Walker, Heisman, and other major ones), national championships, senior bowls, All-American (AP and UPI only) all should be included. As for the All-America selection that I mentioned, minor teams, Phil Steele, etc. shouldn't be as the only major ones that are talked about are the AP teams, and the UPI teams could just as easily not be included because the UPI isn't as recognizable as the AP is. Those are just some thoughts. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 09:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)

Reminder: Pro Football Hall of Fame article improvement campaign

Lizard, Cake and I have been working away on the Pro Football Hall of Fame article improvement campaign. Roughly 40 articles have now been substantially upgraded, but there are still dozens of Hall of Famers who require a lot of work. Please check out the page and consider adopting an article ... or two ... or ... Cbl62 (talk) 22:56, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

NFL roster player numbers

There seems to be a game being played with the player numbers for players recently acquired by teams, where anonymous IPs change players to have numbers with no basis in fact. I saw this in previous years, but it seems worse this year. The numbers they are coming up with seem to come from nowhere but their own fevered imaginations. When these changes are reverted, a few days later, someone else will add numbers again - often different numbers. It's persistent and wide-spread enough (the geographic locations of the IPs are all over the world), that this clearly has some motivation behind it. Anyone know what the motivation is? Is there some fantasy game where people are gaining an advantage by getting their numbers assigned to players? Tarl N. (discuss) 01:14, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

• It's always been an issue, and I don't know a better way to prevent it besides protecting the pages, as they almost always come from unregistered IPs. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:47, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I've just began ignoring it, although I agree it is a little strange. Lizard (talk) 02:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not looking for a solution, I'm just trying to figure out why it's happening. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:20, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

It drives me nuts when they do that. Or (and this is a small thing) when they don't put the -- in for someone who's a free agent or hasn't been assigned a number yet. lol Like I said, it's small but drives me bonkers....I have a slight case of OCD so symmetry tends to be important too me. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 17:38, 8 April 2017 (UTC)

I know I'm a little late this thread but I've noticed this too it drives me nuts. I had a big battle on C. J. Spiller's page after the Chiefs signed him. First the Chiefs website site f----ed up and added his number as 28 despite it being retired, that was a fun battle. Then people started pulling these random numbers out of no where. It finally settled down after a while.--Rockchalk717 03:55, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Team history succession

I've noticed some back-and-forth on the pages for Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers in regards to listing the team histories in the team infobox. Both are obviously unusual circumstances where the teams have returned to Los Angeles, similar to the Oakland Raiders returning to Oakland. The debate seems centered on the chronology, but more for the Chargers having just one year in LA before moving. I tend to favor simply listing them chronologically, but I've noticed the precedent has been to list the current city only once with two sets of years, such as "Oakland Raiders (1966–1981, 1995–present)". Perhaps we should separate two eras for clarity? For instance, for the Raiders, we would have:

• Oakland Raiders (1966–1981)
• Los Angeles Raiders (1982–1994)
• Oakland Raiders (1995–present)
• and obviously here would be the Las Vegas Raiders once that move actually happens.

I think the same could apply for the stadium mention in the infobox, i.e. list each stadium chronologically, so in the case of the Rams, the Coliseum would be mentioned twice in the appropriate order (same for the Oakland Coliseum for the Raiders). It would obviously extend the infobox, but not significantly, and would help make it a little easier visually to follow. Again, at this point it would only affect the Rams, Chargers, Raiders, and Browns (because of the official "suspended operations", 1996–1999), but something to consider.

Along those lines, it would seem in instances where teams suspended operations or temporarily merged, that those should be listed as a secondary point of whatever era that occurred in. For instance, Pittsburgh Steelers would read:

• Pittsburgh Pirates (1933–1939)
• Pittsburgh Steelers (1940–present)
  • Phil–Pitt "Steagles" (1943)
  • Card-Pitt (1944)

Cleveland Browns would simply be:

• Cleveland Browns (1946–present)
  • Suspended operations (1996–1999)

Again, something to consider. I don't have any real issues with the status quo, but obviously it's creating some slight contention. --JonRidinger (talk) 03:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

The last item in the list should be the current team name. It makes no sense chronologically to list something before something that happened later. So I'd favor separation of all eras, even ones in the same city. Lizard (talk) 04:07, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciations

There were multiple players selected in the draft that have names that are difficult to pronounce. For example, from my Chiefs alone: Tanoh Kpassagnon and Ukeme Eligwe. Does anybody on this project know how to do the pronunciation thing, IPA I think is what its called?--Rockchalk717 23:44, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Not sure that we have consensus to include these and I don't recall seeing any. However, they are a common component of the university's media guide. For example, Villanova 2016, pg 5. UW Dawgs (talk) 16:25, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: The issue for me isn't neccesarily a verification issue, Tanoh Kpassagnon the new defensive end for the Chiefs, for example, I've found pronouncations online for his name. For me the issue inputting the IPA for it. I've tried in the last and failed miserably. I do think for people hard to pronounce names like Kpassagnon (pass-en-yo), should have the pronouncation in the article. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopedia and I have seen encyclopedias that use pronouncations on difficult to pronounce names.--Rockchalk717 20:42, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Draft details

I have proposed adding several columns to List of NFL drafts. Please comment at Talk:List of NFL drafts#Additional columns.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:17, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

RFC on sports notability

An RFC has recently been started regarding a potential change to the notability guidelines for sportspeople. Please join in the conversation. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 23:08, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Meaning of anchor

I was putting together next season's playoff page (currently hidden), and I looked through past articles and found this template (using that as an example). Is there any importance to this template? Z.I. Barbour (talk) 01:37, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

It ensures that a wikilink to that section will remain even if the section is renamed. Lizard (talk) 01:48, 6 May 2017 (UTC)

Birthplace vs. hometown

So there is a conflict going on on Jonathan Allen's article, with people stating he was born in Anniston, Alabama, but every football profile and both draft networks (NFL Network and ESPN) list his hometown of Leesburg, Virginia instead. So what I'm asking is if we should replace birthplace (where birth was given) in the infobox with hometown (where they grew up, attended school, and made a name for themselves), which seems to be the more important of the two when talking strictly about football players. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

No. Birth place should reflect place of birth. Hometown will generally be reflected in the high school field of the infobox and should be made clear in the body of the article.

You just removed the entire thing from the infobox, which I don't see as helpful at all. And I wasn't asking for the current policy, but rather a suggestion to change it, as birthplace isn't as important as hometown is for NFL players, per my original post. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:21, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

I've just added a source establishing that Allen's place of birth is Anniston, Alabama. Place of birth is a standard field for all biography infoboxes across wikipedia and the field should be populated with nothing other than place of birth. If you think a hometown field should be added Infobox NFL biography, you should suggest that, although I think it may be somewhat redundant to the high school field. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:29, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A high school doesn't establish a hometown, just look at Allen's, where the school he attended was in Ashburn, while his given hometown was Leesburg. I just don't see how relevant a birthplace is to an NFL player, since none of his player profiles, scouting reports, and majority of media coverage mention it over his hometown. Birthplace is the one that should be mentioned in prose, with hometown in the infobox. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:33, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

A similar argument for the importance of hometown over birth place could be made for just about anyone. It's not an NFL player-specific thing. What you want requires changing the fields in the infobox. Please start a discussion about this if that's something you want to pursue. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:37, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

His birthplace is listed at NFL.com. Besides, hometown gets to be ambiguous for people that move around a lot.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Agree with both Jweiss and Bagumba. Usage of place of birth is project-wide and standard biographical detail. Even in the sports realm, sites like baseball-reference.com and pro-football-reference.com use place of birth. And "hometown" is inherently ambiguous. Cbl62 (talk) 17:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding something User:Dissident93 said: "...birthplace isn't as important as hometown is for NFL players...", yeah, that's not true. Look at Larry Allen who attended four high schools in four years. That's also like saying that their birthdate isn't important. Birthplace is important. As for hometown being represented by the high school, that's not always the case. For example, the high school I went to was in a community about 20 minutes away from where I live, and the community the school is located in is not my hometown. (For the record, I'm using Larry Allen and myself as examples, not that all cases are exactly the same.) ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 00:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing that place of birth doesn't matter, but rather hometown can been seen as just as important or even moreso, as was the case with Johnathan Allen, with multiple articles being written about his ties to the DMV area and growing up a Redskins fan, despite him being born in Alabama and living in other states as well. That being said, I don't think this is the case with the majority of NFL players, with birthplace and hometown being the same, and the issue on Allen's page was fixed shortly after making this post. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:41, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Format tweaks to the active roster templates

Recently I adjusted the NFL Roster templates (e.g. {{Atlanta Falcons roster navbox}}) to make better use of the horizontal space by folding the text "Active roster" over two lines. User:Dissident93 has reverted these changes (without any discussion with me first). I've explained my reasoning; his objection seems to combine a failure to understand the purpose of the change with a claim that similar changes have been rejected before, but without providing any diffs to support this claim. (Discussion here). Does anyone have any objections to this minor format improvement? Colonies Chris (talk) 10:13, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Generally, putting line breaks in the middle of fields of templates isn't a good idea - we run into this mostly with infoboxes, where people find that on their particular screen things look better with a line break in a particular position. That often makes it screw up on other displays. Tarl N. (discuss) 14:17, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

In cases such as these templates, where the number of items on the right indubitably requires more than a single line no matter what imaginable screen size any reader may have, splitting a long heading on the left makes for more space where it is needed, on the right, and so makes viewing the infobox easier for everyone, particularly those using smaller screens. This is standard practice in many templates, including NFL-related ones. For example, see {{NFL seasons}} or {{Defunct NFL stadiums}}; also {{MLB All-Time rosters}} or {{Epic}}. Colonies Chris (talk) 16:14, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Just because some other templates use it (to varying degrees of necessity) doesn't mean we have to do it here, as I still fail to see how "Active roster" is something we have to break into two lines for easier reading (when it fits on a single line with ample space, at least for me). Simply leave it as status quo for now, unless more happen to agree with you. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I don't see that we can have a productive discussion when you are clearly misunderstanding what I'm trying to achieve. I'll try once again to explain. Of course "Active roster" can fit on a single line - that's not the point. As described above, splitting it over two lines allows the left hand column to be narrower, which leaves more room for the links on the right hand side of the box, which therefore requires fewer horizontal lines. It's about making better use of the limited space available in a navbox. Go and look at the two versions of those templates, and you'll see what I mean. Or imagine how a template such as {{NFL seasons}} would look if the left-column headings were not folded over two lines. Colonies Chris (talk) 09:25, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

This is something that only you seem to prefer, as nobody else prior to this has argued in favor of something like this, nor has anybody, up until now, responded to this post in favor of it. If changes have to be made, I'd rather just remove "roster" from the title, instead of the way you are trying to propose. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:06, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Your entire objection seems to be that no-one has proposed this before. Perhaps with these specific templates that's the case. But I've given you plenty of examples where this approach is used. It's not some weird idea I've just made up; it's commonplace. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Oppose the new attempt to hardcode formatting. Let the browser do its job. UW Dawgs (talk) 23:52, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Normally that's a good principle. But the browser will not fold the text on the left unless we explicitly tell it to do so. If we choose to waste space, the browser doesn't know any better. This tweak is only applicable, as I've said above, where the list on the right is unquestionably longer than a single line; that means that the change has no downside; a later version of a browser will not be bothered by it, or render the page in some strange way. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

No opinion either way, since I think it's pretty minor, although I do see the benefits of breaking into 2 lines here. But I don't think it's worth arguing over since navboxes are used way less than we like to think they are. Lizard (talk) 00:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm amazed that there is so much argument over it here; this formatting tweak is already used in many templates, and no-one has objected to it before. In other contexts it's been entirely uncontroversial for years. Colonies Chris (talk) 14:39, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Popular pages report

We – Community Tech – are happy to announce that the Popular pages bot is back up-and-running (after a one year hiatus)! You're receiving this message because your WikiProject or task force is signed up to receive the popular pages report. Every month, Community Tech bot will post at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 15/Popular pages with a list of the most-viewed pages over the previous month that are within the scope of WikiProject National Football League.

We've made some enhancements to the original report. Here's what's new:

• The pageview data includes both desktop and mobile data.
• The report will include a link to the pageviews tool for each article, to dig deeper into any surprises or anomalies.
• The report will include the total pageviews for the entire project (including redirects).

We're grateful to Mr.Z-man for his original Mr.Z-bot, and we wish his bot a happy robot retirement. Just as before, we hope the popular pages reports will aid you in understanding the reach of WikiProject National Football League, and what articles may be deserving of more attention. If you have any questions or concerns please contact us at m:User talk:Community Tech bot.

Warm regards, the Community Tech Team 17:16, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Automated assessment of article importance

Hello everyone! I'm currently working on a project studying how to do automatic classification of article importance. As part of that project, I've done some analysis of articles within the scope of WikiProject National Football League and built a model to predict article importance. Started a thread over on the assessment page with more information and a link to our predictions (as well as a few other types of articles that might need an updated importance rating). Since I hadn't seen any comments over the past week, I thought I'd get in touch in here as well, would appreciate your thoughts and comments! Regards, Nettrom (talk) 23:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'll take a look at the candidates for re-rating page and make some notes. Lizard (talk) 23:57, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi Lizard, thank you so much for taking the time to leave us feedback, I greatly appreciate it! Your notes about why specific articles are rated a particular way are particularly helpful. When I first started analyzing WP:NFL's articles I noticed the detailed description of how biographies are rated and was concerned that our model might not pick those up. At the same time, during testing I found that generally our model performs really well on WP:NFL's articles. I went through all your comments and looked up how the predicted Top-importance articles compare when it comes to our measurements, as well as how our model works, finding that many of the articles are on the boundary between Top- and High-importance. But, we're also not catching the details in player's careers, thus we end up getting these wrong.

I was happy to see that the ratings for a couple of the articles could be updated, and that there was one that was outside the scope of the project. While working on my data analysis I also found a couple of Top-importance articles that seemed terribly out of place (both of them were predicted as Low-importance by our model), but I then found out you'd already been around to fix those.

The challenge of handling certain types of articles within WP:NFL (e.g. all seasons are High-importance) is something we've come across in other projects as well, where we've so far had success with using data from Wikidata to help identify those types of articles. I'll keep this in mind as we continue working on this project and how to improve our predictions. Thanks again so much for your very helpful feedback! Cheers, Nettrom (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

References in Infobox

Looking for some guidance. When creating stubs for NFL players, are the NFL.com and PFR.com references in the Infobox sufficient, or do I need to also add inline citations to the same sources? Thanks. Jb45424 (talk) 03:51, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Based on my interpretation of WP:MINREF & WP:GENREF I believe the Infobox to be sufficient, but would appreciate other opinions. Thanks. Jb45424 (talk) 04:01, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jb45424: Technically sufficient to avoid WP:BLPPROD. Grossly insufficient to develop a well-rounded article. Why create stubs when you could flesh things out more? If you lack references to flesh out the stubs you're creating, please check out WP:RX. We can help you get sources. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 04:22, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Requesting comments on Talk:Johnny Unitas

This is a lame battle that's been raging for a long time, so let's get some wider input please: Talk:Johnny Unitas#Inclusion of Baltimore Ravens Ring of Honor in infobox. Lizard (talk) 21:58, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Still need more input, edit warring continues. Lizard (talk) 22:39, 6 June 2017 (UTC)

User:Mkelley78

Mkelley78 (talk · contribs) is insisting on adding random "advanced stats" to numerous player articles using the website Player Profiler as their source, and I want to know what others think of this. First off, I'm not even sure the source is reliable. It seems to me to be just a big knockoff of the more well-known and reliable Pro Football Focus. There's also more than likely a conflict of interest with this user and the site as pretty much every edit this user has made involves adding links to it in articles. Second, i'm not sure this info is notable or cared about for the average person looking at these articles. I don't think anybody goes to Sterling Shepards article looking to read that he finished 44th in "catch rate". There's also no constancy to which stats are added and are seemingly just chosen at random. It's more evidence suggesting that the user is just adding random numbers to articles just to have a link to the website as a form of advertisement.--Yankees10 19:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Catch rate is not an advanced stat/analytic any more than batting average. Moreover, I would very much appreciate the opportunity to contribute advanced stats, but in an effort to be collaborative, I have refrained from including interesting advanced stats and analytics from my research specifically because of your criticisms. Per your request, I try to ensure that my contributions are noteworthy and easily consumed by the common fan. As it relates to Sterling Shepard, he was universally lauded for his efficiency coming out of Oklahoma, and there was significant interest in his catch rate. Additionally, I often cite PlayerProfiler, because it contextualizes the information without requiring original research or a login.--Mkelley78 (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Mkelley78: do you have any affiliation whatsoever with PlayerProfiler.com or any companies affiliated with the website? It would be considered a conflict of interest if you are trying to use your own website as a reference on Wikipedia and would conflict with WP:SPS. Wikipedia also has strict anti-undisclosed advertisement rules. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:11, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

• I agree these additions are generally worthless. Advanced stats like these may have made their way into the baseball world, but in football they're still a ways off from being recognized or understood by the general public. In football we like our stats simple. Lizard (talk) 15:03, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Datone Jones to B class to GA class

I'm a UCLA Bruins fan. And I'm planning on getting some UCLA Bruins NFL and NBA players to GA status. The article Datone Jones is one of them. Can someone please help me with the article so I can one day get it to GA class (by basically looking at the 4 bullets:

• The article does not have a sufficient lead section, which would certainly be noted at any GA review. It should, usually in two to four paragraphs, depending on the breadth of the body: "summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article."
• The following are unsourced: The text under "College career"; the last sentence under Senior season; the last sentence under "Green Bay Packers"; the entirety of the sections under "2013 season", "2014 season" and "2015 season".
• The section under Minnesota Vikings is a single short sentence; feels like an orphan; surely two sourced sentences can be sustained?
• All three statistics tables are cited using an external link embedded in the text, without full attribution details.

Hopefully someone explain to me about: the sufficient lead part (like which sections need it or what do I need to add in that part), the Vikings section, and while I did add some references for the 2013, 2014, and 2015 season sections, do I need to add more references to those 3 sections I mentioned? I did request copyedit as well and i'm thinking peer review but before I do peer review, I am more focused on improving it. If you reply to me, could you please do it in bullets. Thanks! --UCLAgirl623 ^{(Whats up!)} 15:30, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Creating a template for the NFL Top 100 Players

I've been thinking of ways into adding the NFL Top 100 Players ranking onto the individual players pages. I've thought about the infoboxes but that would be too cluttered so I thought that I could create a template for each Top 100 and add them to the respective players pages at the end of the articles with the roster navboxes, draft templates, etc. I wanted to get your input on this if this is a good idea or if it would be too cluttered or unnecessary. I feel like these rankings should be somewhere on the player pages because most of these players love and respect these rankings and I feel they are important to the content of their pages. Thanks Jrooster49 (talk) 13:40, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Mention these honors in the body of the articles. We don't need more award navbox templates. In fact, we should be getting rid of lot of them. Jweiss11 (talk) 14:45, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

I agree that they've become a pretty big deal in the past few seasons, but I agree with Jweiss that we already have way too many navboxes. They've been releasing the Top 100 for 7 years now, so that would be 700 more navboxes we'd have to add. Not ideal. Lizard (talk) 15:26, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Input

So I've been thinking about this since he was fired last week (which as a Chiefs fan came as a HUGE shock), on 2017 Kansas City Chiefs season should we include John Dorsey and his replacement in the "General Manager" parameter like this:

John Dorsey (Fired June 22)
New GM's name

My thought behind this is John Dorsey was there for the draft free agency and player re-signing which was part of the 2017 NFL fiscal year which this article is supposed to cover. Thoughts??--Rockchalk717 16:19, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

• I'd say no just for confusion's sake. This info should be kept to prose only. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

2016 NFL Quarterback win-loss records

Hi, I have been on Wikipedia for a month now. A big project that I have been working on is this page. (the one that I put the title of this section on). I want it to be like the other three already made ('12, '13, '14). The only problem is that I am only one person and I would like some help with it. So can someone please help me with the page? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnylospo (talk • contribs) 23:17, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

AfD: The Greatest Show on Turf

Please see here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Cfd: Category:Undrafted National Football League players

Here. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

2nd All-Pro team template

I see at Category:National Football League All-Pro Team navigational boxes that {{2016 2nd All-Pro Team}} has been created and looks out of place. Do we want to start doing this?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:54, 11 July 2017 (UTC)

Probably not a good idea. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

No, terrible idea. This would add hundreds of navboxes to player pages. I also don't think adding them to the AP All-Pro team navbox would be a good idea, for the same reason. Lizard (talk) 21:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

As someone who's been in the project for the better part of a decade, absolutely not. Terrible idea, per Lizard. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 02:02, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

• @WikiOriginal-9, Lizard the Wizard, and Crash Underride:, Template:2016 2nd All-Pro Team has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:52, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
• Guys I made it. I made the template. Vinnylospo, thats my name. I'm the guy about the 2016 NFL quarterback win-loss records. You can delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnylospo (talk • contribs) 04:40, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Team's official website on season articles

What are the opinions on having a team's official website in the external links section like at 2016 New York Giants season. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:08, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Unless the link is to a specific page about that specific season, I don't think it's necessary. – PeeJay 21:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, how helpful would this be for the 1975 season, but the website is showing all current info? Not to mention it would be a massive undertaking, with every season X 32. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:16, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll start removing them when I see them unless anyone else has a different opinion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:14, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Capitalization in staff templates

Shouldn't a lot of the positions in List of current National Football League staffs be uncapitalized. I thought we always used sentence case for coaching positions (Head coach) but what about the front office positions like "Vice President". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:50, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes they should. I had noticed but hadn't yet gotten around to complaining about it. Lizard (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Should every position be uncapitalized? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:29, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Only the first words of each position should be capitalized. Lizard (talk) 01:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll probably end up changing these. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:10, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I've argued this for a long time in the Redskins one. The only ones that should be capitalized are actual titles, such as GM and Vice President of Football Operations. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:49, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It's my understanding that even those should be in lowercase. Where is the line drawn when it comes to "actual titles"? Is Head Coach not a title? Offensive Coordinator? Senior Assistant Secretary to the Assistant Vice President of Football Operations Emeritus? Lizard (talk) 05:56, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

MOS:JOBTITLES They are all corporate titles of the franchise's front office, a "head coach" is more of a general occupation, as with every other coaching position, and those should never be capitalized. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:43, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I see, but I'm still not convinced they should be capitalized. Aren't we using these terms generically? Which of the three exceptions listed by MOS:JOBTITLES applies here? Lizard (talk) 07:06, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

We could, but some of the teams use a custom title that isn't used on other teams, so we couldn't really be generic with those. Reliable sources also capitalize front office titles and never coaching/player positions, so we should just follow their lead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:20, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

What about front office positions like general manager which it seems like we don't capitalize (ex. Brandon Beane). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:23, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

It depends if we are talking about GM as a title or occupation. We would follow the same rules as we would talking about a company president. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Actually, why are we even listing front office personnel? You'd normally never see these listed on a team's roster, because they have nothing to do with the actual team. Not to mention, probably less than half of these front office people even have their own article, and the ones that don't likely wouldn't pass GNG. Compare with List of current MLB team rosters and List of current NBA team rosters. Lizard (talk) 21:47, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

On that note, many of the blue links for front office personnel aren't even to the correct pages. Tom Robinson and Todd Williams are listed as members of the Cowboys front office... Lizard (talk) 21:50, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't be against listing only the owner, GM, and president, omitting every other front office personnel which would help standardize and simplify all of the team templates to the most core roles. We could even have it managed directly by the template, making any other value added non-valid, similar to how infoboxes work. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:57, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I realize now the NFL one is listing team staffs while the others are rosters. But I agree, we don't need to list every junior assistant executive vice president of shoelace development. Lizard (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect Information on "List of Supplemental Draft Picks" article

The lead of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_NFL_supplemental_draft_picks is incorrect. Although the NFL formalized or altered their supplemental draft with the Spring 1977 Owners meeting, it seems an NFL Supplemental Draft in some form dates back to either the 1968 or 1970 Collective Bargaining Agreement.

“Notre Dame End Picked." Baltimore Sun; Baltimore, MD. p.C5 describes Notre Dame TE Tom Lawson being taken by the Colts as part of a "Supplementary Draft" on June 15th 1970. I can not find, however, any record of the five other eligible players being chosen, record of a previous supplemental draft, or any text of the 1968 or 70 CBA which would point to the establishment of a supplemental draft.

So to say the Supplemental Draft began in 1977 is not quite right. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keithisgood (talk • contribs) 17:45, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I couldn't find that source you were talking about but if its true, then we could probably add it to the article. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to add metric values to Template:NFL predraft

I would like to propose adding metric values to Template:NFL predraft and I would really appreciate your input. Please see Template_talk:NFL_predraft#Proposal_to_add_metric_values for the description of my proposed change and a list of issues that I see when the change would be implemented. Spike (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Teddy Bridgewater full name

The article states that his name is Theodore Andrew Bridgewater Jr., but Pro Football Reference lists his name as Theodore Edmond Bridgewater. Yet, his article doesn't have a source for his middle name being "Andrew". Thoughts? ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 04:18, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

His middle name was changed by an IP in September here, citing Rostermon.com. I've never heard of this site but they do have his middle name as Andrew. I think it's best we stick to our guns and go with PFR. Lizard (talk) 05:14, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

There is also this Florida voter registration site that gives the same name and birthday in the Miami area, but who knows how reliable this site is. Perhaps somebody could email PFR asking them where they got Edmond from? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:23, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

If sources conflict at all and the best we have is PFR, I'd remove the middle name entirely. ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 06:06, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

@BU Rob13: I took your advice and removed the middle name, for the time being, until we can get a better source. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 07:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Roberto Aguayo

IPs keep adding unsourced changes to the article after the subject's recent release from the Buccaneers. I'd like to request assistance at the article. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 17:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

HOF Banners

Why is Morten Andersen the only one with a proper banner? None of the other guys in the 2017 class have proper banners. RoyalsLife 03:58, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Your guess is as good as mine. Where does that ID come from? In the past the ID was in the URL but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Lizard (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

We need to address this and figure out what to do about it. I've had to do several dozen reverts now of people either copy and pasting another player's ID or straight up pasting the link to the player's HOF profile (which results in a link to the HOF homepage). Can anyone figure out where Morten Andersen's ID comes from so we can do the same with the other inductees? Lizard (talk) 19:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

On this page, it shows the IDs when you hover over the players' names. However it only does that up to the class of 2015. Maybe whoever entered Anderson's ID just guessed until he found it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 20:23, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, all of last year's inductees are also wrong but I had forgotten about it until now. Maybe it's time we cut the external link altogether and just go with a wikilink to Pro Football Hall of Fame, the way baseball does it. Lizard (talk) 20:39, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I've always been a fan of the external link to the individual player's College and Pro Football Hall of Fame entries. Those links are of much higher value than a generic wikilink to the article about the Hall of Fame. Cbl62 (talk) 21:01, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

Can the parameter be changed to support a direct link to the player's HOF page? I'd rather we not have to use trial and error for this every year. Lizard (talk) 21:06, 6 August 2017 (UTC)

I put Andersen there, it was just random for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnylospo (talk • contribs) 04:03, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Lizard That's a good idea, but that may be difficult changing them all. I like the external link, but yeah, that's strange that '16 and '17 class is screwed up... maybe we should guess every one lol. Is there another way to find the numbers? RoyalsLife 16:24, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I copied this page's source code, then sorted the code by number and manually entered missing numbers. I have all the IDs in order at User:WikiOriginal-9/HOF (click edit to view it better, also somehow the last name's got cut off). Everyone now has their proper IDs except Brett Favre, Ken Stabler, Kenny Easley, Jerry Jones, Jason Taylor and LaDainian Tomlinson. I think these six might not have IDs because all the numbers seem to be accounted for. Going any higher than 331 just seems to start to redirect to other pages. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

We should probably just change the parameter to where it takes the names like "kurt-warner" or the full URL. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

• I already changed Template:Infobox NFL biography/sandbox to accept the players' names. Now someone with template editor rights needs to edit the template. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:48, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Pro Football Hall of Fame article improvement campaign progress update

Since May 2016, we've made steady progress with the Pro Football Hall of Fame article improvement campaign, an attempt to improve the overall quality of articles on players in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. There are now 0 stub articles for PFHOF players, compared to 14 when we began. Here is the current breakdown of article ratings compared to what they were a year ago:

Assessment in July 2016

Featured	2
Good	15
A	0
B	16
C	74
Start	191
Stub	14

Current assessment

Featured	2
Good	24
A	0
B	30
C	78
Start	177
Stub	0

As you can see, over half of the articles are still merely start class. Please consider "adopting" a player and contributing to the campaign. Lizard (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

2017–18 NFL playoffs

I've been receiving vandalization of the article for the 2017–18 playoffs, currently hidden. Can someone do something about it? Z.I. Barbour (talk) 15:12, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Neutral Notice

Hi all WP:NFL members,

List of New England Patriots starting quarterbacks has an open FLC that has yet to be touched by any editor besides me, so some feedback on the article would be appreciated. I'd hate to see it get archived due to inactivity. Cheers, Sportsguy17 (T • C) 15:28, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikivoyage help

If you have attended American football games (professional, college, anything), then please see the question at voy:Wikivoyage:Travellers' pub#Has anyone ever been to an American football game?.

Wikivoyage is a travel guide, and the rules and style are quite different – but it is easy to understand, and everyone is very helpful and friendly. I'm sure they would appreciate your help in either adding the content or answering questions on the talk page. (If you're new to Wikivoyage, then it's one of our WP:SISTERs, so your regular Wikipedia account should automatically log you in there.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:21, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

Jacoby Brissett birth year

Someone changed his birth year to 1993, which is what NFL.com has but NFL.com used to say 1992 and that's what his article has said for years. If he was born in 1993, that means he graduated high school a year early. This article from Oct. 2011 says he is 18, except he should be 17 if he was born in Dec. 1993. Even though the coach might just be generally saying 18 year old since he's a freshman. This, which looks like it may have been written by Brissett, which says he was born in 1992. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:26, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

If the year really is unclear, you can follow something like at Steve Novak where the discrepancy is footnoted and an exact year is not given.—Bagumba (talk) 06:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Beware SB Nation

SB Nation is one of the most popular and most cited sources when it comes to sports. But it's important to know that most of its articles are by random joes sitting on their couch. The SB stands for "Sports Blog," and per WP:BLPSPS, blogs should be avoided when writing about living persons. While SB Nation does have some staff writers, there's almost always a better alternative, such as ESPN.com and NFL.com. Lizard (talk) 17:02, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Herm Edwards

I noticed everything actually lists him as "Herman" not "Herm." The Chiefs even list him as Herman. Is there a way to fix this? —RoyalsLife 22:03, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

His WP:COMMONNAME is Herm, so that's what the article should be titled. ("Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used") WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:56, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

The WP:COMMONNAME analysis actually seems to favor "Herman" rather than "Herm". It appears that he was more commonly known as "Herman" during his playing and coaching days, though he has been referred to as "Herm" in later years as an analyst. A search of Newspapers.com shows that, on an overall basis, he has been referred to as "Herman Edwards" three times more often (33,000 hits vs. 10,000) than as "Herm Edwards". A search of Google Books, which per WP:COMMONNAME is favored over a generic google search, also heavily favors "Herman" (4,690 hits) over "Herm" (1,170). For examples of major publications referring to him as Herman, see The New York Times, San Francisco Chronicle, Philadelphia Inquirer, Los Angeles Times, and Orlando Sentinel. See also NFL.com, The Football Database, and Sports Reference College Football. But see ESPN, Pro-Football-Reference.com, and USA Today. 15:42, 9 September 2017 (UTC)Cbl62 (talk)

Listing sack numbers as a whole number or decimal

Should we be listing sack numbers as a whole number or decimal, in regards to the infobox/stat tables? Nobody when actually speaking it says "Bruce Smith had 200.0 sacks in career", but because it's mathematically listed that way on places like NFL.com and ESPN due to the possibility of half-sacks, Yankees10 (talk · contribs) says it's "official". I personally find it silly how we are following what a automated stat sheet is providing us, because we would not write this in prose unless it ends in .5 like Michael Strahan, nor would anybody actually say it this way; they'd just say two hundred. Thoughts? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:26, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

To me it's simple. Every Source lists the .0 So I don't see the problem in also doing so.--Yankees10 20:37, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

1982 and 1987 strikes

Are there dedicated articles covering these labor conflicts? Given ESPN’s 30 for 30 made a show over an hour in length, there has to be enough sources to warrant the 87 strike having it’s own article.--That man from Nantucket (talk) 15:01, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

NFL International Series

Some user came and moved the "NFL International Series" page to NFL London and Mexico Games without any discussion. I moved it back, and advised to discuss the matter, but he/she ignores it and keeps moving to new namespace. – Sabbatino (talk) 11:29, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Current players without articles

There's a list of notable current NFL players without articles here if anyone's interested. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:23, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion input on former player

A discussion regarding the draft status of a player has been started. Your input is requested. Thank you. Primefac (talk) 13:30, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Definition of interior lineman

See discussion at WikiProject College football. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:46, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Highest scoring NFL games

The Highest scoring NFL games page could use a few more eyes on it. It's a highly viewed page and there's often vandalism that stays on the page for days without anyone reverting it. Lizard (talk) 17:20, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've watchlisted it. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:43, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

I've placed pending changes protection on it. As an aside, the page would look better as a table.—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree, a table would be better. But there are some interesting tidbits in the prose. What could we do with those? A separate "Game notes" section perhaps? Lizard (talk) 10:25, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed page move of Gridiron football

A move proposal affecting this project has been made at Talk:Gridiron football#Requested move 4 October 2017. The requested new title is North American football. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 09:32, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Proposed page move

See Talk:Jim Marshall (gridiron football)#Requested move 12 October 2017 if you're interested. Lepricavark (talk) 05:37, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Summary: The move is proposed to Jim Marshall (American football). He played 20 years in the US and 1 in Canada.—Bagumba (talk) 10:59, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Cardiac Cats at AfD

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cardiac Cats. Lizard (talk) 19:46, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Dashes in number parameter

A dash was recently added to Infobox NFL biography by @Bagumba: to conform with other sports templates. This causes free agents like Victor Cruz (American football) to have two sets of dashes in the infobox. Should we remove the No. "--" from free agents. Other sports don't have the two dashes (Giovanni Soto, Joel Anthony, Gabe Pruitt). WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:14, 16 September 2017 (UTC)

No need to enter "--" for non applicable data. A player without a team does not have a current number. We don't add "--" for non-applicable death dates of living people. There is no need to treat unknown numbers differently.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Anyway we can configure the template to not accept the "--" if the team field is also set as free agent. People add it back in [7][8] WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:46, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, a lot of those roster-related edits are done by IPs and niche editors who've been doing it the same way for years, and will have no idea this discussion took place. Lizard (talk) 02:17, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

Pinging Fibrebunny and TropicAces for their opinion. Can't expect them to change their style if they are not even aware of this new proposal to not uses dashes when there is no number.—Bagumba (talk) 08:33, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

The dashes should only appear when a player is signed by a team, but has not yet had their number announced. Free agents do not need this, and I agree that it should be hidden by the infobox itself when set to free agent. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:08, 7 October 2017 (UTC)

I might be chiming in late here and I was completely unaware this discussion existed. I'm one of those editors that have adding the 2 dashes when a player does not have a number. I only started doing that because in the parameter descriptions on the Infobox page it said to use 2 dashes if the player does not have a number. If those are to be blank now I don't have a problem with that I just would like to know so I can stop.--Rockchalk717 21:09, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It says "If the player's number is not currently known, fill the field with two dashes". It's not technically wrong since free agents don't have numbers. Unless someone else disagrees, we seem to be coming to a consensus to remove the dashes. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:12, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no problems with it, it's just one of those things I would like to know so I don't add them in those instances.--Rockchalk717 16:30, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: I saw you involved in this discussion and you have also edited the template quite a bit. I think we've come to a consensus here to remove the dashes. There doesn't seem to be a perfectly valid reason to keep them and no one has opposed their removal yet. I think that editors just add them because that's the common format. How do you propose we remove the dashes? Can we set the template to not display the "--" when the team parameter is also set to "Free agent", "free agent", "Free Agent" and any other spellings there may be. Thanks, WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:09, 12 October 2017 (UTC)
  • WikiOriginal-9, I just made this change which makes it so the |number= is ignored when |current_team=Free agent (any capitalization). however, we basically make it do anything, just let me know what the result should be for (a) |current_team=Free agent and |number=5, (b) |current_team=Free agent and |number=--, (c) |current_team=A valid team and |number=--. I can figure out the coding once I know the desired output. Frietjes (talk) 13:43, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

Back to the point I raised above and also discussed before, what value is it to the reader to see "--" when the number is unknown, whether they are a free agent or not? If we don't know, don't display it.—Bagumba (talk) 14:12, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

I thought the -- when they're on a team wasn't completely needed either. I wouldn't be opposed to removing that. I think that when people don't see a number there, they will look to add it. I'm not sure that we would lose any number additions by removing the dashes. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:13, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

NBA project doesn't add "--" for unknown numbers, and it gets updated regularly (often with a made up number) anyways.—Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Dissident93, Rockchalk717, and Lizard the Wizard: Thoughts on removing the dashes when they're currently on a team but their number is not known? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:51, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

No, they're arbitrary. No more dashes. Lizard (talk) 16:53, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't really see the point in them. I only did it because you were supposed to.--Rockchalk717 17:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Same. The numbers field should be edited to only accept numbers and nothing else. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:45, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Frietjes: We've come to a consensus to remove the dashes when the player is on a team as well (option c). Thanks, WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:54, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
  • okay, now done. Frietjes (talk) 21:36, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:Cam Newton regarding "sexist remark" incident

at Talk:Cam Newton#2017 Jourdan Rodrigue incident. Lizard (talk) 19:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

All-Pro team infobox

It would be helpful to have an infobox to summarize and navigate between All-Pro team articles. I took a quick, rough stab at creating one at 1924 All-Pro Team. I am not familiar with a lot of the coding that goes into such things. If someone can develop something better, that would be great. We could then roll them out into each article. (It could also serve as model for an infobox for college football All-American teams. See 1924 College Football All-America Team.) Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

I think the graphic can go, as well as the years that aren't immediately before/after. And add a "selectors" field. Lizard (talk) 15:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

My hope is that someone might be willing to create and code a master infobox that can be approved and then rolled out. As for selectors, I agree that would be useful and I've added a field for that. I've removed the old graphic (which I agree wasn't ideal), but some sort of graphic would be nice, and I'm open to suggestions. Having at least a couple years before and after doesn't crowd the field, adds a bit more perspective, and is how it is done in other major "year" navboxes. See, e.g., 1924, 1924 in the United States, 1924 in music, 1924 in film. Cbl62 (talk) 16:29, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

If we're gonna include the "American football" link in the All-Pro infobox, should we link "college football" or something in the All-American infobox? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

That link also seems unnecessary to me. Lizard (talk) 17:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Birth name in Infobox NFL biography

I've seen the birth_name parameter used some. Thoughts on it? Here is the original discussion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:00, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I say exclude. It's hardly ever appropriate, and we should be trimming down the infoboxes as much as possible. O. J. Simpson's infobox doesn't need to specify that his initials stand for Orenthal James. Lizard (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to include it. With actors and musicians, it makes sense because they don't always use their birth names, but for any athlete on Wikipedia there's no good reason to include it. The birth name being in the opening only sufficient. The only things logical to be in the info box, is everything that's currently in it. In my opinion nothing really needs added or removed from it.--Rockchalk717 04:32, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

It's rarely a key point of notability for NFL people. Per WP:IBX: "The less information [an infobox] contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."—Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Agree with the others, for purposes of the sport/NFL, their birth name doesn't matter. Put that info in prose instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:53, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

we should merge the birth_date and birth_place into a single born field, and the death_date and death_place into died like almost all other biographical infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 14:31, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Looks like that is what the other infoboxes do, including the sports ones. Mind editing the sandbox and showing us what it would look like on this template? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

sure, see the testcases. Frietjes (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Deejayk: who participated in the earlier discussion. Frietjes (talk) 14:33, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

@Primefac: who participated in the earlier discussion. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 15:08, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

Combining the birth date and birth place fields

@Rockchalk717, Lizard the Wizard, Bagumba, and Dissident93: Opinions on what @Frietjes: said above, "we should merge the birth_date and birth_place into a single born field, and the death_date and death_place into died like almost all other biographical infoboxes". See examples. If this gains consensus, I'd also propose we implement it at Template:Infobox CFL biography and Template:Infobox college football player. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:36, 26 October 2017 (UTC)

• It's more consistent with other infoboxes and doesn't have a downside to it (that I can tell), so I think it should be done. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:40, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• Sure. Lizard (talk) 18:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• I'm all for it. Seems pretty logical and I can't honestly come up with any reason why it wouldn't be a good idea.--Rockchalk717 21:57, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
• To be clear 1) consensus is to remove birth_name 2) birth_date and birth_place params remain, its just the display that is being combined. And same with death.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Run and shoot offense

I just had a quick read of Run and shoot offense, and it is quite awful. It's dominated by an long unsourced list of offenses that ran or were "influenced" by the Run and shoot. It could really use a good overhaul, but that is beyond my abilities and knowledge. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 08:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wanting input

While looking at Reggie Ragland's page, I got to thinking about something. Shouldn't he have a Offseason and/or practice squad member only note next to the Bills? Why I say that is he was injured during preseason his rookie year and was placed on IR during the preseason then was traded to the Chiefs during the preseason so he was never on the Bills active roster during the regular season which sounds like he should qualify for that designatation. In which case we would have to extend to 2017 his tenure with the Bills. I wanted to get some feedback for that before I changed it. Thoughts???--Rockchalk717 20:59, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure it should. He was on the Bills' IR during the 2016 regular season, which isn't offseason or a practice squad. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:09, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the implication of "off-season and/or practice squad member only" is that the player never played a regular season game for that team. Lizard (talk) 21:33, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

More like he wasn't a member of their 53 man active roster during the regular season. At least, that's how I've always viewed it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:21, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Well there's the problem: we have 4 people giving their interpretation and no one saying how it really should be. The template documentation doesn't give any hints either. Lizard (talk) 22:58, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed, the whole thing is inconsistent and should be replaced with a better idea, if anybody has any. Being on the PS during the regular season isn't the same thing as being on the team in April and cut in June, so maybe we only note this if they were an offseason member? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:58, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

It does need cleared up. I think this is a good opportunity to come to a consensus as opposed to interpretations. I've always taken it as it just meant not on active roster during the regular season which is why I mentioned this. Maybe rewording the off-season note perhaps??--Rockchalk717 03:49, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

Largest NFL trades

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of largest National Football League trades has been relisted for a 2nd time, and can use input to reach a consensus. Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 11:57, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

10,000 receiving yards club template

We have a 10,000 rushing yards club template, but why don't we have one for receiving yards? I think it's a good idea and I'm down to make it, I just want to hear ideas because it's a way to connect fellow great receivers. —RoyalsLife 01:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Delete the 10,000 rushing yards club template. There's no such club. Lizard (talk) 01:59, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lizard this one? —RoyalsLife 16:17, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

After some googling, the rushing yards one is probably warranted. But I'm not sold on a 10k receiving yards one. We should be conservative in creating new navboxes since we have so many already. When would it end after the 10k receiving yards navbox? 30k passing yards? 100 rushing TD? 50 interceptions? 1k tackles? Lizard (talk) 16:30, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Lizard I see your point. We have one and the other kinda goes along with it. It was just an idea. I just thought it would work since we have a 10k rushing yards one. —RoyalsLife 16:48, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Names

Per WP:COMMONNAME, shouldn't Marvin Jones Jr., Thomas Davis Sr., and Jamie Collins Sr. be moved back to their original titles. The majority of sources don't use the suffixes when referring to these players. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 05:08, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, they do. Case in point, Steve Smith Sr.. All of them have jerseys that reflect their suffixes and their own player profiles have reflected that as well [9] [10] There ought to be consistency. Unless you want to move Steve Smith Sr. to [[Steve Smith (football)}, all the suffixes should stay.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 05:19, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

No comment on these specific cases. However, we use COMMONNAME; they do not all need to consistently add (or remove) the suffix. However, since removing the suffix leaves an ambiguous name, WP:NATURALDIS also needs to be considered.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Note that I left Terrelle Pryor and several others alone because there isn't another Terrelle Pryor with a Wikipedia article. All the ones I moved are made in accordance to the precedent set by Steve Smith Sr.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:16, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Agreed. We should be going with their common name, not just whatever name they happen to go with on the back of their jersey. Odell Beckham Jr. is constantly refereed to by sources with the Jr., while Terrelle Pryor Sr. and all three other examples in the OP aren't. I don't think we should be forcing this due to WP:NATURALDIS either, as WP:COMMONNAME should supersede that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:51, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

That's just patently false. Just as many people call him Odell Beckham WITHOUT Jr. and I heard just as many people say Marvin Jones JR. and Jamies Collins SR. Perhaps you don't watch enough games. When Steve Smith added SR to his name, people started calling him Steve Smith SR. The same thing is playing out with Collins and others. This whole WP:COMMONNAME rationale is clearly just your personal preference. One isn't more "common" than the other just because you say so.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Btw WikiProject isn't the right venue to discuss this. OP should've brought this to individual article talkpages, so non-project members and the community at large can weigh in. In fact, by bringing this to the WikiProject, OP is in danger of violating WP:CANVASS.--Certified Gangsta (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

There's no reason to suspect this project would be biased one way or another, so CANVASS shouldn't be a concern. Probably best to take it to WP:RM if anyone is interested in a change.—Bagumba (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Recruitment for 2018 WikiProject American football tasks

In 2017, I took the honor of helping update standings table for American [indoor] football leagues outside NFL (i.e. Arena Football League, Indoor Football League and Champions Indoor Football to name a few). Since I only wanted to do this for 2017, I'd like to see if I can recruit a few individuals from this WikiProject who are willing to do the same for 2018 standings tables during the NFL offseason (I plan on retiring from Wikipedia during these leagues' seasons anyway.) jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 22:40, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Proposed template merging

I noticed the near similarities between Infobox NFL and Infobox league season. Has anyone considered a merging of the two templates (and also Infobox Sports season, if necessary)?Z.I. Barbour (talk) 01:55, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

List of D-III draft picks

Hey Project NFL, I recently cleaned up the Division III article and it some overly detailed info on D-III draft picks. I'll park it here if anyone wants to use it.

Year Drafted	Name	Position	College Attended	Team Drafted By	Round and Number Drafted
2015	Ali Marpet	OL	Hobart	Buccaneers	2–61
2012	Chris Greenwood	CB	Albion	Lions	5-148
2011	Cecil Shorts	WR	Mount Union	Jaguars	4–114
2008	Andy Studebaker	DE/LB	Wheaton (Ill.)	Eagles	6-203
2008	Pierre Garçon	WR	Mount Union	Colts	6-205
2007	Michael Allan	TE	Whitworth	Chiefs	7-231
2007	Derek Stanley	WR/RET	UW-Whitewater	Rams	7-249
2003	Ryan Hoag	WR	Gustavus Adolphus	Raiders	7-262
2002	Tony Beckham	CB	UW-Stout	Titans	4–115
2002	Michael Coleman	WR	Widener	Falcons	7-217
2000	Tim Watson	DE	Rowan	Seahawks	6-185
1999	Clint Kriewaldt	LB	UW-Stevens Point	Lions	6-177
1996	Ethan Brooks	OL	Williams	Falcons	7-229
1994	Bill Schroeder	WR	UW-La Crosse	Packers	6-181
1992	Nate Kirtman	DB	Pomona-Pitzer	Cowboys	9-248
1992	Barry Rose	WR	UW-Stevens Point	Bills	10-279
1991	Pete Lucas	OL	UW-Stevens Point	Falcons	10-258
1991	Larry Wanke	QB	John Carroll	Giants	12-334
1990	Chris Warren	RB	Ferrum	Seahawks	4-89
1988	Erwin Grabisna	LB	Case Western Reserve	Raiders	6-143

Skol Vikings! - Mnnlaxer | talk | stalk 06:38, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Nice! Keep up the good work!--Certified Gangsta (talk) 06:50, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Is it possible to have the draft year field produce a column in an NFL draft table

Resolved

I am trying to produce an NFL draftee table for a high school coach (Thomas_Wilcher#Coaching) who has had 5 players drafted in the NFL draft. I can't get the draft year field to produce an NFL draft year column.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:04, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

You might be better off just creating your own table from scratch. In the example on the Thomas Wilcher article, you can't really tell what that color coding stands for, so that by itself might make it worth using your own table. I could convert that table if you wanted. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

I'd appreciate that.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:18, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

• Thanks.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:43, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Welcome. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 03:44, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

college infobox information for graduate transfer

Should the Blake Countess infobox include Michigan. He spent 4 years (3 years of eligibility) there before being a graduate transfer at Auburn. He earned First team All-Big Ten at Michigan in 2013 and honorable mention in 2014. He made no mark at Auburn, but the infobox does not mention Michigan.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:02, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

The project seems to be split on this issue. I’m of the opinion that all colleges a player attended should be listed, not just the one they were drafted from. Elroy Hirsch was drafted out of Michigan and his number is retired by Wisconsin, so leaving Wisconsin out of the infobox would be silly. Maybe we can agree to make exceptions for players who made a significant impact at more than one college. I’d say Russell Wilson also fits that bill. Lizard (talk) 20:09, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

If someone had significant playing time as a starter at two different schools, both schools be listed. If a player had significant playing time as a starter only at one school, I'd be fine with listing only that school. Cbl62 (talk) 22:05, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Lizard the Wizard, you say "the project seems to be split". Does that mean that this has been previously hashed out. I see no contrary opinion in this thread so far.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:32, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

See this discussion here from a few months ago. @Crash Underride, Kmanblue, Tarl N., Jweiss11, and UW Dawgs: Pinging editors from that discussion to see if we can finally reach a consensus. Should we (1) list all colleges, (2) list college drafted from, or (3) take it case-by-case? Lizard (talk) 04:44, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

All colleges for which they are listed as a letterman. This is obvious. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:54, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

That is probably the proper standard.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:59, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

I've edited the Russell Wilson and Blake Countess articles accordingly. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:00, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is a quick summary, not a comprehensive listing. I believe the correct college to list for a professional player is the one that was most relevant to getting hired as a professional. Normally, that would be the last school played at. Sometimes it may be different - e.g., if the player earned the Heisman at one school, and then went on to graduate school but didn't do anything significant on the field there before getting drafted, the reason for his being drafted was probably the previous school, and thus that's the one that should be listed in the infobox. Again, the infobox is a quick summary, so should contain the most important items, not be a comprehensive listing. The comprehensive listings belong in the article itself. Tarl N. (discuss) 19:58, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

So you don't think there's any scenario in which listing 2 colleges would be appropriate? Which college would you say Russell Wilson had a greater impact at? Lizard (talk) 20:26, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

There may be a case where you can't tell, in which case WP:IAR. However, as far as Wilson is concerned, I don't think there's any reason to debate that the school that should be listed is Wisconsin. His stay at NC State, however notable, did not attract NFL attention, which indicates his year at Wisconsin is what tipped the balance. But we're nitpicking; the Infobox is for a quick summary, it is not (or should not be) an exhaustive listing. Indeed, I'd suggest that the highschool listing is largely meaningless. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:56, 1 December 2017 (UTC)

Attracting NFL draft attention is irrelevant. Merely lettering at school is sufficient to warrant inclusion in the infobox. It's a key element of player's football biography. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:54, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

On reflection, I support Jweiss' position on this. Cbl62 (talk) 02:58, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Yeah and honestly, if we're looking to trim a few lines from infoboxes there's much lower hanging fruit. Such as conference championships in the highlights section for players. Lizard (talk) 03:05, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Lizard, junior high school hurdling championships should stay though! Jweiss11 (talk) 03:30, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Looks like he finally gave up. Good riddance. Lizard (talk) 03:48, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation links on pages tagged by this wikiproject

Wikipedia has many thousands of wikilinks which point to disambiguation pages. It would be useful to readers if these links directed them to the specific pages of interest, rather than making them search through a list. Members of WikiProject Disambiguation have been working on this and the total number is now below 20,000 for the first time. Some of these links require specialist knowledge of the topics concerned and therefore it would be great if you could help in your area of expertise.

A list of the relevant links on pages which fall within the remit of this wikiproject can be found at http://69.142.160.183/~dispenser/cgi-bin/topic_points.py?banner=WikiProject_National_Football_League

Please take a few minutes to help make these more useful to our readers.— Rod ^talk 17:35, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Assistance requested at Template:2017 AFC standings

There's an IP being disruptive and changing the rankings against NFL tiebreakers at the template. I need assistance in reverting their continued disruption. Please also see their Talk page for their supposed reasoning. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 18:55, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

I've submitted a report here. They're still making the edit. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 19:28, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

At least part of the argument seems to be the distinction between standings and playoff seeds. Kansas City is (for the moment) 4th seed in the AFC Playoff standings, here, but seems to stands 6th in the AFC as far as raw ranking (at 6-6 behind behind Jaguars and Ravens at 8-4 and 7-5). Perhaps the article needs some clarification as to exactly what is being stated? Tarl N. (discuss) 04:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

We should be going with the standard playoff standings/seeding, not just listed by raw win percentage. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:17, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Zach Miller

Currently, there are two people with the name of Zach Miller that have Wikipedia articles. Of course, both are (or were) NFL players. And, to add to the fun, they both play(ed) tight-end. Because of this, their article names... suck:

• Zach Miller (tight end, born 1984) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Zach Miller (tight end, born 1985) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Everything is set up correctly to help the user get to the correct article. There is a disambiguation page and each have a hatnote on their pages to direct users to the other article. However, if you don't hit the disambiguation page first after searching, you've got a 50/50 shot of getting to the right article, unless you happen to know their birth years (1984 or 1985), which is unlikely. The problem is, I don't have a solution to make it easier. Although their middle names are different, users aren't any more likely to know that, either. Maybe there isn't better idea and we're stuck with what we got, but I'd at least thought I try to get some other opinions. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:36, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it seems like this is the best solution available. Adding their middle names would violate WP:COMMONNAME, so using their positions and birth years makes the most sense. – PeeJay 21:40, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Questions moved from National Football League draft

Moving them here as I think there's more chance of them being seen. Anyone helping a Limey understand is a quite splendid person. Tootlepip. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 11:33, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Puzzled re salaries

According to [[11]] there's a pre-set salary that the drafted players will earn. So why would Stafford have been offered a vast amount of money when they could have signed him for the usual amount? It's not like he could have gone to a different team. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:08, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

What happens...?

I'm fascinated by the draft, because it's so unlike anything that happens in British sports. For the same reason, I'm pretty clueless about it, so forgive me if these questions are stupid, but I couldn't see them covered in the article.

What happens if a player really doesn't want to play for the team that picks him? For instance, he hates cold weather and gets picked by Buffalo. Or he dislikes the style of football they play. Or he doesn't want to live so far away from his disabled parents. The system seems to pay no heed to individuals' preferences. Is there a mechanism for these things?

Is there criticism of the draft (not mentioned in article) on these grounds? Has it even been tested in law? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 09:14, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

The answer to both questions is that the player does have some autonomy. He doesn't have to accept the offer from the team which drafted him. This is known as holding out. A notable example was John Elway, who was drafted by the Baltimore Colts. The Colts' coach at the time, Frank Kush, was notorious for ill-treating his players. Elway said he would either play baseball or go to medical school. He was traded to Denver, a better situation. Other players have delayed signing their contracts, which messes up training camp schedules.

As for being tested in the courts, the draft is only of players who have signed a detailed contract which specifies the conditions, including that they have no control over which team selects them. I don't have any specific knowledge of this, but I tend to doubt a court would meddle in that contract. Tarl N. (discuss) 13:47, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

To answer your questions, in the case of Stafford, the so-called "slotting system" for pre-assigned draft pick salaries didn't exist before the 2011 NFL Draft (this is why Sam Bradford, the #1 pick in 2010, is sometimes deridingly referred to as the league's final "bonus baby"), so, before then players could "hold out" for more money from the team that drafted them. JaMarcus Russell would be a good example of this. Which, leads us to your second question; it doesn't happen often, but sometimes, for one reason or another, a team and a draft pick are unable to come together on a contract. John Elway, Tom Cousineau, and Eli Manning would be examples of this. The problem for these players is that no NFL team would ever attempt to sign another team's unsigned draft pick. So, these players either have to go to another league to play (like Cousineau in the CFL) or have another team arrange to work out a trade for their draft rights with the team that drafted them (like Elway and Manning). I think it's also worth noting that the draft system is not unique to the NFL, all of major North American pro sports (NFL, MLB, NBA, & NHL) use very similar systems. Ejgreen77 (talk) 15:26, 15 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for some helpful replies. I understand better as a result. Re "no NFL team would ever attempt to sign another team's unsigned draft pick" does that mean all the other teams know who the other teams are going to sign? So is this thing a secret only from the general public? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 14:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I think that statement that "no NFL team would ever attempt to sign another team's unsigned draft pick" may be kind of misleading. This is because players are only allowed to sign with the team that drafted them. No other team could sign them if they wanted to. Also, all of the draft picks are public. There is no secret as to what players were drafted. Also, if a player doesn't want to sign with the team that drafted them, then they must either hope to have their rights traded by that team or sit out the season and re-enter the next draft. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:38, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Yes, what I meant is that the NFL would penalize a team that just went rogue and tried to sign another team's draft pick. Also, there's nothing secret about the draft - it's broadcast live on national TV. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Nothing secret? It's all secret until the picks are revealed! – PeeJay 21:42, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Well, yeah, obviously, the pre-draft process is full of intrigue. But, the draft itself is broadcast live on national TV and the selections are announced live on the air. Everyone knows who everyone else's draft picks are the moment they are made. Ejgreen77 (talk) 21:51, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

A team can't even hope to sign another's draft pick, or they would get busted with tampering charges for no reason. They can however, request a trade for them (like the case with Elway), but that decision rests on whoever owns the player's draft rights. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:24, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

Hierarchy of organizational templates at bottom of NFL season lists

I was looking through a few NFL season lists, and I noticed there's no consistent order between Template:NFL team season lists, the team-specific template (e.g. Template:San Francisco 49ers), and the team-specific seasons table of contents (e.g. Template:San Francisco 49ers seasons). Is there supposed to be a consistent order? I would think it would make the most sense to list the NFL team season lists template at the top, then the team-specific season list, then the team at the bottom, but was curious to see what others thought. If you have any questions, please contact me at my talk page. Ian Manka 18:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Rams and Chargers abbreviations

Was there any discussion regarding the abbreviations of the Los Angeles Rams and Los Angeles Chargers at Template:NFL Roster navbox template list, Template:NFL Roster template list and Template:NFL staff footer? While these templates use "LAC" for the Chargers, which is correct, I see that they incorrectly use "LAR" for the Rams, despite every official NFL source using "LA". Even the 2017 NFL Rulebook clearly states that "LA" should be used instead of "LAR" as we can see in the templates. "LA is confusing for people" should not be the justification for going against official sources. Any thoughts? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:34, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

We should be going with the WP:COMMONNAME in all cases, not official. I disagree on using LA over LAR due to the Chargers existing there. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:20, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

I might agree, but you would first need to confirm that "LAR" is the common abbreviation for the Los Angeles Rams. – PeeJay 21:58, 3 January 2018 (UTC)

And that would be hard since very few websites use abbreviations for NFL teams. The NFL Rulebook is the best source since most of the information is taken directly from NFL and its sources. – Sabbatino (talk) 08:41, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

But if it's not in common usage, it doesn't matter. Just linking it as LA when there are two teams based in the city isn't helpful to anybody, despite any official status from the league. Just keep it status quo, as this is a non issue. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:31, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Agree that "LA" is unnecessarily ambiguous. FWIW, ESPN used "LAR" here.—Bagumba (talk) 11:18, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Blacklisted links on old season pages

Is there anyone here that's willing to replace the blacklisted links on season pages before and including 2015? Mainly the pages that have actually been tagged as containing blacklisted links from WordPress among other domains. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 23:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Is there no way to manually accept a blacklisted link? Or are they all non-negotiable for a reason? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:29, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Position coach

Hey all. Formerly, pages such as Linebackers coach redirected to the position that was being coached. I just created Position coach to kind of be the catch-all for position coaches (and changed the redirects). If anyone has input, etc, please feel free to improve the page! Best ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:45, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit war at Carolina Panthers

There is currently an edit war at Carolina Panthers page. One of the users keeps linking seasons in the infobox to the actual team's season despite every other NFL teams' infoboxes linking to the NFL season. Has there ever been a discussion about this? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:45, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

A better explanation: this article was promoted to featured article (the only team article in the whole project to get that mark) a few years ago with links to team seasons rather than NFL ones, nobody had any issue with this until like yesterday. I have yet to see an actual reason why they should not link to team seasons, given it is on a team page and is specifically referencing the team's performance in seasons. In fact, I'd wager that most readers looking at the team's conference title seasons section and clicking on the links want to read about the team's season, not the league season. This is why I added links to team seasons in the inbox when I started the effort to improve the article to FA.

If someone has a reason why readers would rather be linked to the NFL seasons than team seasons, I'm all ears, but I don't see a reason to change featured article content unless needed. Toa Nidhiki05 17:56, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

If you want it that way, fine. But let's be consistent with the editing here. It's make no sense for one NFL page to have it linked to the team's season while everyone else's is linked to the NFL season. If you want to do that, how about we do it to EVERY NFL team's page?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 22:51, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

I think linking to the team season article is more useful to readers. I'd support changing every team's infobox to team season links rather than the overly general league season links. Lizard (talk) 23:04, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Me too, but we got to be consistent with linking. We can't have all the links to NFL season and three or four to team's linked to personal seasons, it's inconsistent with the rest of the league that way.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:07, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Let me link you a few teams w/ NFL seasons linked: New England Patriots, Atlanta Falcons, Dallas Cowboys, ect. Now tell me why Carolina Panthers is the exception to this consistentcy?GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 23:16, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Probably because it was never addressed before. Now is as good a time as any. Lizard (talk) 23:37, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Consistency isn’t a reason to keep something that doesn’t make any sense. We can easily apply this new linking policy to all pages. Toa Nidhiki05 00:55, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Since it might be relevant to the whole thing: The Jaguars main article links to the team season in the case of division titles and the relevant article on the playoffs for each season they reached the playoffs. Personally, that's the setup I'd prefer.DragonFury (talk) 01:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. What would a reader rather be directed to: the article for the team season or the one for that year's playoffs? I envision the reader wanting to see how well the team did that year, their record, roster, coach, etc. So I'd do team season links across the board in infobox. Lizard (talk) 02:08, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

I like DragonFury’s idea, I’d be fine with that. Toa Nidhiki05 04:23, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Nice to see that this is finally being discussed when I created this discussion. Going to to subject, and after looking at every team's page, I see that some pages have different treatment for this (some link to NFL season and some – to team's season). I will be fine with whatever will be decided. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:43, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree that consistency is key. I'd be willing to help with the change over once a decision is made. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 15:58, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

• Support Toa Nidhiki05's position re linking team season articles. The same inconsistency occurs in college season articles. In such cases, the reader is far better served by being linked to the more specific and relevant article on the team's season. Cbl62 (talk) 16:13, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

An argument could also be made (and has been a few times) that in Template:Infobox NFL player, links in players' tenures would be better as team season links rather than league season links. But this issue extends into the NBA and MLB as well. Lizard (talk) 16:18, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

That's where it usually comes up in the college football realm as well. In such cases, links to the team season articles are far more relevant and useful. Cbl62 (talk) 16:41, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I too support re-linking every team's pages to their personal seasons. It makes more sense one-dimensionally for the reader.GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 04:25, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Candidate equals hired??

I don't know if anyone else has noticed, but there is a large number of IP addresses that are changing coaches pages to reflect positions they have not been hired for yet usually within minutes of a report that a team is interested in them, so apparently candidate means hired for IP addresses. So I recommend keeping an eye on these peoples pages, usually the current sports transaction header works as a deterrent.--Rockchalk717 23:15, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

You can also add {{Uw-sportstrans}} to their talk page. Frequent violators can be blocked for unsourced or WP:OR edits.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes this happens quite frequently. A result of the reactionary culture of today, and social media giving us up-to-the-second updates that are often unreliable. Lizard (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

User:Gvspillman

I've gotten myself into an edit war with Gvspillman in Devin Funchess over the image that is, all probability, a copyvio, and the user's insistence on inserting conference championships into player infobox, which is clearly called out as What NOT to include. I'm past my 3RRs, as is Gvspillman, so I'm going to refrain from editing any more, and based on the user's responses here and here, there doesn't seem to be much interest in building consensus. If anyone else can engage with the user, that'll be great, but I'm done for now. Ytoyoda (talk) 17:49, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ytoyoda: I will take a look. On a side note, he should be reported for edit warring and not assuming good faith, because it is clear that he intentionally ignores what is being said to him. I also issued a 3RR notice on his talk page. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:56, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

That image is taken from [12], which is clearly a copyvio. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:01, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

• Ah, he's still around. Was hoping he'd find something better to do with his time. Lizard (talk) 02:58, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Le'Veon Bell

Is this user correct by removing it from Le'Veon Bell's page? Bell was named to both teams in 2017, but the user that keeps removing it thinks that listing first-team for 2017 is enough, which is factually wrong. – Sabbatino (talk) 16:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

I agree with you. He was named to both teams, therefore both should be listed in his infobox. – PeeJay 18:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Yes, per Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format, we generally only list the highest finish for a given year. Details can be expanded in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 18:36, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

If I'm reading that link correctly, that only applies if the player was selected to different teams by different selectors. Since Bell was selected to both teams by the AP, doesn't it make sense to list both? – PeeJay 18:53, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Only the highest finish, no matter what. If he was a first-team selection at both positions we wouldn't count it twice, just as sources wouldn't. Lizard (talk) 19:10, 14 January 2018 (UTC)

Question

How was Leon McQuay drafted by the Giants in 1973. He played in the CFL from 1971 to 1973. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 07:13, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

He probably left college early, and NFL did not accept early entrants back then. That was case with Leroy Jones in the 70s who played in CFL before being drafted by NFL.—Bagumba (talk) 10:15, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In the Jones article, it says "Before the 1974 football season" but the source is from 1973. So he only played two years of college football? The Jones article also says that the scouts projected him as a first round pick in 1974. However, wouldn't he have still had one year of eligibility left since his junior year would have been in 1973. Thanks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:03, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

He played '68, '69 and '70 for the Spartans. He left in 71 as a senior. He would have been eligible for the draft in 72 (he would have been 22 years old). Presumably, doing well in the CFL, he didn't sign a draft contract, so wasn't drafted that year. Equally presumably, in 73, with things looking less rosy, he did sign the NFL draft contract allowing him to be put in the pool of draftable players. Tarl N. (discuss) 23:14, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure you have to sign a "draft contract"? I thought the players were just automatically eligible after four years. Also, coincidentally, McQuay and Jones both played for college teams called the Spartans, so I initially thought you were talking about Jones, lol. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 23:39, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

In the distant past, the draft was simply the owners getting together and listing players they wanted. Today, the legal environment is such that a contract is de rigueur - unlike baseball, football doesn't have the 1922 monopoly exemption. I'm not completely sure when the transition to contracts occurred, but I thought it was before the 1970s. Qualifying for the draft, however, used to be four years after starting college, or graduation. If you quit college early, you had to sit out until the four years had passed. Which was distinct from eligibility (which can extend to five years). Tarl N. (discuss) 01:32, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Jones played two sports. When the article refers to him being named All-State in basketball in 1972, that is for the 1971–72 school year. Therefore, he would have been a senior in 1973–74 for the 1973 football season, and would have been eligible for the 1974 NFL draft.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

Why does the article say "Having left Norfolk State early, Jones was not eligible for the 1974 NFL draft". If you leave early, do you have to wait five years instead of four? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 02:15, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks for your input, I think I found a definitive answer. Since Jones dropped out before his senior year in 1973, he still had college football eligibility left, which made him ineligible for the 1974 draft. According to this source, players that still had eligibility left had to wait five years to be able to enter the draft instead of four. That's why he was drafted in 1975. If he had played the 1973 season in college, he would have been eligible for the 1974 draft. This appears to be the same case for McQuay. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 00:47, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Interesting AfD

You are invited to help reach consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kenneth Walker III. It involves a player who does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON after being cut in NFL training camp in 2017. He played college football in a major Power Five conference in a large metropolitan city with multiple local newspapers. He had an average college career at best, and is not otherwise notable for anything outside of football. This could help establish a precedent on how to handle players of this sort. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Linking of cities

I'm not sure why this WikiProject (and those of the other major American sports) have their own house style when it comes to linking cities, but I take issue with User:Sabbatino's assertion that all cities mentioned in NFL articles should be linked as [[City, State]], regardless of the actual title of the article being linked to. After my run-in with Sabbatino the other day (see the recent edit history of Minnesota Vikings), User:Illegitimate Barrister today made a few changes with AWB to the 2011 Minnesota Vikings season and 2012 Minnesota Vikings season articles, and Sabbatino reverted them with no explanation other than that the change was "controversial". – PeeJay 17:13, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You should go to Illegitimate Barrister talk page and see what admins have to say about this instead of crying all over the place. There are policies like WP:NOTBROKEN or WP:SEAOFBLUE that justify this kind of linking. I even posted the same ANI discussion, which I showed you, and admins agree. – Sabbatino (talk)

I'm not satisfied by the ANI, which is why I'm asking for comments here. If need be, I can go to a more central discussion, but it would be nice to get a few more opinions before I simply take your word for it, okay champ? – PeeJay 17:27, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You should really stop edit warring as you did in these 2 mentioned pages. Please refrain from that or I will go ahead and report you for not assuming good faith. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:30, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Erm, reverting ≠ edit warring. Nevertheless, I won't revert those pages again, although I still disagree with this whole idea. It shouldn't matter one way or the other, and you're just as bad as Illegitimate Barrister for reverting a pointless edit. – PeeJay 17:36, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

You can disagree with it, but this has been said to you more than once in the last 7 days. I reverted to status quo before his change and that most certainly does not make me as bad as him. Just because you and your buddies took over the soccer project in the past, it does not mean that you can do the same here. Got it? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:54, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) Thanks for starting this discussion. I had edited the Vikings article the other day from "Minneapolis, Minnesota" to "Minneapolis, Minnesota" ([[Minneapolis|Minneapolis, Minnesota]])). Note: I know WP:NOTBROKEN says we should link [[Minneapolis, Minnesota]] and not [[Minneapolis|Minneapolis, Minnesota]]. I'm OK with that, but most people don't follow it. I merely reverted to the format that existed back on Dec 27. First of all, my biggest peeve is people linking the state separately like "Minneapolis, Minnesota" ([[Minneapolis]], [[Minnesota]]). The state itself is not all that useful; it's the city and state together that describe the location, and linking the two separately also goes against WP:SEAOFBLUE. Linking [[City, State]], even in the few cases when the article itself is just [[City]], discourages drive-by editors from adding a link to just the state. Linking the city and state together has also been the general long-standing format used in NFL team articles.—Bagumba (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
• WP:COMMONNAME should really be used for most of the cities; IE Los Angeles instead of Los Angeles, California. Basically, if the city's title exists without the state, it should be referred to like that in prose as well. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I think we're talking more about when the city appears in tables and templates than in prose, e.g. Template:Americanfootballbox and Template:Infobox NFL team. And Bagumba, I don't think WP:NOTBROKEN says we should link [[Minneapolis, Minnesota]], only that it shouldn't necessarily be changed for the sake of being changed, since redirects are okay. But if someone does change it, there's no need to change it back as militantly as Sabbatino has taken it upon himself to do. – PeeJay 22:40, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
    • NOTBROKEN, whether or not to link to a redirect or use piping, is the least of my concerns. I could go either way with that for now.—Bagumba (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
      • I think that's really my point. Sure, redirects exist for a reason, hence why we shouldn't consider links that go directs to be "broken", but if someone does change a redirect link to a non-redirect link, other editors shouldn't immediately jump to change it back. It's a pointless edit that actually does very little to help the encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 00:35, 19 January 2018 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) I dunno. I think it'd be odd to have a handful of cities listed without the state in the infobox when the vast majority would include the state. I mean, how many articles on US cities do we have that exclude the state in their title? Like 25? Editors can't be bothered to check/memorize each one. Lizard (talk) 22:51, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: Echoing PeeJay2K3 and Lizard the Wizard, the issue at hand is not regarding prose, it is about how to link to "city, state" in an infobox. Regardless of linking style, there has not been any consensus yet to sometimes list a state and not others in these infoboxes i.e. we have always written "Los Angeles, California" and not just "Los Angeles" (without California) in NFL infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 00:04, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Just checked, for what it's worth, there are 29 articles on US cities that exclude the state in their title. Lizard (talk) 00:13, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

Not to be confused with this applying to 29 of 32 NFL cities.—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 19 January 2018 (UTC)

James Laurinaitis

Andrewcoy28 is edit warring because of stats as can be seen here. NFL, ESPN, Yahoo! Sports list his tackles as 869, while the user that is making the change is basing his reason for the change on this lone article. In the article it is clearly stated that NFL and the Rams' used different methods to determine the number of tackles. Which number should be used? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If the league and two independent sources all agree he's made 869 tackles, that's the number that should go down. The team may have a vested interest in making their players look better by inflating their numbers, so I wouldn't take their word for it, especially when the article notes they use different methods of counting tackles. – PeeJay 12:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

Requesting additional eyes

Hey everyone, There is currently a small content dispute on Aaron Rodgers talk page regarding the inclusion of him dating race car driver Danica Patrick. It would be nice if we could get some more eyes to gain a consensus. Thanks in advance--Church ^Talk 19:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Module:Sports table

I think we can centralize most standings templates across Wikipedia by implementing Module:Sports table. We can choose to create a modified variant (as it stands, we do not have a template that all of the standings templates use on WikiProject NFL). –Piranha249 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Cardinals history

In the "History of the National Football League championship" article, why are the Chicago Cardinals 2 championships not credited to the Arizona Cardinals? I've never seen anything that says they are not the same team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColemanPoag (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating an opinion on it but the Chicago Cardinals are listed in the table with the 2 title wins. The LA Rams and St. Louis Rams are separated as well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Need admin(s) on standby during the Super Bowl

I know there are a lot of admins in this WikiProject. So can we get at least one of them to be on standby to protect high-target pages at a moment's notice? Any player on the field is one ankle-breaking juke or one burn by a wide receiver away from having his page swamped by vandalism of epic proportions. Despite putting in a request at WP:RFPP almost immediately, the page wasn't protected until hours later. We need a dedicated admin tomorrow to ensure something like this doesn't happen again (and so I and others can watch the game in peace). Lizard (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to post at WP:RFPP and link to it here also, in the event there are NFL admins that monitor this page but not RFPP.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Terry Bradshaw

There is a disruptive IP in Terry Bradshaw's page. It would be good if someone took a look as I am at 3RR until 13:45 EST. I also asked for the page to be protected. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting to their talk page first and discussing why you disagree with their edits.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format page, which shows how the player's infobox should look like. I reverted and linked this page in my edit summary, and wrote to that IP user. And what did he do? He instantly changed IPs and restored the wrong format. It is obvious that this page should be protected for some time. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The IP has used 3 different IP addresses in a row for 3 edits in a row when he restored bad version. It is obvious that this page needs to be protected since that IP user has ignored my every message and just keeps re-adding his preferred format. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The player pages format page is a bit outdated, but the IP is making changes that are very clearly against the standard format. Lizard (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if they continue w/ Bradshaw, I can protect now that they should know better.—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

On another note, I see that the same IPs are changing various infobox All-Pro entries to limit it to AP selector. I don't think we have a clear consensus on which All-Pro's to use, and AP is arguable the most notable one.—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I base that off of the selectors that are listed in the collective bargaining agreement that players receive contract bonuses from being named to (sorry I don't remember the page). Currently that's the AP, PFWA, and Sporting News. Otherwise I use the teams listed on Pro-Football-Reference. Lizard (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I vaguely remember that coming up before. If there is consensus, it should be noted at the format page.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've been meaning to update the format page for a while now. Lizard (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

All-Pro navboxes

The annual navboxes for All-Pro picks at Category:National Football League All-Pro Team navigational boxes seem like WP:TCREEP to me. See examples like Ray Lewis or Peyton Manning. It becomes unwieldy when accomplished players start accumulating them. We already have enough navboxes from Super Bowl champs and annual award navs that collect the all-time winners, let alone these which have a new nav each year. Also, we don't limit All-Pro's in infoboxes to AP, but we single out the AP selector only here. Let's not let this mushroom when copycats start creating navs for other All-Pro selectors and the Pro Bowl too. What do others think?—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree it's template creep. Reggie White and Jerry Rice would have 10 each. A few months ago someone even started making ones for AP second teams before that endeavor was nipped in the bud. Lizard (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Super Bowl MVP article

There's a discussion at Talk:Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award#Trivia added in need of input to establish a consensus. It's mainly regarding whether high schools that have produced multiple Super Bowl MVPs should be mentioned in the lead, and whether to add a "College" column to the table. Lizard (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I ask that everyone please take a look at this and provide input. It involves major edits to a featured list. If we can't serve as a vanguard for our highest-quality pages then we've failed as a WikiProject. Lizard (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Disregard, editor has been banned for placing his hand inside garments meant for feet and making them appear to speak by forming the shape of a mouth with his fingers. Lizard (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID

Hello everyone, me again. User:Sabbatino this morning made a few edits to recent Minnesota Vikings season articles so that the opening sentences now include bold titles. I believe that this is contrary to MOS:BOLDAVOID, which says that the opening sentence of an article shouldn't be worded awkwardly just so that the title of the article can be added in bold. To that end, I believe that writing

The 2018 season will be the Minnesota Vikings' 58th in the National Football League

works better than

The 2018 Minnesota Vikings season will be the franchise's 58th season in the National Football League

I'm willing to roll out my suggested format across all the Vikings articles, but I'm going to need some help to do the rest of the NFL if this is something the community approves of. – PeeJay 12:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree with the non-bolded approach which is consistent with the guidelines you cited. "2018 Minnesota Vikings season" is more of a descriptive title than a formally accept name. Also, providing key links early, like to the Vikings, is consistent with WP:CONTEXTLINK. Early on as we transition this, it's better to be inconsistently good than consistently bad. There is WP:NODEADLINE. However, completing it sooner rather than later discourages drive-by editors who are unaware of this discussion that might revert for "consistency".—Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No strong view on which version is better, but such a change should probably discussed across all American professional sports projects that have been following/sharing the same article naming protocol for the last decade. Compare 2017 Chicago Bears season (NFL), 2017 Chicago White Sox season (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball), 2017–18 Chicago Bulls season (Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association), 2017–18 Chicago Blackhawks season (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey) all of which use the bold titles approach. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to suggest this across the board for all sports. I had originally hoped to see how this was received among the Vikings season articles and go from there, but someone decided that consistency was more important than actually analysing why we present our content the way we do and how. So maybe we should limit this discussion to just NFL articles for now and then attempt to roll it out across the other projects? Unless you think it's futile to introduce it here because it won't be accepted anywhere else? – PeeJay 15:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusing me of reverting to the accepted standard is silly and this is not the first time I am being accused by you. Therefore, I do not wish to have any more discussions with you directly since all you do is take it personally. Moreover, I never said anything about consistency in that discussion. Personal synthesis is not the way to go. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Dude, your exact words in your edit summaries were "Restore standard for NFL pages + MOS:BOLDTITLE". If you don't think that has anything to do with consistency, then I don't think you know what consistency means. I'm here to make a better encyclopaedia and you're blindly reverting because it doesn't jive with your conservative attitude; just because something has been done a certain way for years doesn't make that way right. I'll admit my way might not be perfect, but you'll have to prove that it isn't first. – PeeJay 19:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I know very well what consistency is and I did not say anything about it, but you keep making it up. In addition, you are the one who is blindly reverting as you did today when you restored your preferred version despite the fact that this discussion is still ongoing. And no, I am not conservative since you do not know me in real life. Furthermore, you are leaning towards harrasment so I advise to stop it right here since this discussion is not about me, you or anyone else. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the one I find the most ridiculous of the four you linked to is the ice hockey one. Why does it mention the date the franchise was founded in an article about a specific season? Seems totally ludicrous to me. – PeeJay 15:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: The ol' consistency across North American sports WikiProjects argument, although well intentioned, usually just stonewalls any progress. There's little commonality in style among the projects as it is anyways (infoboxes, navboxes, stats tables, etc), and this is a community guideline as opposed to some arbitrary project convention.—Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a super strong opinion but the bolded version does appear to meet MOS:BOLDTITLE as that would be a commonly held term for the season and can fit in normal English which are the first two points. And unlike the example in MOS:BOLDAVOID a person would normally say something like "The 2018 Minnesota Vikings season will be the franchise's 58th season in the National Football League" as a normal sentence, that is how seasons are typically talked about whereas the flooding example that wouldn't be a typical sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Though I can't recall exactly (and not going to check my contribs), over the years, 'here and there', I've bolded the intro to sports team season articles. Until now, I wasn't aware of any opposition to it. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE does say that "Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English", which the second example does. I'm neutral on which should be preferred, just that it's consistent with other similar articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It does say that, but it also says that you shouldn't put links in bold titles, and there's no way of writing the sentence naturally (and without putting in an Easter egg link) while still linking to the franchise page at the earliest possible opportunity. If you write "The 2018 Minnesota Vikings season will be the franchise's 58th in the National Football League" you get an Easter egg link. Furthermore, I disagree that "the 2018 Minnesota Vikings season" is a normal thing to say in everyday parlance. You might talk about "the 2018 Minnesota Vikings" as a team, or you might talk about "the 2018 season", but I wouldn't refer to the "2018 Minnesota Vikings season" in normal speech - in fact, when I Google it, I find practically zero hits for that exact phrase (and not just for 2018 but for previous years too). Writing the opening to these articles in the manner I suggested in my original post avoids all these pitfalls. It does mean there's no bold text at the top of the page, but that's by no means essential for a Wikipedia article. – PeeJay 18:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've yet to see any prevailing arguments about why the wording I propose should not be used, so I'm going to go ahead and restore that wording to all the Vikings articles. I do not have the time to do all 32 teams (and their forerunners) myself, so if people could help out, perhaps with the use of a bot, that would be great. – PeeJay 14:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It would appear rather odd, to make the Vikings intros different from the intros of the other NFL team season articles intros. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence why it would make sense to change the rest of them. No point sticking with something that doesn't satisfy the MOS when we have a better option. Furthermore, we shouldn't shirk the responsibility of making the encyclopaedia better just because the amount of work involved is a little too high. – PeeJay 17:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Since this is the Football Wikipedia & AFAIK, you're not going to make such changes to the NHL team season articles, then cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I won't be making such changes to the NHL season articles, no, but I think that such changes should be encouraged, especially those to remove the founding dates of each franchise from the opening paragraphs of their season articles. – PeeJay 17:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There ought to be consensus before you change a protocol that has been in place for a decade across every American professional sports league. Two days of discussion (and over a weekend) is a bit hasty, and I'm not yet seeing evidence of a clear consensus for your proposed change. You offered to post on the other WikiProject talk pages, and I think that's a sound idea. Let others express their views. Let the discussion play out. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall overtly making that offer, I simply said I would be happy to suggest it to the other sports and that we should see how it's received here first. I also recall User:Bagumba pointing out how the old "let's be consistent across all four major US sports" argument is often used as a poor excuse for not wanting to change the status quo. You say I should try to get a better consensus here before rolling out any changes, but you've all had the opportunity to weigh in and so far there have been contributions from only four editors, the last of which came two days ago. It's not my fault the conversation has stagnated, so I'm being bold. – PeeJay 17:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Conversation is often slower over weekends. Give the discussion a week to play out. I've now notified other American sports projects, which should help to draw the issue to the attention of interested persons so that a consensus can be reached one way or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You may want to hold off on making anymore changes, until you get a consensus for them. It will only be more frustrating for you, if eventually those changes end up being reverted. What's more annoying then having 10 of your edits undone, is having 100 of your edits undone, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I notice that you haven't yet offered an opinion on the change, by the way. If you do so, perhaps we can move towards a consensus. – PeeJay 19:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, we should keep the status quo - Year Team season intro & remove the page links from them. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but don't you think there should at least be a link to the team page somewhere in the opening sentence? – PeeJay 19:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose, though the team page is already linked in the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's not linked in any of the Vikings season infobox headings, and I'm not sure it should be, per some other MOS guideline. I'll see if I can find the pertinent one. – PeeJay 19:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Consistency between infoboxes where it says "The template should have a large, bold title line. [...] It should not contain a link." – PeeJay 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, it hasn't been applied to all infoboxes, concerning sports team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, but when there are so many articles under that umbrella all maintained by different people with different experiences of Wikipedia's policies and all working at cross purposes, there are bound to be some inconsistencies. Surely as members of this WikiProject it's our job to iron out those inconsistencies and get the articles to look as good and MOS-compliant as we can? – PeeJay 19:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a pro-consistency gnome editor. Therefore, I wouldn't object if all sports team season articles were consistent among themselves. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great, I appreciate that. I just go one step further and would prefer it if all articles on the entire encyclopaedia were consistent. If they're not, what's the point in having the MOS in the first place? But that's by the by. I'll let you mull over what I've said and I hope you'll consider the format I propose to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 20:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as is – Year team season should remain as is. Link the team article in the second sentence. Corky 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, Corky, but thanks for your input. I see where you're coming from, but I think MOS:BTW suggests that the first instance should be linked, so it would be a little weird to force the link to appear in the wrong place just so we can maintain bolding that falls foul of MOS:BOLDAVOID. – PeeJay 21:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I realize this isn't a vote, but you asked for our opinions... that was my way of voicing my opinion. Sorry I didn't format it like everyone else. If this proposal goes through, are you and others going through every single article that this affects or is a bot? Corky 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And please don't edit my posts as you did in your response. Though it was minor, you still edited it and it is not appreciated. Corky 00:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't decided how best to implement the changes if they're approved by this WikiProject, but I would hope that we could all pull together to get it done pretty quickly. I've been going pretty slowly on the Vikings seasons so far, but that's partly because we haven't yet reached a full consensus and partly because I'm also making some other changes to the lead of each article (might as well take the opportunity while I'm there, right!) – PeeJay 09:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried addressing this a couple months back at WP:BASEBALL. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_43#Team_season_problem?. A few of us agree to change the articles, but I didn't have the time and forgot about it for a while. Zoom (talk page) 16:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. So it seems like the reason we haven't done this so far across all WikiProjects is a sort of apathy among editors. All the arguments I've seen so far seem to be a bit of a smokescreen for the real reason, which is that people just don't want to do all the (admittedly) hard work it would take to change all the articles. – PeeJay 21:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree The title is merely descriptive and repeating it in the opening sentence serves to create awkward verbiage. Lizard (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like a consensus for the change. Anyone else care to weigh in? – PeeJay 11:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, a bit late, but do you think we should have a consensus on each sport project talk page? I agree that the work would be tedious, but it will be worth it in the long run. Zoom (talk page) 16:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see why you would say that from an encyclopaedia-wide consistency standpoint, but wouldn't it be better simply to establish a consensus here and then use this project as a test case when it comes to raising the issue at other projects? – PeeJay 00:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, there appears to be a consensus in existence (at least for WikiProject Baseball) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_43#Team_season_problem? – PeeJay 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was Epicandrew1220 and changed my name. The problem with that is that there were only three others in the discussion and we didn't even reach what I would classify a consensus, given that all the articles remain unchanged and there was no real effort to even update the newer articles. Zoom (talk page) 01:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly that's about as much "consensus" as you'll often get in these project discussions. We're all volunteers here, so often it's a matter of someone taking the lead and having the time and interest to take on things. I'd suggest doing one high-profile team first and see if anyone hollers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well I've already done 10 seasons of the Minnesota Vikings before I was advised to stop, although they may not be a big enough name to attract any dissenting opinions. I'm just wondering what kind of "holler" counts as a valid objection; if someone simply says "this isn't how we do things", I'm inclined to ignore them. In fact, I'd be inclined to ignore them unless they had a very good reason to oppose these changes, since I'm supported by MOS:BOLDAVOID. – PeeJay 09:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd just link to this discussion in the edit summary. If we get more objections, I'd suggest getting MOS people involved. I really don't see a reason why an exception to override community guidelines is warranted here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Except you aren't supported by MOS:BOLDAVOID as mentioned above.... -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to point out the exact portion of the above discussion you're referring to, as I don't see anyone disputing the fact that MOS:BOLDAVOID agrees with this change. – PeeJay 16:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I did, above, it meets the first two points of MOS:BOLDTITLE in that it is a widely accepted name for the subject and that it can be used in normal English. It does not violate any of the MOS:BOLDAVOID points. The only one you could try to argue is about the floods, but nobody refers to floods by the year, whereas people do with seasons for sports teams. I myself use the exact format you say wouldn't be used when I am referring to a specific teams season when talking in everyday English. Now as I said above I have no strong opinion one way or the other which is used, but I want to make sure its clear that the change is a preference thing as the current versions in no way violate the MOS so just ignoring objections would be disruptive. (And looking at the above discussion there seem to be more disagreeing, or uncaring on which is used, than there are agreeing to the change so there is hardly a strong consensus for one) -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that perhaps you only use that phraseology because you are a regular on Wikipedia and therefore it doesn't seem unnatural to you any more; I often see references to "the 2017 Minnesota Vikings", but the terminology "2017 Minnesota Vikings season" is almost exclusive to Wikipedia. Regardless, your option would result in having to link to the team via a piped link ("The 2017 Minnesota Vikings season is the franchise's 57th in the National Football League"); although it's pretty obvious where that link goes, it's not ideal per WP:EASTER. Why force a bold title when it's not necessary? Honestly, it feels like you're clinging to this simply because it's easier to stick to the status quo than to make a bunch of changes that could probably be run through a bot. – PeeJay 18:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah not at all, an AWB run could change all the articles in a matter of minutes once the right regex was written. It is more a case of really disliking when people have a particular pet peeve about some sort of formatting and so they try to claim it doesn't meet the MOS so they can get it changed to their preferred way. Happens all the time. MOS:FLAG is one of the best examples that is constantly claimed but often incorrectly. I would say your example in regards to an easter egg isn't really an easter egg as there probably isn't a single reader who doesn't understand where that link is going. But even if you don't use that format you could use "The 2017 Minnesota Vikings' season will be the 57th season of the Minnesota Vikings franchise." which doesn't have that issue. As to your comment about me using it that way in speech because of I am an editor here, I don't know if that is true, I feel like I referred to seasons like that before I even had the internet in the early 90s but I can't say for certain. As I said my only real concern is that this not be portrayed as a mandated change per the MOS, because it isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I apologise for making that assumption about your motives. As to your suggestion, doesn't it sound pretty weird to say "The 2017 Minnesota Vikings' season will be the 57th season of the Minnesota Vikings franchise"? You're saying "Minnesota Vikings" in full twice in the same sentence just to satisfy MOS:BOLDTITLE. That sounds pretty unnatural to me. Just my opinion, though I'm sure it's shared by plenty of others. – PeeJay 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would probably use the franchise version you mention or use Vikings instead of the full team and city but that might be a bigger easter egg. I literally just copied that sentence from the baseball discussion above and changed it to be the Vikings. It's not really my preferred way. It was just an example avoiding the "easter egg" version. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand, I just think it seems like we're bending over backwards to find a way to put some words in bold when there's actually a policy that says we don't have to. – PeeJay 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, this entire discussion should be either transferred to WP:SPORTS or copy-pasted to all the sports related WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW2, GA 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season neither bolds nor repeats its title in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed so! And I don't mean to imply that GA or FA status should be the endgame for all articles (some just aren't suited to it), but if any of these articles ever have aspirations of reaching FA status, I feel like MOS compliance is one pretty important aspect that we should be following. – PeeJay 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of other projects For the record, Cbl62 stated (above) on January 28 that they had already done so.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Template for discussion

I've nominated for deletion a few NFL awards templates and other general sports awards templates that apply to some NFL bio articles. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 17. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)