Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Article for the cowboys-lions game?

Should an article be made for the referee debacle in the cowboys-Lions game? It could be called Decker Reported Eligible, similar to the Dez Caught It article, or the Fail Mary article. It did receive coverage 8 days after the incident, and while the NFL didn’t change the rules it did prompt a reaction from them. Plus, this play is why Dallas earned the #2 seed and the Lions were stuck in seed #3, so this did have significant playoff implications. This explains that. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Too early to say if this game is to have a WP:LASTING impact (e.g. a rule change or some other newsworthy development, like the Fail Mary you mentioned basically being the end of the officials strike). But now, two months after the game took place, the game is basically not talked about at all on a national level and every hit on a Google News search was from within two weeks of the game, clearly not a lasting impact now, but could possibly change when we get into the 2024 season (I think it is unlikely to ever have a lasting impact). Frank Anchor 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that absent a rule change there's no lasting impact. Part of that comes down to Detroit hosting two home playoff games and advancing to the NFC Championship game anyway, while Dallas lost early. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that it's too early to tell if it will have any lasting impact. We can already say it will not. It's really hard for regular season games to have a long lasting impact.--Rockchalk717 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That statement is fallacious. Already, we saw Lunatic Lateral, a play with minimal playoff impact, get an article, that was even kept at AFD. Dez Caught It, which I will concede is a playoff game, prompted rule changes four years later. The Fail Mary regular season article is also similar to this. That being said, I will admit that an article is unlikely unless either the NFL changes their rules or explicitly votes to keep this rule and that will also give it sustained coverage. --69.118.230.235 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not whatsoever. Those were instance where there was discussion about a rule change being necessary was immediate. I don't recall with this people immediately discussing any rules being changed. Nothing has been reported to being discussed by the competition committee this spring either regarding eligible receiver rules.--Rockchalk717 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

again, you’re speculating that it won’t receive coverage. Please stop as this isn’t the first time we’ve had issues. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Would want to see more coverage than just 8 days after. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENT. This was a minor penalty controversy, with no long-lasting impact on the rules of the game. Comparing this to Fail Mary, which had immediate, notable impacts to the NFL, or Dez Caught It, which is still discussed today, is farfetched. Regarding Lunatic Lateral, I am on the fence with that one, but I will note that in my many years of closely following the NFL, I have never once seen a play like that one. It was shocking, both for its absurdity, as well as its shocking flip to the outcome of the game. But this is why people often quote WP:WHATABOUT when editors try to make comparisons to other articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to sidetrack, but the Hell Mary play was also a shocking result. The jets would’ve lost anyway, but they went from having a potential lead at halftime to being down two possessions.69.118.230.235 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Former American football players

This is a pretty minor thing, but I wonder if we could find consensus against preserving in articles the use of the phrase "former American football [position]". Rockchalk717 recently disputed a change to "American former football center" contra MOS:NATIONALITY, which says bios should usually begin with a person's nationality, rather than omit nationality and use "American" to modify the sport. As Bagumba has previously written, they did not renounce their citizenship, they are not former Americans, but rather American former football players. Rockchalk argues that "American football" should be written as one in order to not confuse non-American English speakers. I don't share this concern; as Bagumba writes, Per MOS:TIES, use American English, as it's just called "football". All the other non-U.S. soccer players just use "football" as per British English. Most NFL FAs use just "football", not "American football". I hope others agree "former American" isn't a desirable phrasing. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Similar problem in Canadian football. For example, Darren Flutie's lead sentence (since modified[1]) has "is a former Canadian", but he's always been an American.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Usually doesn't mean you must. Active players say "is an American football (position) with American specifically identifying the sport (as is evident by it being linked with football). For years this was the case with retired players as well then all of sudden it started changing. I don't see how WP:TIES applies here. I see ties as things (for an example) like using color for articles tied to the US and colour to articles tied to the UK. That entire policy page mentions nothing about the American football/football or football/soccer thing. With other sports, they have a substantial non-American participation in their leagues, while the NFL has only a 3% international players so I don't see how identifying nationality is necessary, unless they were born outside of the US.--Rockchalk717 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The result we get for foreign players is something like "Australian professional American football punter" (as in the case of Michael Dickson (American football)). If he's American, we probably write "American football punter"; and rely on the reader understanding that "American football" means the sport and not his nationality. It's pretty standard on articles to start with the lead with Person is a <nationality> <occupation> or some such. This goes against the grain. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This came up prior to the FAC for Bob Mann (American football) and was discussed there. What we decided on was the following:

Robert Mann (April 8, 1924 – October 21, 2006) was an American professional football player in the National Football League (NFL).

This includes a link to American football via the "football" link but drops the adjective noun adjunct "American" and just uses the noun "football". "American" can more naturally be moved to the beginning to establish his nationality. This provides a smoother sounding sentence, while still providing a link to American football for clarity for those who may not be aware of what type of football is being discussed (noting that "NFL" at the end of the sentence provides a helpful hint, as the NFL is continuing to grow as an internationally recognized national sports league). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Two thoughts. Firstly, the sport is American football, named to distinguish it from other codes such as association football (soccer), Rugby football, and other. And since Wikipedia is written for an international audience, the full name of the sport should be used on first mention, which means "American" should not be separated from "football", even if the players' nationality is American.

Secondly, the current guidance is ungrammatical, based on overthinking and a failure to grasp context, and should be rewritten. Adjectives in English always go in the order opinion-size-age-shape-color-origin-material-purpose. "Former" is a relative age. Nationality is an origin. "Former American X" is grammatically correct. "American former X" is not. And it in no way can correctly be read as meaning someone's nationality changed.

The first phrasing cannot be properly read as "former" applying to "American" because "American" in this construct is an adjective, not a noun, and only adverbs modify adjectives. If it were saying the person's nationality had changed it would be written as "formerly American", with the adverb form. Instead "former" and "American" are two distinct and independent adjective both applying to the same noun. The current guidance is bad English based on a failure to actually understand parts of speech and should be tossed out.

As for the applicability when American football is being discussed, since the "American" shouldn't be dropped for clarity to the international readership, rephrasing to say "former American football player from the United States" is preferable. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, former is not age; it's a modifier. There's a stark difference between a "former child actress" and "child former actress". Refer to "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order" for more about former—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Still doesn't address misreading of two separate adjectives for the same noun as being an adjective and a noun, as interpreting "former American X" as someone renouncing their citizenship would supposedly be. "Former American", where American is a noun, sure. But the placement of both in front of a separate noun renders the phrase clearly a case of two adjectives, where any modification of the nationality adjective would require an adverb. The guidance is unidiomatic and poor English. oknazevad (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

the full name of the sport should be used on first mention: The sport name is "football". We use natural disambiguation because each page must have a different name. That page title is preferable to football (American). But just because we have a long page title like quarterback sack, doesn't mean that plain sack isn't the consise term once the context is established. Or that we must use placekicker instead of piping to kicker. Non-American soccer bios generally don't show association football due to MOS:TIES. It's football played by a footballer, strange as that is to an American. —Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

International Federation of American Football. The internationally recognized name is indeed American football. Just that it's usually simply called "football" for short in its originating country. But Wikipedia isn't written for Americans solely. We need to keep that in mind. oknazevad (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:TIES:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That just means we wouldn't be using "colour" or "defence" in an article about a player born in the US. Here we are talking about a player born in Canada, though, so Canadian usage is actually the correct one per WP:TIES. And that would include specifying American football because it's not Canadian football. And it's not like the term "American football" is not used in American English when specificity is needed. oknazevad (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not just spelling. It's footballer vs soccer player, footballer vs. football player, pitch vs. field, etc. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And what about the term "American football" being used in American English to name the sport when specificity is needed? Because that's the real crux here: does writing for an international readership mean using longer formal names that one might not use when writing for a specific audience? It's a relatively minor thing, but keeping that in mind does help counter systemic bias. oknazevad (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The soccer bios have footballer and not association footballer or association football player. It seems we have a blend of TIES with conciseness. —Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No opinion as of now, but then there are always odd cases of players who played both American football and Canadian football, like Joe Theismann, Warren Moon, and Doug Flutie. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Steve Christie: is a former Canadian American football placekickerin the National Football League (NFL) Who can understand what his real situation is without knowing his actual bio? —Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Oknazevad, the term "American football" is a noun by itself. I have modified my comment above a bit because it comes across as confusing. "American" in this construct is a noun adjunct. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, in this case it's a straight adjective. Using "United States football" would be a noun adjunct, as "United States" is only a noun. But "American" is both a noun and an adjective. [2]. American cheese isn't cheese that is a US citizen. oknazevad (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Your comparison is absurd. You are making my exact point. "American" in "American football" has nothing to do with citizenry. Looking at your own dictionary source, every example used in the adjective form of the word is related to things that America calls its own (American people, soldiers, states and culture). American cheese and American football are not owned by America. They are more appropriately understood as "American style football" and "American style cheese". Since Webster is your preferred source, American football is one term defined and listed as a noun and so is American cheese. Quiet literally every compound noun using American as a modifier is a noun on Webster. So, as I stated, when used as the complete phrasing referring to the style of football, "American football" is one compound noun. This is important though because in bios, "American" can be confused to refer to nationality. Thus, "former American" can be confusing to readers. Also important to note, all the examples in WP:NATIONALITY establish nationality before discussing what makes the person notable. Being "former anything" should not come before nationality. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "American football" is a single noun phrase. But that is a phrase composed of an adjective (American) and a noun (football). The first word is an adjective indicating national origin that modifies the name of the sport (a noun) to indicate the particular code. My point is that parsing "former American football player" to read as saying the person has changed nationality is a clear misreading because it assigns the "former" modification to the wrong word in the following phrase. Basing out word order on that incorrect reading has made so many of our articles read unidiomatically. oknazevad (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's where rephrasing comes in. "Steve Christie is a former American football placekicker from Canada". It's clear and not awkward. And this is a case where using the full "American football" for the sport is a good choice, as it's unambiguous, whereas as just putting "football" could easily be misinterpreted as him having played Canadian football because of his nationality. (I'm sure at some point he played Canadian football, perhaps in high school, but not collegiately or professionally.) oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Stephen Christie (born November 13, 1967) is a Canadian former professional football player in the National Football League (NFL) and Canadian Football League (CFL)... sounds real good to me. Don't support "former American" in any way. Just sounds like poor English. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

He didn't play in the CFL. His pro career was entirely in the NFL, after playing collegiately at the College of William and Mary. oknazevad (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

He did play in the CFL.[3][4] And even if he didn't, there's plenty of other Canadians that have played in both. —Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not that it is relevant to this discussion: On July 2, 2007, Christie joined the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League by signing a practice roster agreement with the team. On the signing, Christie pointed out that one reason for joining the team was "basically doing Michael (Clemons) a favour" as a former college teammate and that it was tentatively for one game. The other reason was that as a Canadian citizen, playing one game in the CFL, would be great way to finish his career.[3] Christie was activated to play on July 7, 2007 against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

I would propose that the standard for an NFL bio of a retired player should be:

PLAYER NAME (BIRTHDATE – DEATHDATE) is a[n] NATIONALITY former professional football player in the National Football League (NFL).

Some addenda:

• If they are active, simply drop "former"
• If they played in other leagues and it is relevant, add those before or after the NFL depending on notability/length of service (i.e. primarily CFL, then CFL goes first, etc)
• I prefer "player" instead of the exact position they played, primarily because I deal more with historic bios from players who played many positions. I can typically weave in position later in the lead when referencing their college days. That said, no prejudice to replacing player with the exact position.

This meets WP:NATIONALITY, is grammatically correct, sounds encyclopedic, and per Bagumba's earlier comment, "American football" isn't necessary to understand the person's notability. The fact they are a "professional" (for bios that relate to professionals and not just college players) is typically what makes them notable. The exact sport they played, assuming the reader is a complete novice, will be made evident in the bio or can be easily understood by clicking on the football link. As an aside, college football isn't college American football, because "college football" is a collective noun. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support as a base that is consistent with MOS and generally followed by all other bios on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support I second that, it does follow other bios. Also, unless someone out there removed what he did already, Bagumba added the majority of the 'nationalities' that you see in the lead. Glad there's finally a vote on this matter! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  People like Dirtlawyer1 back in the day were doing this long before.[5] Other recent editors as well. —Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And he's modest also. Hope some votes come in! Bringingthewood (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

How do we deal with players who were notable for their college career but not for their professional career? Should the lead focus on perhabs a one game career in the NFL if it didnt gather any significant coverage? Alvaldi (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's more related to MOS:ROLEBIO for the lead sentence and paragraph and more generally MOS:LEADBIO for what's WP:DUE —Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Alvaldi, I think that is left to editor discretion. Oftentimes, making it to the NFL, even for just one game, is still the primary notability for the subject. This isn't a hard and fast rule anyways, just a style guide that should apply fairly well to most articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support with two exceptions Drop the professional. Flat unnecessary as identifying they played in the NFL establishes they were professional. Instead of player, identify the position. We already do this for active players, makes no sense to drop it when they retire. I get the Sea of Blue concerns Bagumba has with this, but back to back links is hardly a sea of blue. This may seem odd as I've defended identifying the sport as American football and not identifying nationality, in the end I wanted a consensus. It annoyed me former players were having ledes changed at a massive level without a consensus. And to address the multiple positions concern, maybe only use player if they played more than two positions.--Rockchalk717 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see dropping the 'professional' part of it. Haven't seen too many 'amateur' listings out there. Besides, having NFL listed in the same sentence answers any professional doubt. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

identifying they played in the NFL establishes they were professional: Not to readers unfamiliar with the NFL or American football. "professional" is fairly common in the lead sentence of other sports' bios.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. Again, I was giving the reader too much credit. I figured that if the (NFL), (CFL), etc, followed quickly enough, they might click on it and see professional listed there. My thinking went back to not seeing amateur listed for many players. If I could only get myself to remember that some need a seeing eye dog to function. I learned a lot from Wikipedia over the years just by being curious and clicking on a link. Like not having to link Germany to know where Frankfurt is. Amazing. My mind is still recuperating from last night. I'll wait for the vote. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Clicking: "professional" is just one additional word, so MOS:NOFORCELINK seems relevant:

Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a MOS for everything, lol. My original support was just for the 'nationality' part, I'm sticking with that. --- T. J. Watt is an American football linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). That has a nice ring to it. So professional has to be added due to the fact he's an American playing American football. Or else it would look the same, the nationality wouldn't be understood. Looks like professional can't be removed. It would be the new buffer. Correct? Bringingthewood (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

So professional has to be added due to the fact he's an American playing American football: No, there's thousands of English soccer players with professional in their lead sentence.[6] —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, English, Australian, Canadian. Add professional to all pages .. but Americans would definitely need it by default. See T. J. Watt's line up there. Here's Reggie White's page: was an American professional football defensive end in the National Football League (NFL). Now take professional out. It would look like an American football player. Not an American playing American football. That's all I meant. Of course this one is simple: "Le Démon Blond", was a Canadian professional ice hockey player. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

...but back to back links is hardly a sea of blue: It's either back-to-back or it isn't. There is no half back-to-back. Aside from MOS:SEAOFBLUE being a community guideline, leaving them invites people to get cute and just pipe to one link like this.—Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So I'm having trouble understanding the logic behind the idea that we have to assume the reader doesn't know NFL is professional football but we can't assume the reader knows we're referring to this sport and not this sport?? That doesn't make sense too me. Either we treat the reader like they are totally ignorant about the player we treat them like an expert. We can't treat them like they don't know it when it proves our point but like the do know it when it doesn't.--Rockchalk717 08:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Rockchalk717, the whole point of the proposal was to construct a lead sentence that did not put "American" next to "football". Any change that brings back "American football" basically brings us back to the status quo. In America, NFL players are called "professional football players". That wording is common and long-lasting, helping to differentiate "college football players". If it wasn't for the other types of football, it would be the standard wording across all bios. My proposal is grammatically correct, is Encyclopedic in tone, factually correct and the common naming for the sport. The link to football, the statement of the "NFL" and the general feel of the article compared to other types of football bios provides the reader with sufficient evidence to realize we aren't talking about soccer or some other form of football. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Infobox for signed undrafted free agents who never play in NFL

An offshoot to the last discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 23 § Question on Player Team Categories, where we discussed team categories and inbox team listings of players who never actually played a regular season game with said team.

Is this NFL project "claiming" the player, and using the {{Infobox NFL player}} on their bio instead of {{infobox college football player}}? (Courtesy ping to Sergio Skol, who recently changed a similar player to use the college infobox.[7]) —Bagumba (talk) 04:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• IMO we should keep the NFL infobox for anyone that actually signed to a team in the NFL – as that way we can list the player's whole career, rather than only the college career as would be happening with the college infobox. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did I change it? Well, it's true Thomas Weber signed as an UDFA with the Bengals, but he never was in the active roster, let alone played an official game. So, in these cases I think is better use the college football player Infobox, because technically the player never was in the NFL; that's why PFR nor NFL.com has a profile of the player (Weber's page does not exist, for example)

So, we should use the correct Infobox, that's why we have different ones, it wouldn't be appropriate use the NFL Infobox for a CFL player, as you can see here. Sergio Skol (talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that the person "was never in the NFL" is incorrect when they were a member of teams in the NFL! Whether or not they played shouldn't matter. Having the college infobox erases the entire professional career from the top, which in some cases could be a lot of teams (e.g. Nick Eubanks, six, comes to mind among things I wrote) – whereas having the NFL infobox allows someone to view the player's whole career. Not to mention there's plenty of UDFAs with articles who haven't played in games currently on NFL team rosters. Are we going to change those to the college box because they haven't yet played a regular season game in the NFL, and then we have to switch it over once they do play in a regular season game? It doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Man, chill out 😂

Of course ACTIVE PLAYERS must use the NFL Infobox, no matter if they've not played an official game (If they're active, (and I mean signed with any team) must use the correct Infobox, as you can see here)

But when the player is retired and never played, why we should use an inappropriate box?

Example; I just edited Eric LeGrand. He actually signed with the Buccaneers, so we should use NFL Infobox for a player who signed a symbolic contract? He does signed, so... Sergio Skol (talk) 16:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Updating Profootballhof links

A couple days ago, I updated the URL code for Template:Profootballhof, which had been out of date for a long while. But all the individual transclusions needs to be updated as well, like with this edit. I've done a few but there are 200+ that need updating; see https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Profootballhof&limit=500. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Repeating season links in infobox

What is the protocol for linking duplicate season years in the infobox? For example, Joshua Dobbs was on three different rosters in 2023, and the 2023 NFL season is linked for each instance. My reading of MOS:REPEATLINK is that only the first instance of 2023 in the infobox should be linked, but maybe I am incorrect. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It only needs to be linked once. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's justifiable in some tables to repeat links, e.g. large table that will be skimmed and where one might not have already seen the first link, but these team histories aren't enormous, esp. for football, and the same years will be grouped together chronologically. So no need to repeat for this.—Bagumba (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:DUPLINK, it's allowed. I personally prefer it, but I recognize that others do not. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Talk:National Signing Day#Requested move 28 March 2024

This RM to lowercase the titling of National Signing Day may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn (talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Kansas City Chiefs

Kansas City Chiefs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

A long-term task finally finished!

With my recent creations of John Holahan, Francis Fogarty, Arch Wolfe, Fran Foley and John Blackinger, it appears that every person to have served as a general manager in the NFL among current teams now has an article!!! This was one of my earliest goals I set at Wikipedia BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

• Now its time for all the managers of defunct teams – does anyone know where to find those? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fantastic, congratulations @BeanieFan11! What is your list based off? Is it by chance Category:National Football League general manager navigational boxes? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was going off of – it seems pretty accurate (PFR also has just about all the same info). Defunct teams will be another challenge, since it doesn't seem there's anything online listing them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the navboxes again; interestingly, a few of the current team navboxes are missing dates. The Cardinals is missing 1920–35; Bears 1920–35; Lions 1930–35; Packers 1919–20; Rams 1936; Giants 1925–36; Eagles 1933–35; Steelers 1933–35; and Commanders 1932. @Hirolovesswords: I know you've done a lot of work on NFL GMs, do you know why there's no managers listed for the teams in those years, and who served in the positions during the times? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the season pages on Pro-Football-Reference, as they usually list a GM in the top part of the page. A few of these that I've spot checked are indeed missing a listing for the GM. There's also pages for executives for each team, which I'm noticing do often stop at 1936. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Just replaced part at the Giants' GM template based on this. Looks like you have Ray Walsh to create now @BeanieFan11 ;) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: According to page 694 of the 49ers' media guide, it looks like Spadia wasn't GM as long as listed and I can't find an appropriate "Jack White" to add to Template:San Francisco 49ers general manager navbox. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Thanks for the info! I'm also keeping a list of NFL GMs for defunct teams if you're interested in trying to figure out some of those as well. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Walsh done; just White left, unless we find another missing GM :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Finished up White; @Hey man im josh: we're done unless you can find another missing GM! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Cbl62 (talk) 13:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

An interesting challenge

As part of my general manager quest, I started up in my userspace a list of general managers for defunct teams, with the goal of finding who managed every team in every year in NFL history (also AAFC). Currently have 15 teams complete (in knowing who served as general manager), 2 partially complete, whereas I have not yet found the general managers for 34 franchises. Help in finding these would be appreciated. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

My long-term task is done too!

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Green Bay Packers presidents! I started it in 2018....... almost 6 years. And the fun thing is that Mark Murphy (American football executive) is going to retire next year, which means I'll have to add one more GA after the new president is announced haha. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Another long-term task finished!

With my creations of Dick Harris and Joe Gray, it also now appears that every first-round draft pick in NFL history now has an article! BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you making a changes to articles that I had promoted or prepped for featured list nomination! I did however just look over the 12 that I worked on and noticed a red link for Jim Davidson in List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks, if you're interested in covering the AFL ones as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Might do him sometime soon. Throw in the AAFC as well and there's the following "first-rounders" without articles:

Jim Davidson - 1965 AFL (Ohio State - OL)

Cal Richardson - 1947 AAFC "Special Draft" (Tulsa - E)

Bernie Gallagher - 1947 AAFC "Special Draft" (Pennsylvania - T)

Larry Rice - 1947 AAFC "Special Draft" (Tulane - C)

Joe Sullivan - 1949 AAFC (Dartmouth - B)

Chet Fritz - 1949 AAFC (Missouri - T)

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Anyone in a article-creating mood?

Hi, for anyone who is feeling an urge to create new articles for this project and for college football, there are a ton of requested articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/American football for a variety of subjects, from players and coaches to rivalries and terminology. Some of these have been lingering around for awhile with no action. Feel free to be bold, help create some new articles and expand Wikipedia's coverage of American football! Fretyr (talk) 16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do not assume that these topics are notable simply because they appear on this list. For example, the list includes 17 proposed articles on rivalries of the Cleveland Browns. That's in addition to the Three Browns rivalry articles that already exist. Cbl62 (talk) 19:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think all of those rivalries probably need to be removed from that page. I think we're already at 100% coverage for actual NFL rivalries. SportingFlyer T·C 00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Cowboys-Lions article (again)

I know the last proposal got shot down, but I found coverage of the incident on March 25, 2024. As such, WP:SUSTAINED is covered to some degree. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 22:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A single article from a sub community of SB Nation (specifically one focused on the Lions) is not enough to argue for WP:SUSTAINED. I'm probably the biggest Lions fan at WP:NFL, and I can't make an argument for supporting creation of that article. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Step away from the dead Lion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Josh (we'll agree to disagree on biggest Lions fan...); it's not an ongoing controversy. No rules changes, no one lost their job. Both teams made the playoffs; they didn't meet again and the Lions advanced further anyway. Mackensen (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Question from American football project

Can someone take a look at this topic on Wikidata ?

The question is about a dewiki article about "fake", and Play-action for which they also have an article. We're wondering if it's a duplicate or if there are several kind of "fake" in football and "play-action" is a special case ? TomT0m (talk) 19:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Copying from WT:AMF, since this project is more active. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• @TomT0m: Since no one else has responded to this: if I remember correctly, a "play-action" is a type of fake, but not all "fakes" are "play-actions". (E.g. a play-action is a "fake" run that turns out to be a pass, whereas a draw play is a "fake" pass that turns out to be a run). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11 So basically it's just a kind of Feint in the football case ? TomT0m (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @TomT0m: Yes, I think that could be used to describe it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

NFL Article Naming

There are still so many articles that have "National Football League" in them (i.e. National Football League All-Decade Teams, National Football League 50th Anniversary All-Time Team, National Football League on American television, National Football League player conduct policy, National Football League Rookie of the Year Award, National Football League controversies, etc. With the RM at NFL, should these all get moved? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:10, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes. "National Football League" is itself ambiguous (National Football League (disambiguation)), so its not like spelling it out provides natural disambiguation with the other sports leagues. As it is, NFL anyways redirects to the American football league as the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. We already moved to the shorter title NFL rivalries from National Football League rivalries.—Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll work to get everything moved over on Monday when I'm on PC if there's still any left. Unfortunately I got pushback at WP:CFD/S about renaming categories, simply because someone WP:IDONTLIKEIT and won't cite any policy or MoS and opposes the renaming based on personal preference. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The joys of Wikipedia:Don't revert due solely to "no consensus" not being a guideline. —Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, if you are still up for it, most of the awards in {{NFL awards}} still have the full name, in addition to the articles above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:42, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba, @Gonzo fan2007: I took care of quite a few of them today. Should only be a few here and there left to cleanup. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh and Bagumba: here is what was remaining from {{NFL}}: History of the National Football League, History of the National Football League championship, National Football League Century Division, National Football League Management Council, National Football League on television, Comparisons between the National Football League and NCAA football and National Football League on American television. I think an RM on all the cats and templates will be needed at some point. Kind of a confusing mess now. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah the cats are in limbo because they were opposed at WP:CFDS. Their argument against the renames was that it's a "basic thing" that "categories should match and not switch over" (as in utilize abbreviations). They were unable to link me to a guideline, MoS, or discussion regarding this though. I routinely see acronyms used in subcategory trees and I see no issues with the acronym being used in subcategories of the main topic category (Category:National Football League with subcats that include "Category:NFL..."). Someone, however, will have to start the process, and I don't personally feel up for it.

A few examples of other categories which include subcategories that utilize acronyms:

• Category:Federal Bureau of Investigation
• Category:Central Intelligence Agency
• Category:National Basketball Association (note that these moves were all relatively recent, a lot of which were by me)
• UK being utilzied in a large number of category titles

And the list goes on. So I don't see abbreviations being used in the same way we use them on articles as an article. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

What about adding the information of a former NFL player becoming a head coach?

What about adding the information of a former NFL player becoming a head coach? For example, former linebacker Jerod Mayo played with the New England Patriots from 2008-2015. In 2024, he was selected as the new head coach for the New England Patriots, replacing Bill Belichick. Abhiramakella (talk) 22:31, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

@Abhiramakella: Is this the same question you had at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography#What about adding the information of a former NFL player becoming a head coach?. If so, I'm not sure if people here knew that you were referring to adding a coach's former playing position to the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Abhiramakella (talk) 07:25, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree, if a player goes on to become a coach or front office member, their playing position should be listed somewhere. If anything, I feel that the "position" parameter should not be used for job titles such as "Head coach" or "General manager". – PeeJay 20:04, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

The documentation for {{Infobox NFL biography}} says position – used to display the player's most frequently played position. Positions must be listed as they are at Category:American football positions. Per this, coaching or other non-player positions should not be listed in this field. Just to note, one of the more famous player/coaches, Curly Lambeau, lists his playing position, even though he only played for 10 years and coached for over 30. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Johnny "Blood" McNally

I've always been bugged by the naming of this article. Like of all the different names, this is not the common name:

• At ProFootballHoF.com, it is either John "Blood" McNally or "John McNally"
• At Packers.com, it is John "Blood" McNally
• At PFR, it is Johnny Blood
• NFL.com has him as Johnny Blood or Johnny (Blood) McNally
• At Wisconsin HoF it is John "Blood" McNally
• A recent Green Bay Press-Gazette article has it as Johnny Blood
• A New York Times article has it as Johnny Blood

Thoughts? I'm leaning towards just Johnny Blood. Simple, easy, no punctuation marks and generally the common name ("John" and "Blood" are included in each name). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:27, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I think Johnny Blood makes the most sense in this case, similar to Night Train Lane. Personally I'm not a fan of the quotation marks mix name, as I think it can be confusing and it's not natural. Rather the nicknames or personal be included at the target.

I was curious, so I pulled the list of players that currently utilize quotation marks:

• Billy "White Shoes" Johnson
• Boyd "Red" Morgan
• Bremond "Bay Bay" McClinton
• Carl "Spider" Lockhart
• Charles "Yogi" Jones
• Clarence "Pooh Bear" Williams
• Clarence "Pug" Manders
• Claude "Hoot" Gibson
• Ed "Too Tall" Jones
• Gary "Big Hands" Johnson
• J. T. "Blondy" Black
• Jack "Hacksaw" Reynolds
• James "Little Man" Stewart
• James "Shack" Harris
• John "Tiny" Andrews
• Johnny "Blood" McNally
• Keith "End Zone" Jones
• Paul "Tank" Younger
• Rick "Doc" Walker
• Thurman "Fum" McGraw
• William "Red" Dawson

Perhaps we should consider cleaning some of these up as well. Looks like Ed "Too Tall" Jones also has their nickname listed as their common name at NFL and PFR. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with cleaning all of these up. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

They definitely need cleaned up. The big question is, what is the WP:COMMONNAME for each one of these players. Ed "Too tall" Jones I know is primarily referred to as exactly that but I'm not sure about the rest of these.--Rockchalk717 05:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Some of those are WP:NATURALDIS in lieu of the fallback parenthetical disambiguation. —Bagumba (talk) 05:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Plain "Too Tall": Seems a bit revisionist, as I recall broadcasts introducing him as Ed "Too Tall" Jones, much like Billy "White Shoes" Johnson or Gary "Big Hands" Johnson. For these articles I listed, many of the cited inline sources have <given name> "<nickname>" <surname> in the sources' titles. I'd be wary of giving too much weight to recent database listings.—Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:National Football League Players Association#Requested move 29 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Football League Players Association#Requested move 29 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ASUKITE 14:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Updating uniform images

Hello everyone, recently I've been working hard on updating and improving the uniform template and images used to represent the NFL teams' uniforms. An example can be seen here, where the image is anti-aliased so that users may edit it with greater ease and the image reflects great accuracy towards the new uniforms. I currently have images finished for the Jets, Browns, and Lions, and I am currently working on the Texans. There is also the 28 other teams I plan to work on over the next month or so. I can't upload anything yet, so I'm wondering how I would approach contributing these new images? ExpergeTech (talk) 15:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Infobox problem

I've caught a serious issue that may require this project's attention. At some point in the 2010s, {{Infobox gridiron football person}} (and a variant-capitalization redirect from {{Infobox Gridiron football person}}) were redirected to {{Infobox Canadian Football League biography}} — but the problem is that since NFL football is obviously also gridiron, this has resulted in a lot of NFL players who never had anything whatsoever to do with the CFL, but whose articles are currently using the CFL infobox because they were using gridiron and then got "corrected" (or because they're still using gridiron but it's functioning as a redirect to the CFL template.)

Obviously that redirect should never have happened in the first place, since NFL football is also gridiron and it was never safe to assume that gridiron always meant CFL, but because it did happen, there are a lot of people that currently have the wrong infobox on them. Can this project initiate some kind of process of cleaning this up? Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I've created a hidden maintenance category for Category:NFL players using CFL infobox, which I have started populating with the articles I come across. Bearcat (talk) 16:47, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have noticed this issue in the past. Hmm... wondering if there's possibly some type of bot that could run through and change it (the parameters are almost all similar in the boxes); doing it manually would take a lot of time... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:59, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That would be a good idea, I'll see if I can put together a bot request. It'll be a bit more complicated, because there appear to also be some AFL rather than NFL players impacted — but I'd also note that we should probably also recreate the generic "gridiron football person" as a standalone template, which will at least partially fix the problem since some of the articles are still using that name rather than having been "corrected" to the CFL. Then there can probably also be a cleanup project to move people using that infobox to the more specific infoboxes as needed, but it at least becomes a separate project that can be looked after separately from any CFL fixes. Bearcat (talk) 17:12, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Try WP:BOTREQ or even WP:AWBREQ. —Bagumba (talk) 17:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

You can use this search query. There's about 1,500 pages using {{Infobox Canadian Football League biography}} that have some NFL team category but no CFL team category.—Bagumba (talk) 17:43, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

The move discussion is at Template_talk:Infobox_Canadian_Football_League_biography/Archive_2#Requested_move_17_December_2016. It looks like it was based off the documentation saying Infobox gridiron football person was only supposed to be used for CFL. It's obvious now that the documentation didn't reflect actual usage. If you're curious, you can look at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_14#Template:Infobox_college_football_player to see how much of an even bigger mess football infoboxes were a decade ago.—Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Update: I have recreated the generic "gridiron football person" as a standalone template, as it existed prior to the page move, and updated the documentation from the obviously incorrect "only for CFL players" to a "please move people to one of the more specific NFL, AFL, CFL or college football infoboxes where possible" statement. I'll file a bot request later today, but there's a bit of other cleanup work I have to get through first, like removing the maintenance category from the people I've already added it to who don't need it anymore given that I've recreated the old template. Bearcat (talk) 18:01, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

OK, if it's no longer redirecting to CFL, a revised query for {{Infobox gridiron football person}} on NFL only pages is here—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Apparently, there's pages like Vai Sikahema of an NFL-only player that directly uses Infobox Canadian Football League biography. So the original query I gave is still helpful.—Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

I have now further reverted "Infobox CFL biography" back to "Infobox gridiron football person" on everybody else that I had already added to the maintenance category — however, that only covers off people who had ended up in Category:Pages using infobox Canadian Football League biography with unknown parameters for one reason or another (which is what tipped me off to this problem in the first place), so it's reduced the number in Bagumba's query above from 1,500 to 1,051, but obviously that's still a damn lot of people. So I'll file a bot request shortly, but I'll also look into whether it's possible to have somebody familiar with complex template coding add automatic hidden maintenance categories to the gridiron template to sort them for "should be moved to one of the league-specific templates" status. Obviously the gridiron template isn't nearly as wrong as the CFL template is, so that won't be nearly as urgent to fix and can be more of a "work at your own pace" project for the longer term. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Personally, it's less maintenance in the long run if we could merge all the pro players (US+Canada) and even college. {{Infobox basketball biography}} does that for basketball. However, in the past, football wanted everything custom. Then we have to transform after each draft. And we squabble when a player plays in both the NFL and CFL.—Bagumba (talk) 18:48, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

That's true as well. It's entirely possible to write template code that can account for all the variables, so that there really isn't any pressing need for each league to maintain its own separate infobox — that's also what's done for politicians, so that there's just one generic {{Infobox officeholder}} that codes for all the variables, instead of American presidents and American congresspeople and American state legislators and American state governors and and Canadian prime ministers and Canadian federal MPs and Canadian provincial MLAs and Canadian provincial legislators and British and French and German and Italian politicians all each getting their own unique country-and-role-specific infoboxes.

So I'd honestly have no objection to that solution either, other than that it's complex enough that it may take a while to implement, and probably isn't a thing we could just whip up in a flash to solve this within five minutes. Bearcat (talk) 19:10, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

College in lead (again)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

So on the discussion about the way we describe what team a player played for in college in February, Bagumba (talk · contribs) says "I'd suggest modifying the body to something like "Araiza committed to play college football at San Diego State University (SDSU) for the Aztecs..." I've seen the argument made that non-sports fans and non-Americans may be more familiar with the university, so a link to it at some point makes the connection more obvious." but what amount of support does this have? It has become an issue on J. J. McCarthy's page, where Centurion Seraph (talk · contribs) continues to revert every edit returning to the former. Could we please settle this once and for all and codify it as a guideline one way or the other? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay… I’m trying to be understanding here but what i gather from that is the University and team name are ideally listed (SDSU and Aztecs) ; which both are included in JJ’s? The University of Michigan where he attended college, along with the Michigan Wolverines football team page Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: You clearly didn't check the original discussion. The majority of (modern) NFL player articles use a piped link (Michigan) going to the football program they played at and omit the full university's name. The issue is there has been no clear consensus supporting the format you continue to revert towards. But if there is, could somebody please link me? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly there’s not a consensus if there are on-going discussions regarding it. And we’re not debating between one or the other, both are included. Just just putting ‘Michigan’ as you continue to so reads the most confusing, as he played in the state of Michigan to an uninformed reader. Even possibly confused with the Michigan Panthers new team to an uninformed reader. I fail to see how including the ‘University of Michigan’ and the ‘Michigan Wolverines football team’ both is confusing in any way Centurion Seraph (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

& in this very certain instance, we take pride in the “University of Michigan” name, hence ‘U of M’ as its shortest nickname. This a world class educational institution, as well as a football team. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Specific instance* Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I think a well-developed lead would mention both the school and the team, but I could see arguments for just naming the team, especially if the player played at more than school. The thing we should absolutely avoid is writing out the name of the school with a pipe link to the team/program article. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Im sure i have done that last part a time or two in the past, in the future i will refrain. Thanks for sharing that. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

The February discussion is actually at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 23 § Link to college football team article instead of college article. The rough consensus has been to link the football program in the lead and the university in the body. Do not pipe the program to the university e.g. [[Michigan Wolverines football|University of Michigan]] per MOS:EGG. —Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes. But on JJ’s page the University is piped to the university & the football program piped to the football program; do you see anything wrong with the way it’s currently formatted? Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

...codify it as a guideline one way or the other?: There's an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format § Lead —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Ack. Bringingthewood changed the original indentation here—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I find it less concise and repetitive. He's notable as a football player, and the program is most relevant. "Michigan" in successive sentences a a tad repetitive. What the drawback of the university in the lead? —Bagumba (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Open to interpretation. Arizona State implies a state university, Michigan does not. Furthermore #7 ‘college attended’ states that university needs to be present in the final presentation. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Can you please stop reverting valid edits? You have gone well beyond the WP:3R rule and have been unable to compromise at all, putting yourself at risk of being blocked. Bagumba can you take a look at the other edits to help settle this? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Dissident93, this is really only half the issue as well. You were trying to add inaccurate information over and over again and I just think it’s ironic that an entire group of people editing that page can come to a consensus on how it best looks, except you every time. Has to be your way every time. Never willing to compromise.

I’m willing to fall my sword over this Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about when you tried to say he was 27 and 1 in his career, over and over again. I had to insist that it was just his starting quarterback record that he was 41 and 3 career Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Misunderstanding a fact of his doesn't imply I'm adding "inaccurate information" (it was already in the article). I obviously see the error now and have included that in my edits, but you clearly didn't even try to read it before reverting. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's better discussed at the bio's talk page or at WT:CFB. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Consensus can change, but let's see if there's support here to actually change it. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes id like to see as many opinions as possible, to get a concrete stance. If there continues to be no consensus i fear people will continue to have the University piped to the football program as a middle ground. Which you prefer not as stated above. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't think people have used it as a "middle ground", but more that there was a bad MOS:EGG "standard" in the past and some people just copied it. —Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

But this really isnt the issue regarding J. J. McCarthy’s page which has both University of Michigan & Michigan Wolverines piped to their football program. Is having both not correct and worth reverting time and time? Its been the lead for months now, with no issue until today. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Likewise, WP:CCC applies, and perhaps WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. —Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba I appreciate you taking the time to contribute to this discussion. Though we seem to be of opposite viewpoints, you've done so intelligently and in a helpful manner. Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

7 should have been struck. It has not been consistent with recent discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph Wow, all I was going to say is that someone with all those edits and so much time here, maybe you could teach me a new way to get my point across. I get slapped down like a red-headed stepchild when I do certain things. You should ask for a vote soon and maybe we could end this. A consensus is a good thing. In the past, when things are brought up and go nowhere .. it only brings future headaches. That's all I'm saying. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bringingthewood I would like a vote, clearly we need one. A few outspoken people seem to be considered a ‘rough consensus’.

@Bagumba Though you feel seven should be have been struck, the fact of the matter is it hasn’t been. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure. But if we're going to WP:WIKILAWYER, it's WP:JUSTANESSAY. —Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Life's too ******* short. Maybe we can get some sort of vote going. Not sure if it's a user or Michigan thing with J. J. McCarthy. Hopefully this won't end up like a high school city or official sack stat consensus. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

All this discussion and I'm even more confused where the community stands before the OP. Centurion Seraph (talk · contribs) continues to state I'm intentionally adding false information to the article. They have been unwilling to compromise anything with the lead, breaking the WP:3R with both me and Bringingthewood. Centurion also claims "Its been the lead for months now, with no issue until today.", but it was only added by 2600:6C48:647F:7F50:8958:7342:6122:10D (talk · contribs) in February, with the only editors actively opposing my edits since then being Schwabby1997 (talk · contribs) and other anonymous IPs such as 2600:6C48:647F:7F50:4479:7314:25FE:E56 (talk · contribs) and 68.188.185.250 (talk · contribs). Notice how they only edit Michigan-related articles and all revert to the same wording? Seems like a clear sockpuppet to me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I've opened a sockpuppet investigation into JooneBug37 (talk · contribs), which seems to be the primary account. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe @Jweiss11 reverted you edits to include both University and Program yesterday (not that im speaking on his stance). So are we the same too? Thats the most ridiculous claim Ive heard, im not operating any other account other than Centurion Seraph. Investigate your heart out. I do mostly edit University of Michigan related pages but that is not linking me to any other individual.

I did make concessions on the last line, so youre wrong. But yes February is 2 to 3 months ago, and in that time you’ve done nothing to add content or improve the page, you’ve only come by to do deductions of a collaboration of user edits. Most of the information has been inaccurate based on you not including the starting quarterback multiple times, based on you insisting that they won a national championship for the 2024 season, removing entire paragraphs because you think they read with bias, and that’s a few of the many things you’ve insisted upon deducting for no good reason, based on your personal preferences. Not to mention you can’t let it go that it includes both a university and team program. If all these accounts are opposing you it’s probably for a good reason. Centurion Seraph (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Nor have I ever created another account other than the one im posting with right now. Centurion Seraph (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd advise you to make your case there where it can be seen. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

It's safe to assume everyone here is aware of the edit warring policy now, if they weren't before. WP:AN3 is the appropriate venue should there be any further issues. —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba I got it. Thank you. By my count, in reading JJs edit history; since the new year (2024) @Dissident93 has reverted the lead nine times to his oftentimes deluded version. Thats not to mention all the reverts and deductions to other sections across this time span and the number of people opposing him.

Now he launches a bad faith accusation at me, regarding a bewildering sockpuppet investigation, is this not considered apart of edit warring? Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Patrick Omameh/1

I am having some difficulty in a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Patrick Omameh/1 review. I am being asked to expand a biography of a mediocre player beyond what I feel is normal. The summaries of the sources I am finding expand upon his mediocrity in a manner that I don't feel is very encyclopedic. The first two sources that I have dug into have resulted in the this expansion. Is this what we want?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Photos of Green Bay sites for Packers Heritage Trail

Reposted from my original comment at WP:WISCONSIN

Hi all, I am working on bringing Packers Heritage Trail to WP:FLC. I recently traveled as part of a longer work trip to Green Bay last week, with the goal of getting photos of each historic site along the trail. However, unfortunately it rained pretty much the whole day I was in Green Bay. I was able to get a few photos but the rain and my tight schedule meant I missed out on a good number. I was wondering if there were any Green Bay residents in this Project who would be up for grabbing a few photos for me? If so, I would greatly appreciate it! Please let me know, even if you can only grab a few, and I can kind of explain what the photos for each site could look like. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Offensive lineman stats

It is hard to write lineman article. Does anyone keep statistics like the average time a lineman holds his block in pass protection, the frequency of pancake blocks, yards per rush through off of his shoulder, yards before contact off of his shoulder, and/or missed assignment tackle for a loss frequency. It would be a lot easier to write offensive lineman articles if we had stats for them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

In my opinion, these type of stats are not widely reported and are thus typically not notable. I have removed stat tables like those that are either reporting obscure stats or are outside those widely reported. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

They are obviously niche stats, but there is no way to objectively document who the great offensive linemen are until we have some stats for them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Pro Bowl, All-Pros, Pro Football Hall of Fame, NFL All-Decade Teams, NFL Anniversary Teams, team halls of fame/rings of honor, retired numbers, NFL Awards, All-American/All-Conference, other college awards, reliable sources stating that they were productive/good/great players, etc. I'm not sure stating that "Joe Lineman had 20 pancake blocks" means anything to the average reader. This is where the notability comes in: these stats aren't routinely reported by third-party sources and thus aren't well-known to the typical audience. Niche stats, as you say, aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia.

This goes into a larger issue for NFL (and most sports bios) where the biography ends up being a repeat of something like Rodgers threw for 318 yards, two touchdowns, and two interceptions in the regular season finale against the Bears over and over and over. It's bad enough with stats that are routinely reported (yards, TDs) but would be absurd to report on niche stats for lineman. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

• Pro Football Focus has stats for recent players. Cbl62 (talk) 20:27, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I used to be troubled, like Tony, over the lack of objective performance measures for offensive linemen. Pro Bowl and All-Pro honors are good, but have limited value as tools for comparing players. Pro Football Focus has started to fill that gap with its detailed analytics on linemen. E.g., here. I do agree with Gonzo that articles should not be littered with random gap-blocking grades, but PFF is a reliable and respected source, and I think it would add value to our articles to report, for example, that during the 2021 season Trent Williams recorded PFF's highest zone run-blocking grade (99.9) of all time. Cbl62 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Even better if an independent reliable source is the one citing the fact from PFF. —Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree Cbl62, but I will note that pass blocking and run blocking grades are becoming more and more widely reported and thus notable. "Yards per rush through off of his shoulder" is a stat I am not familiar with or even really grasp. And it's doubtful that if a hardcore NFL fan isn't familiar with it that the general reader on Wikipedia would find it beneficial. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

I have no idea what stats are needed to distinguish OL performance and gap-blocking grades are probably what I mean by off his shoulder. I mean LT's right shoulder gap and LT's left shoulder gap (I think).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

2024 picks are being added to 2024 NFL draft before they are announced

How is this possible?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Added correctly or incorrectly? Sometimes there's a delay depending on whether you are watching over the air, on cable, satellite, or streaming. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Correctly. I saw this yesterday and my only guess was that the TV coverage had a little delay. The names were always correct, so I never asked. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I liked when streaming had something to do with water. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

• "Insiders" on Twitter/X are posting who is being selected well before the picks on TV.-- Yankees10 01:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Y10. I thought maybe they could pick the winning lottery numbers also. :( Bringingthewood (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Just get on Fanduel in the two seconds before the line closes and the insiders' tweet 😉 ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

LOL, thanks. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Disambiguating with (football) for football players, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Career records in infoboxes of active players

Hi everybody. I suggest don't add career records for players who are still active. Why? Well, I think it'll cause too many inaccuracy in infoboxes.

E.g. Justin Jefferson holds the record for most career receiving yards per game with 98.3. When he plays one more game, for example, it'll be 99.5, 97.5, etc. So we will need to change it after every game he plays.

Also, Patrick Mahomes holds the record for career playoff passer rating (minimum 150 attempts) with 105.8 and career passing yards per game (minimum 1,500 attempts): 296.1. Once again, we will need to change it after every game he plays. And additionally for these last two, IMO are arbitrary records and they shouldn't be added in infoboxes. (See: WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT) Sergio Skol (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

With that logic we should remove their career statistics in the infobox because those always have to be changed after every game. I'm usually on top of guys like Mahomes and Jefferson when it comes to career records, as I update those along with their stats in the infobox and their stat box during the season. HappyBoi3892 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

What'd we do for Julio Jones when he led for a number of years? As a Lions fan I remember watching that number in hopes he'd dip below Calvin Johnson in average. I remember seeing it there. Not that it necessarily makes a huge difference, but there may be the matter of games played to consider. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

As long as T. J. Watt's page stays the same, lol. For years I've done weekly edits there. You have my word that page will stay accurate. Some of the lower records may cause a problem here and there on some pages. Thanks to PFR most of the vandals get weeded out right away. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

NFL draft-related updates

There's still work to do relating to the 2024 NFL draft if anybody's interested. A number of the picks are missing text in the body that they were selected and/or need further cleanup (see e.g. these edits). Many of the undrafted free agent signings also need to be updated with text about their signing, the appropriate navboxes, NFL talk page banners, etc. Any help would be appreciated. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the free agent one is toughest. I almost wish we could define a threshold of Pro Bowl, All-Pro, all rookie team, something like that, for inclusion. That would mean you can't really update it til the year is over, which I think isn't crazy. Another possible inclusion could be All-American selection. I don't like the idea of all-conference as a threshold though. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Just noting that I'm not referring to updating the article on the 2024 NFL draft itself, but saying that those selected in the draft and those who were just signed as UDFAs could use editors to update their articles to reflect that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

OK guys, do whatever you want. Anyway you always do it =) Sergio Skol (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

@Sergio Skol? Could you elaborate on the issue you appear to see? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

"Common draft era"

A review I received Based on Common draft on my featured list nomination of List of Kansas City Chiefs first-round draft picks asked for a bit more clarity on what the common draft is. Upon looking at common draft, I noticed it references only the drafts from 1967–1969 (1969 NFL/AFL draft, 1968 NFL/AFL draft, 1969 NFL/AFL draft). Template:NFL drafts also refers to that same set of 3 drafts as the "common draft", and everything after 1970 as the "modern era". Depending on where you look, "modern era" is often used to refer to the Super Bowl era, which, arguably started in 1967 or 1970. Never the less, I think for drafts, we typically refer to it as the common draft era as opposed to the modern era, whereas for seasons and championships, we may refer to it as the modern/Super Bowl era.

I believe the term "common draft" should be referring to everything from 1967 onwards and that the common draft and the NFL drafts template mistakenly imply that the common draft and modern era are separate eras. The phrase "common draft" is simply meant to refer to the fact that the leagues combined their drafts, which they started doing in 1967. They began simply calling it the "NFL draft", but it's, never the less, been the "common draft" since then.

A number of sources that explicitly reference the common draft era as having started from 1967 onwards:

• https://www.nfl.com/news/time-changes-for-2008-nfl-draft-09000d5d807e6d6a
• https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2024/story/_/id/40037058/2024-nfl-draft-records-quarterback-receiver-offensive-line-defense-historical-trends
• https://www.nfl.com/photos/ranking-all-52-no-1-picks-of-the-nfl-s-common-draft-era-0ap3000000797366
• https://operations.nfl.com/journey-to-the-nfl/the-nfl-draft/the-history-of-the-draft/
• https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/35674661/history-mr-irrelevant-nfl-draft-every-final-pick-1976
• https://www.cbssports.com/college-football/news/2024-nfl-draft-usc-jumps-oklahoma-for-most-no-1-picks-of-common-draft-era-as-bears-select-caleb-williams/
• https://theathletic.com/5447036/2024/04/25/nfl-draft-first-round-selections-five-qbs/
• https://www.tsn.ca/nfl/first-round-picks-could-be-on-trading-block-at-nfl-draft-1.2108860
• https://www.foxsports.com/stories/nfl/2024-nfl-draft-a-historical-look-at-draft-records
• https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/nfl-draft-kurt-warner-john-randle-highlight-top-10-undrafted-free-agents-in-common-draft-era/

Essentially, what I'm asking, is for consensus to update Template:NFL drafts to remove "modern era" and move all of those entries to "common draft". I'd also love consensus (and for someone to be willing) to update the common draft article. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

An open question is whether WP:WEIGHT suggests that this is more commonly referred to as the "common draft era" or "modern draft era". My previous intuition would have been that Common draft (without "era") addresses the collective draft formats of the 1967 NFL/AFL draft, 1968 NFL/AFL draft and 1969 NFL/AFL draft, when the leagues were separate but cooperated on a joint draft. It seems redundant to refer to anything since 1970 as "common", when it is only one league, and the individual page titles like 1970 NFL draft don't have "common" in their name. Nonetheless, the term "common draft era" is real, it's just a question of how prevalent it is compared to "modern draft era". Incidentally, sources seems to refer to "modern draft" as 1967 and on. —Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

List of first overall NFL draft picks rework

I've started a discussion at the talk page of List of first overall NFL draft picks. I would like to rework the list and get it promoted to featured list status. I'd appreciate any feedback at the discussion on the talk page. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:02, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Featured topic ideas

I'm looking for ideas for featured topics that are primarily lists, as I want to contribute to a good or featured topic but I don't want to do GAs or FAs.

• Lists of first-round picks doesn't have a primary topic, such as list of first-round picks
• Lists of seasons by team would likely need the actual season articles over just the lists
• Lists of head coaches could maybe be possible, with list of current NFL head coaches as the primary topic

Any feedback or suggestions would be appreciated, as I'm looking for new things to promote to featured list status now that I'm finished with the first-round pick lists (28 promoted, 2 nominated, last 2 prepped and ready for nomination but there's limits to how many I can nom at once). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Starting QBs ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion @WikiOriginal-9. I think I'm tentative on that set because I don't really loooove the format that's currently in use by a lot of them. It needs work for accessibility reasons in a lot of cases and, ideally, I'd prefer a featured topic subject that isn't changing week to week (list of starting QBs in the NFL). Hey man im josh (talk) 19:07, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

List of NFL retired numbers? There are currently four teams with their own retired numbers articles. Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad suggestion @Harper J. Cole. In my experience, in the past when researching these, I had a tough time identify WHEN a lot of numbers were retired. That would make this list difficult to actually complete and source properly. It'd be a nice idea, but I'm not sure the sourcing is there for this one. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Detroit Lions draft history? I'm planning on nominating Green Bay Packers draft history with the two lists of specific picks and the first round pick list at WP:FT when the two draft picks lists pass WP:FLC. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: It's definitely attainable, especially if I use a good portion of the work you've already done in writing those leads. I'm leaning towards giving it a shot. At the very least, I can do the draft history article and see how I feel after that. I started on the All-Decade selections based on what you've done!

NFC North gonna have the most featured lists in the NFL WikiProject lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:35, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

This is sacrilege, Lions and Packers fans shouldn't be working together. jk. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:58, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

If he was a Bears fan, I would have blocked him already... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:32, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Packers don't even respect us enough to abuse us! We'll see who's laughing after the back-to-back Lions Super Bowl wins!! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:46, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

LOL ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:50, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, I think Lions-Packers rivalry needs to be a future collaboration of ours! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:51, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

RM of interest, being held

RM being held concerning playoff games in the NFL's history. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

• See also Talk:AFC Championship Game for another one. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

That one is attempting to change the NFC Championship Game and AFC Championship Game to lowercase. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And now move reviews of these at WP:MRV#1933 NFL Championship Game and WP:MRV#AFC Championship Game. Dicklyon (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Also RM being held concerning UFL playoff games. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Two Move Reviews which may be of interest, AFC Championship Game etc.

Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 May includes two move reviews, one for the NFL Championship Game and one for the AFC Championship Game (which would also include the NFC Championship Game), which may be of interest to project members. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Category:Lists of players by National Football League team

I am really struggling with these "List of XXX players" lists. There are some (List of Chicago Tigers players) that are difficult to even define as an actual functional article. They are wildly different in format, some of which contend to be a comprehensive list of a team's players (List of San Francisco 49ers players), some that include additional details about each player (List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers players) and some that just highlight key players found in other smaller team lists (List of Chicago Bears players). However, the one thing they all have in common is that they are all wildly out-of-date and likely to continue to be. Unlike basketball (see Portland Trail Blazers all-time roster), NFL team's these days have huge rosters, with easily 60+ players playing at least one game a season. For some older clubs, we are talking about thousands of players, for 32 teams. The task of maintaining a true all-time roster for modern NFL clubs is a monumental, and I would argue, unlikely and pointless endeavor that is more appropriate for Categorization or external sources (such as Pro-Football-Reference). I would also argue that maintaining an all-time roster for NFL teams, considering how large their rosters are and how often players move from team-to-team, falls into WP:NOTSTATS territory.

Thinking this through, I have a proposal for how to address these lists in a way that makes them functional and maintainable:

• For the existing 32 NFL teams, we convert them to a list of lists format. So List of Green Bay Packers players would move to Lists of Green Bay Packers players and would become an essentially an index of smaller, more defined and easier to update lists. You can see what this looks like right now at List of Green Bay Packers players (very basic right now, but the expectation would be a short explanatory sentence and source after each entry).
• For the defunct teams, we either delete them all or merge them into a larger List of defunct NFL team players.

I know this may seem drastic, but from the perspective of quality, navigability and ease of editor maintenance, this is the simplest and most straightforward solution. It would allow us to standardize the format of these pages and point readers into their likely direction (finding smaller, more defined lists). Think about it, if I would like to know who has played for the Packers, I would either look that person up on Wikipedia or I would go to PFR or some other stat website. I honestly struggle to understand how a page like this, for example List of Jacksonville Jaguars players, could be helpful to a Wikipedia reader, even if it is actively maintained and accurate. Interested to hear everyone's thoughts on this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:49, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I love this idea, I've long had issues with the lists of players articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

Probably in the minority here, but I personally do like a comprehensive list of all of a team's players – especially as it lets those who we deem "non-notable" be mentioned somewhere. I like how the Packers list is done currently (with all-time roster articles, etc.), although I realize that updating such lists would require an absurd amount of effort. I don't know. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:51, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

BeanieFan11 I would be fine with amending my proposal to note that any existing comprehensive list be moved to a new "All-Time Roster" article. I think the key to my proposal is that "Lists of TEAM players" would be more helpful for our readers as an index. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:08, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

I think that makes sense. Your idea of making a List of defunct NFL team players sounds good as well. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 16 May 2024 (UTC)

NFL.com links in infoboxes

I am proposing we remove NFL.com links from player infoboxes completely. After the website nuked the player stats pages in 2020, they have become mostly unusable/irrelevant. This is in addition to over 11,000 broken links from that 2020 change. Unless there is any opposition to the change, I will deprecate the |nfl= parameter from Template:Infobox NFL biography in a week. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support also note that it should be deprecated in {{Footballstats}} and any other similar templates. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support: Just not useful for stats anymore unfortunately. I spent a while updating as many as I could, but I eventually just gave up. Doesn't seem worth the effort considering the (lack of) benefit. If/once deprecated I'm happy to help work on it with AWB. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
• Support 100%. I've always preferred using PFR for stats anyway. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
• Wikidata? It's annoying when sites dont redirect old urls. An option, if they are accurate, is to get the NFL.com link from Wikidata. That's what WP:NBA did. Somehow, the changed NBA.com link was being updated at Wikidata. It's easy to remove the code if Wikidsta becomes unreliable later. As an aside, would the height and weight measurements be more accurate on NFL.com than other sites? —Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• @Bagumba: This is a good idea, and looks like most players already have their NFL.com link wikidata updated. I've made changes to the infobox sandbox [8] for that. However, the problem still remains that for most retired players there aren't stats that show up anymore on the NFL.com links (Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith, etc.) so I'm not sure if they are useful. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'm neutral on the link's relevance. The pro argument would it's from the related league's website. I was more offering an alternative for a "free" fix to the links.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

• I have removed the NFL.com parameters from the infobox ([9]). |nfl= and |nflnew= parameters now show up as deprecated. Category:Pages using infobox NFL biography with unsupported parameters is beginning to populate with every article still using those parameters, so someone can use AWB to clean those up. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:45, 18 May 2024 (UTC)

  Something I noticed: If the NFL statistics header doesn't display, it creates an extra line. See Shane Boyd and Erik Ainge. Eagles, could you fix that if you know how? Thank you. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:11, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  Actually I think the extra line is being created if the highlights section is empty. See Max Hall. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:20, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I'll start working on it on Monday. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:48, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  It's just WP:COSMETIC though i.e. doesn't affect the reader. —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand there's no rush, but I do actually spend time on cleaning up categories in Category:Infoboxes with unknown parameters anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  After a bit of thought and realizing how large the category had grown (just under 24,000 pages), I've asked Primefac if they would be willing to run task #30 of PrimeBOT to remove the deprecated parameters. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:43, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Hey man im josh: One thing I noticed: the bot seems to be removing the spacing between the "| pastteams =" parameter and the list of teams – I thought generally there was supposed to be a space there? (see this for what I'm talking about) BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:40, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @BeanieFan11: I checked about 20 edits just now and I'm not seeing that happening elsewhere (thankfully). From what I'm looking at, it only seems to remove a space after the equal sign when there's content on a new line, which I think is what we want, but the edit you linked appears to be an outlier. I'm hoping it's just a one off. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:45, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  It looks like it started by making edits to a few random pages (Blake Ezor, Hickson, George Sauer Jr.) and then began going alphabetically starting with the A's. It seems a couple of the first few (when it was random pages) have that, but afterwards it looks fine. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  LOL. And I thought I understood how COSMETIC worked.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  To Bagumba's point, what purpose does this serve other than emptying a maintenance category Hey man im josh? Looking at the BRFA, no one brought up any concerns about WP:COSMETICBOT. But I struggle to see how this is anything other than a bot making cosmetic changes to 24k pages. I'll note I often make cosmetic changes, but manually and in smaller numbers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:18, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Gonzo fan2007: To be frank, I figured the issue on removing deprecated parameters from infoboxes was settled at some point in the past considering the open ended bot task. I've semi-automatically removed deprecated parameters from thousands of pages with AWB in the past and no one has spoken up about it. I did intend to do so manually in in this case because I do regularly clean up Category:Pages using infobox NFL biography with unsupported parameters anyways, but then it occurred to me that PrimeBOT had that task approved, so I reached out about it. I'm not opposed to someone requesting the bot stop running, but it seems awfully silly to have tens of thousands of pages sitting in a maintenance category when a bot can easily clean that up. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  I understand your assumptions. I'm just trying to be more knowledgable on how COSMETIC is applied. —Bagumba (talk) 17:47, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

  Same here. More curious about it than necessarily opposed. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Big Ten awards

Asking if we should use the actual names of the ones used in the past (before the 2011 season)

@Centurion Seraph thinks we should use [[Griese–Brees Quarterback of the Year|Griese–Brees Big Ten Quarterback of the Year]] and I think we should keep links as simply as possible using [[Griese–Brees Quarterback of the Year]] according to WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN, because the Tatum–Woodson Defensive Back of the Year (e. g.) redirect to the right section.

No other conferences have awards named after any players, so why add the "Big Ten"? Those links doesn't work (Griese–Brees Big Ten Quarterback of the Year and Big Ten Quarterback of the Year are red links)

So should we leave out "Big Ten"? Sergio Skol (talk) 22:22, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

No other conferences have conference awards named after players is exactly why. It doesnt specify what the award is for, unlike the SEC and ACC. Ill be the first to say the Big Ten’s award names are silly, but theyre still handed out from the Big Ten Conference. The average big ten fan, let alone casual viewer would not know that just ‘Griese-Briese QB of the Year’ is a Big Ten award.

Big ten is the only constant variable in the awards, both by position group and by the year won, otherwise the awards will be inconsistent. All both redirect from big ten individual awards

Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year vs. Graham–George Offensive Player of the Year

Big Ten Defensive Player of the Year vs. Nagurski–Woodson Defensive Player of the Year

Big Ten Defensive Back of the Year vs Tatum–Woodson Defensive Back of the Year

Big Ten Defensive Lineman of the Year vs. Smith–Brown Defensive Lineman of the Year

Big Ten Offensive Lineman of the Year vs.

Rimington–Pace Offensive Lineman of the Year

ect, amongst other awards

I cant see why you would exclude the conference that is handing out the awards. Especially when they have always included Big Ten historically in the name. Its the most specific to understanding the award when reading the athlete’s pages Centurion Seraph (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

Not every link redirect, see the ones I linked above Sergio Skol (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd rather we only list all conference selections, All-American, and nation wide awards. Conference specific awards shouldn't be included otherwise. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:06, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I can understand that. That is why I think Big Ten should be included, so ‘Griese-Brees QB of the Year’ doesnt read like a national award. (same with the other Big Ten conference awards) Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2024 (UTC)

I love that idea, but also deleting All-Conference teams. Only add All-America Teams and nation wide awards. I rather delete Conference honors, and Bowls MVPs. Is really a highlight be the MVP of one game? (With the exception of the CFP national championships) Sergio Skol (talk) 00:37, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Don't we already remove everything bowl related besides nation wide championships? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:41, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I've seen so many page with Bowls MVPs and many editors adding them. So are we going to delete Conference honors from the infobox? Sergio Skol (talk) 00:52, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I think all-conference needs further discussion if we want to go that route, but I think WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT is relatively clear on it, is it not? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:30, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I support removing Bowl MVPs. —Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

I think All-Conference teams are deserving. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:53, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

You also need to let this air out more before you start deleting conference honors and all conference teams across wikipedia, just based on one comment (nothing personal josh, just a small sample size, nowhere near the time or amount for consensus on that Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:55, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Isn't WT:CFB the more appropriate forum for this discussion?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

We're talking about NFL players and Template:Infobox NFL biography Sergio Skol (talk) 01:03, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Based on the template all-conference selections are not open to interpretation and should remain, unlike college awards which could be construed as subjective Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:11, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: Anything is open to removal it consensus emerges. The templates should also be consistent across players, so they shouldn't be subjective. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:22, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: During discussions about disputed changes you should not continue to make the changes that are being discussed. You're doing so between replies here. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

I really only edited Montee Ball & there has been zero discussion. You are talking about deleting all-conference selections & bowl games. I've not seen one side of a discussion relating to the topic at hand, whether it's wrong or right to exclude ‘Big Ten’ from each award for the Big Ten Conference football individual awards. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:49, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

No other conferences have conference awards named after players...: For the record, the Pac-12 has (or had?) the Pat Tillman Defensive Player of the Year.—Bagumba (talk) 03:57, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Conference specific awards shouldn't be included otherwise. (responding to @Hey man im josh's comment here due to outdent above): A conference's off or def POY is more exclusive than their 11 or 22 all-conference selections on each side. What's the rationale for excluding them over all-conf? We can drop conference and even national freshman honors.—Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

Very good point @Bagumba. I'd have no issue with including conference OPOY, DPOY, and MVP. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN is not the main issue, as redirects can easily be created if those are plausible terms for the award. —Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

Most non-Big Ten fans wouldn't know what Graham–George Offensive Player of the Year applies to, and I imagine many casual Big Ten fans would not know either. In an infobox, "Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year" would be the most concise and descriptive for general readers. As an example, The Columbus Dispatch had a headline of "Marvin Harrison Jr. named Big Ten offensive player of the year, wide receiver of the year", and it's opening paragraph mentions the context of the Big Ten: Ohio State star wide receiver Marvin Harrison Jr. was named the Big Ten Graham-George Offensive Player of the Year Wednesday, marking a sixth straight season in which one of the Buckeyes was so recognized.[10]—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 22 May 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba thank you for the clarification regarding Big Ten awards.

As far as removing bowl MVPs, I’d support that as well, with the exception of new years six and national championship. I think those are deserving, historical games, and considering the CFP semi-final. Centurion Seraph (talk) 14:28, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Billy Shields

I stumbled across Billy Shields after some random clicking of Wikilinks, and figured I take a shot at expanding it a bit. However, I've hit a speed bump in the form of a paywall regarding what happened to Shields after being traded by the Chargers to the Vikings before the 1984 season but then being signed by the 49ers after the season began. One guess is that Shields was released by the Vikings without even playing in a game, and then picked up by the Niners. This book, however, seems to suggest that Shields was released by the Chargers and then claimed off waivers by the Niners, which might mean the trade with Minnesota fell through for some reason. Anyway, I think the answer can be found here, but I'm not interested in subscribing to the Washington Post just to access the article. So, I wondering if anyone else has access to the article or perhaps can find an alternative source that can help clarify what happened between the Vikings and Shields. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:53, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

San Francisco 49ers -- Signed offensive tackle Billy Shields, 6-8, 280-pound Pro Bowl alternate the past two years. Shields had left the San Diego Chargers in training camp because of a contract dispute. He then was traded to Minnesota, but that deal was voided when Shields and the Vikings could not come to terms. Shields was waived formally by the Chargers last week. To make room for Shields, the 49ers waived center John Macauley.

OceanGunfish (talk) 09:20, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that OceanGunfish. I don't know why I thought the article was pay-walled. I think I mixed it up with a different WP article about Shields and the 49ers. -- Marchjuly (talk) 13:37, 17 May 2024 (UTC)

I did some Googling and found some more stull about Shield's post NFL-career that might be encyclopedically relevant but I'm not sure about it sourcing. The first one is 2012 San Madre CA Patch article which discusses Shield's involvement in a local development project. The article referneces Shields a number of times and referes to him as a former executive VP for a company called Sunrise Senior Living as well as the founder of a LLC called Fountain Square Development. The article isn't exactly flattering per se, and Patch Media doesn't seem to be considered much of a reliable source based on varous discussions found in the WP:RSN archives. Still, this might help lead to other sources for this type of information (like this and this) that can somehow be used. The other item I found is related to a 2012 concusion injury lawsuit filed by a number of former NFL players against the NFL in Pennsylvania. Shields is listed as plaitiff 192 and there's some brief biographical information about him found on page 77. The lawsuit itself is a primary source, but I'm wondering if it's sufficent for supporting content about Shield's wife and his involvement in the lawsuit. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:17, 20 May 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, he's listed at List of NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy, cited to a primary source. —Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I added a sentence about the lawsuit supported by a citation to the sources I linked to above. -- Marchjuly (talk) 22:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Featured list totals by team and division

Featured list total by team

Team	FLs	Division
Arizona Cardinals	2	NFC West
Atlanta Falcons	3	NFC South
Baltimore Ravens	3	AFC North
Buffalo Bills	1	AFC East
Carolina Panthers	2	NFC South
Chicago Bears	3	NFC North
Cincinnati Bengals	1	AFC North
Cleveland Browns	2	AFC North
Dallas Cowboys	1	NFC East
Denver Broncos	2	AFC West
Detroit Lions	3	NFC North
Green Bay Packers	13	NFC North
Houston Texans	2	AFC South
Indianapolis Colts	3	AFC South
Jacksonville Jaguars	1	AFC South
Kansas City Chiefs	2	AFC West
Las Vegas Raiders	2	AFC West
Los Angeles Chargers	4	AFC West
Los Angeles Rams	3	NFC West
Miami Dolphins	1	AFC East
Minnesota Vikings	3	NFC North
New England Patriots	3	AFC East
New Orleans Saints	3	NFC South
New York Giants	3	NFC East
New York Jets	2	AFC East
Philadelphia Eagles	2	NFC East
Pittsburgh Steelers	2	AFC North
San Francisco 49ers	2	NFC West
Seattle Seahawks	2	NFC West
Tampa Bay Buccaneers	1	NFC South
Tennessee Titans	2	AFC South
Washington Commanders	3	NFC East
Total	82	—

Featured list total by division

Division	FLs
NFC North	22
NFC East	9
NFC South	9
NFC West	9
AFC North	8
AFC East	7
AFC South	8
AFC West	10

Note: This list includes four current featured list nominations (Packers x2, Bengals x1, Jaguars x1) which are on track to be promoted.

I thought this would be an interesting bit of information about our WikiProject to share. Hopefully it motivates people to work on getting their team better represented! It certainly has for me, and I have two additional Detroit Lions listed prepped and ready for nomination, as well as 4 other Lions lists that are works in progress which will also eventually be nominated. Credit to @Gonzo fan2007 for being responsible for all 13 of the Packers' lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, I have 8 more ready to go to FLC and 1 more in works!! Hahaha. Now I just need to figure out what to do with Green Bay Packers All-Time Roster and its related pages. Cool info, thanks for pulling it together! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:04, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

That's great to hear! You're going to keep me busy, I can't stand the Packers being so far ahead in FLs!! Hey man im josh (talk) 17:05, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: Remove (some) conference awards from infoboxes

We continue to face infobox bloat as conferences continue to add more and more awards to what's given out every year. Based on the above discussion, and in the spirit of keeping awards listed in the infobox to only the most notable/important awards, I'd like to formally propose that we exclude conference awards, with exceptions, from the infobox.

Include:

• Conference MVP
• Conference Offensive/Defensive/Special teams Player of the Year
• All-conference selections

Exclude:

• All other conference specific awards

Conference specific exclusions that are already noted at WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT:

• College conference championships

Please voice your concerns, support, or opposition as appropriate. Pinging those who were involved in the above discussion: @Sergio Skol, @Centurion Seraph, @Bagumba, @UCO2009bluejay. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been editing conference awards the past few days, and I can say there is a bloat on less than 1% of pages, the hall of fame caliber player. The overwhelming majority of average to good players barely have 3-4 awards. I think its a radical proposition to erase awards based on the 1%. i.e. offensive & defensive lineman of the year, receiver & running back of the year, ect. (I believe most viewers enjoy and gravitate towards reading awards, not strain through it. Though thats my opinion).

As @Bagumba mentioned in the previous post, Freshman All-American and Conference/Bowl MVP’s seem to be a better place to start if intent on trimming the info box. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there's position awards like Big Ten Quarterback of the Year, because the Big Ten has historically had separate coaches' and media All-Big Ten selections. So their position awards are akin to a consensus pick. —Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it can, but as with the offensive lineman of the year, that traditionally distinguishes between the 5-10 first-team all-conference selections. Same with defensive back, defensive line, ect. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment A related guideline is MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Wikipedia

WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format seems to be quite descriptive in stating what is necessary and unnecessary. Ironically, the example they give for “Mister Accolade” could be seen as bloated.

Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It is bloated. The perennial problem is to how to pare down the most accomplished players on a crowd-sourced platform with drive-by editors. Someone sees award X listed for one player and adds it to another to be "consistent". —Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand the point of view, but how to pare down the overly accomplished without at the same time taking from the majority, the less accomplished. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Could the awards section eventually be formatted to expand and collapse? Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't pick and choose what awards are notable enough for inclusion based on the individual, and I don't believe that's an appropriate approach. Not every player needs accolades listed in their infobox. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Who is picking and choosing based on the individual? Everybody is using the NFL infobox template, and I’ve yet to see a fundamental reason for removal of existing awards, other than wanting to remove awards based on individuals who have bloated award sections. Unless it’s that in your opinion, those awards just dont need to be included because they arent worthy enough awards. Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: Explain why these are notable enough for inclusion and how conference specific awards for positions, essentially what a first-team all-conference selection would already represent, needs to be included. Your arguments are entirely focused on WP:ILIKEIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh It has nothing to do with what I like. As mentioned already in this post, it’s in the NFL infobox template. I didnt form the consensus to install these awards, they have been existing awards for some time now.

Offensive lineman, defensive lineman, defensive back, they all distinguish the best from 5-10 first-team all-conference selections. Offensive lineman and special teams players really have no chance to win MVP or any Player or the Year award. The Big Ten has no broad Special Teams Player of the Year. So you’re erasing the possibility of awards entirely for specific positions.

You really think that only 2 players from each conference deserve awards? Either DPOY or OPOY will win MVP, so that only gives conference honors to 8 total players in the NCAA in ‘power conferences’? Its a great accomplishment to win these awards, they are distinguishing and deserving of inclusion as currently formatted. Centurion Seraph (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: You've just argued for WP:ILIKEIT again. There is currently not consensus regarding these awards, so please do not imply that there has ever been. You're focused on adding to the infobox, as opposed to whether it makes sense to do so. Not every player needs or should have accolades listed, as not every accolade is as notable as one another. It's pretty easy to say that conference MVP is a more valuable award that best o-lineman of the conference. Consider that removing positional awards better aligns with how we treat NFL awards as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Lets be clear you’re fighting to erase them, I'm not adding anything. If you dont understand why they’re notable enough for inclusion based on that last post, you’re unwilling to see this any other way than what you want.

There may not be a written consensus in a discussion right now, but by having every one of these awards already listed for years now in the infobox would surely imply the consensus at this time, that they’re deserving of inclusion. Centurion Seraph (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: Something existing for a period of time is NOT consensus, that's simply not how Wikipedia works (SEE WP:OTHERCONTENT). In fact, I've actually removed these from hundreds of infoboxes over the years in the spirit of following the standards we have for NFL awards, which is, no conference specific awards at all. My understanding is this was the standard that we used for a long time, but, over time, there have been editors, such as yourself, who want to add fluff to infoboxes. As such, I wanted to codify the existing practice we've had. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(WP:CONACHIEVE) (WP:EDITCON). It is a consensus if it exists uniformly for an extended duration, years, where the overwhelming majority of editors form a general agreement to have conference awards and honors installed on the player pages.

Please present the standard stating no conference specific awards.

As the NFL infobox template states: Awards and highlights should be listed in the following order:

Pro championships

Pro championship MVPs

League MVPs

Other major individual awards (Offensive Player of the Year, Defensive Rookie of the Year, etc.)

First-team All-Pros

Second-team All-Pros

Pro Bowls

Season statistical leaders (NFL passing yards leader, etc.)

Pro career honors (retired number, etc.)

College national championships

College awards

All-Americas

Conference honors (SEC Defensive Player of the Year, etc.)

All-Conferences (college only)

College career honors

Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: We do not add division or conference specific NFL awards. It makes sense that this would also apply to college conferences and divisions. As stated though, there was not a consensus for years. When I removed those entries they were rarely, if ever, contested. But that's not the issue and is, frankly, irrelevant to the discussion about whether these accolades should be included or not. "IT'S BEEN THAT WAY!!!" is terrible reasoning, so let's keep focus here. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh This is a bad faith slander. You use quotation marks, when in fact I’ve never said that, or anything even closely resembling it. Neither in all caps, exclamation points or in general context. You are slandering my point of view, to prop up your own. This shouldnt be permitted. I’ve given fundamental reasons in an appropriate manner. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, not every single highlight needs to be in the infobox, and I like only add MVP, OPTY, DPOY, STPOY and All-Conference Teams.

But, once again, how we should display the Big Ten awards? For the MVP is pretty simply, but the others? I keep thinking is better use Graham–George Offensive Player of the Year, Nagurski–Woodson Defensive Player of the Year and Thompson–Randle El Freshman of the Year, according to WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Anyway, if somebody wants to know what it means, they'll be redirect and notice that are Big Ten Awards. Sergio Skol (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is better located in ‘Big Ten awards’ (that you created). There are responses in that post to your question. Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This is how I personally do it, but I wouldn't necessarily oppose going with the generic title of Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year since only a Big Ten fan would know what these awards mean without clicking or hovering over it. Either way, WP:NOPIPE applies. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly that's not the issue I wanted to focus on with this discussion. It just re-ignited the interest for me to start this discussion, something I've been meaning to do for a while. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I get it and I agree with you, it ain't necessary add SEC Lineman of the Year, Jacobs Blocking Trophy, Sun Belt Newcomer of the Year, and all of those conference awards. But there's a conflict between me and @Centurion Seraph if we should add "Big Ten" in the links, and I want you guys to help us to solve this.

As @Dissident93 said, only a Big Ten fan (as I am) would know what these awards mean without clicking or hovering over it, and according to WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN, it's OK link them as I do. Sergio Skol (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. No need for these more minor, obscure awards to be in the infobox. Useight (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Obscure?? The Big Ten Offensive Lineman of the Year, as well as defensive lineman, are the two oldest awards currently given by the Big Ten Conference. As well as they distinguish between 5-10 first-team all-conference selections. But I respect your opinion. Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I called it obscure, but that could simply be derived from my own lack of knowledge on the intricacies of college-level awards and projecting that lack of knowledge onto others and thus assuming that it's not a household term. But I would be surprised if a randomly-selected American adult knew the Big Ten had lineman awards. Hence, I called it obscure. Useight (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Useight This is a response worth reverence. The only thing I will say is I don't think we should delete information that we think the average American wouldn't know. We all first made the trip to Wikipedia wanting to learn. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  By that logic we should be adding everything into the infobox. It's for the most important aspects, not every aspect. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that, as of now, I'm interpreting the following:
  • Support removal: Hey man im josh, Sergio Skol, Useight
  • Oppose removal: Centurion Seraph
  • Unclear stance, could benefit from these users clarifying a support or oppose position: @Bagumba, @Dissident93

While I believe consensus has roughly formed around removal of these accolades, any feedback and thoughts from anybody else that has not yet been involved in the discussion would be very much appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh This is the single biggest problem I’ve found on Wikipedia. There is no way consensus has been formed on 3-1 vote discussion. (Especially when one of those editors who voted yes added and edited a majority of the awards in contention, and it is highly plausible the vote came just as an opposition to mine). You could use this conversation as a way to make and test edits you see fit to trim the award sections, but you cannot use this as a consensus guideline. The same four people talking dont speak for 99.9% of the editors who aren't reading or able to voice there opinions. If people revert and re-add, it is not consensus, as having these awards installed is the current consensus and common practice. I wish these discussions were more easily viewable and accessible. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: I encourage you to read WP:BLUDGEON. You should not be replying to every single reply that doesn't take your side. No one else has argued for their inclusion. Let the conversation take place instead of forcing your opinion on everyone. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh This is not the case at all. Once again you are slandering to lessen my point of view. This is a small conversation, where I’ve not bludgeoned anybody. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is slandering you so quit it with that. It's absurd and inappropriate how much you're responding to everything and everyone in this conversation. You're fighting tooth and nail to keep something you like. I'm not going to argue with you about it, it's bludgeoning. Now how about we actually let the discussion take place and if you want to personally talk with me you can follow up on my talk page. We don't need to bog this discussion (the whole point I'm trying to make here). Hey man im josh (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

“To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided.” Per the link you included. Its defamation what you are doing, plain and simple. I’ve responded to three people in total, two people who voted yes, one who I just said I revered, and the other one who tagged me into this discussion to lend my point of view. So Ive not replied to half the people, and the times I replied never were forceful or disrupting. This is how conversations work. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The same four people talking dont speak for 99.9% of the editors who aren't reading or able to voice there opinions.: We can only go by people who choose to comment. Consensus can change too, if people happen to chime in later.—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The very top of the Consensus link you sent me, first article states: “nor is it the result of a vote”. What you directly sent “consensus can change” is entirely about the proposal of consensus change, never once mentioning achieving or formulating. See Achieving consensus (same link) I do understand what you are saying, but by skipping the editing phase and jumping directly to a discussion and forming consensus for every NFL player with four people isnt right. By editing the changes you want to delete, you then see the reaction of possible opposition. Skipping the editing phase automatically eliminates any opposition before consensus is already reached and enforced. Centurion Seraph (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Skipping the editing phase automatically eliminates any opposition before consensus is already reached and enforced" If someone disagrees after the fact, they discuss it here, and that's when consensus can change. On the flip side, if it wasn't discussed first before editing, there's a certain segment of editors that will automatically delete merely because it "didn't already have consensus" It's a catch-22. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok that Conf MVP, OPTY, DPOY, STPOY and All-Conference Teams are there at least. It seems that the conf-specific position awards are a niche Big Ten thing(?) I'm neutral whether they stay or not. One alternative might be list say Big Ten QB of the Year, but not if they also won the Big Ten Offensive POY. —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a compromise I am willing to make, I had not thought of that. Deleting the positional conference awards if they won DPOY or OPOY. It make the most since I believe from all aspects Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that we shouldn't overcomplicate the inclusion criteria. Then we have people who come in and say "BUT X PERSON HAS IT INCLUDED!", without the knowledge of why. It's more direct and clear to list "Do not include x" in the WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not that complicated at all. Inclusion criteria (or exclusion criteria in this instance) pertains to adding only the highest conference award achieved, the others can be implied. If you win MVP, do not add OPOY and quarterback. If you win DPOY, do not include defensive back. If you win offensive lineman only, keep it as is. This is how compromise works, my opinion is not to remove any existing conference awards.

Also should anybody delete these edits proposed, can they make sure the information is in body, as it is not always. Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: If the information is not in the body already it shouldn't be in the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god man, are we trying to improve things or not? The information is referenced through the link, most cases it is in the body, sometimes not. Centurion Seraph (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR:

Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source...Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me first say, that I didnt create create, edit or format the big ten award page and I dont add awards quite honestly. I did edit the way some redirected but never the initial adding of them to players. They existed already and I think they should remain in the infobox is all.

With that being said Big Ten Quarterback of the Year, you see how the reference is included in the table in the link, officially from the Big Ten. Is this using an article from Wikipedia as a source? Mind you I really have no idea what the articles/bodies of 99.9% of players present or source like. I just wanted to make sure there was an effort to preserve, as you said, before totally erasing. Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

CIRCULAR just means that a bio of Player X linking to Big Ten Quarterback of the Year still needs a citation, even if it's already sourced at the blue-linked target, in which case just copy the citation to Player X. —Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Got it, thank you @Bagumba Centurion Seraph (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The WP:PRESERVE policy does say:

Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider...Formatting or sourcing on the spot

—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I've left a notice at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format about this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Don't have time to read through all this – but if we include all-conference selections, I'm not sure I see why we should exclude awards such as Big Ten Lineman of the Year which are of higher significance? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted on this. A player being named QB or DL of the year was usually good enough to win other awards, potentially adding to infobox bloat (see Dwayne Haskins). But like BeanieFan brought up, the awards are still higher in importance than all-conference honors since they were seen as better than the rest of their fellow Big Ten players at that position. On the other hand, this really only applies to the Big Ten since other conferences stick to the main MVP, OPOY, DPOY, FOTY-type awards as far as I'm aware.

My stance is to remove them if they won an award of higher significance, since it can be reasonably assumed a player like Haskins being named Big Ten MVP also made him the best QB and offensive player in the conference. This is not a preservation issue like Centurion said since they can easily be added to prose (which should always be the case regardless) and have an entire article dedicated to this anyway. Additional, we should be following WP:NOPIPE and go with the generic titles over the proper name per my previous comment. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I’d just like to note that a positional award winner was not usually good enough to win other awards. There are five on offense (QB,RB,WR,TE,OL), and three on offense (DL,LB,DB). So 1:3 and 1:5.

& Thank you for creating the Big Ten Most Valuable Player redirect to match the other generic redirects in use now. Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dubious statement at Willard Dewveall

Was reading Willard Dewveall and noticed there's a long-standing statement that In 1962, Dewveall caught the (then) longest pass reception for a touchdown in professional football history, 98 yards, from Jacky Lee, against the San Diego Chargers. However, this doesn't seem right as Frank Filchock is listed as having thrown a 99-yard TD pass to Andy Farkas in 1939 at 99-yard pass play. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the statement is unsourced and incorrect. The Filchock-Farkas touchdown is in the NFL Record & Fact Book. The Lee-Dewveall touchdown was (and remained) an AFL record, which may have caused the confusion. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that Filchock-Farkas is the record.

Clutch Points and Sports Reference agree, though SR has an error and incorrectly lists Bill Dudley’s total game passing yards for the longest pass. Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

J. J. McCarthy’s lead (again)

On J. J. McCarthy’s page there has been a four editor debate regarding his lead for the last 72+ hours. (@Cbl62 @Bluerules @Jweiss11) It’s been an even stand off, at times reaching a 3-1 agreement, but now its getting even further distorted with new edits again. We have all made an exhausting amount of edits and reversions, Im trying to learn and debate this in a more proper manner. As it cant be remedied through his talk page with evolving edits, keeping this cyclical.

The current version and editor refutes that he won three big ten titles, which I disagree, and wants a season by season recap, including his early life and high school career added at the forefront of the lead. Burying all his major accomplishments in 2023. I believe it should read as follows…

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for the Michigan Wolverines, winning a national championship as a junior in 2023. The program’s first since 1997. He also won a third consecutive Big Ten Conference title and was the Big Ten Quarterback of the Year. McCarthy finished his college career with a 27–1 record (.964) as the starting quarterback, the highest winning percentage in NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) history. He was selected 10th overall by the Vikings in the 2024 NFL draft.

Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• A lead should summmarize the major sections of the article. McCarthy doesn't yet have a pro career, so his career has three elements: (i) a college career in which he led Michigan to consecutive appearances in the College Football Playoff, (ii) a high school career in which he led IMG to a high school national championship, and (iii) selection in the NFL draft. Each of these elements should be referenced in the lead. If and when his pro career develops (and hopefully it will), there will be more to be said and other elements may become less significant, but for now the article is what it is and the lead should summarize those elements. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is contrary to everything Ive been taught. I’ve been told it is a synopsis of their major accomplishments, in order to provide a concise, engaging lead.

  
  

  If this isnt the case, then Ill start editing NFL player pages who dont have expansive NFL careers, to include each year of their college career and add their high school football career. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Due weight is the key. Not every year necessarily needs mentioning if it's insignificant. Even in the body some editors will monotonously drop stat lines of uneventful years, incorectly thinking each year needs substantial coverage. Or MOS:OVERSECTION with a dedicated section for each season. Some periods might rightfully be grouped and lightly covered. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba is correct. McCarthy led his team to back-to-back appearances in the College Football Playoff in 2022 and 2023. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it doesn't mean that every football bio lead should summarize each college season. Judgment is required as to what's "due" in each case. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:BLPLEAD says:

  The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person.

  I just don't feel a player's high school career is all that relevant to the lead once they've become a pro. Accomplished HS players are a dime a dozen at that point, and not distinguishing to other pros, save perhaps of national honors. —Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that according to an earlier discussion, in order to unambiguously state the subject's nationality and follow MOS:SEAOFBLUE, the first sentence ought to read:

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American professional football player who is a quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League (NFL).

OceanGunfish (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead proffered by Centurion is too brief for a "B" class article and is somewhat undue in asserting that JJM won three consecutive Big Ten championships since he was a freshman backup in 2021. Until there's more to say about a pro career, my proposed lead would be something along these lines:

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League (NFL). He was selected 10th overall by the Vikings in the 2024 NFL draft.

McCarthy played college football for the Michigan Wolverines from 2021 to 2023. After serving as a backup in 2021, he became Michigan's starting quarterback as a sophomore and led the 2022 team to an undefeated regular season, a Big Ten Conference championship, and a berth in the 2022–23 College Football Playoff. As a junior, he led the 2023 Michigan team to a perfect season (15–0) and the program's first national championship since 1997. He was also selected as the 2023 Big Ten Quarterback of the Year. He finished his college career with a 27–1 record (.964) as a starting quarterback, the highest winning percentage in FBS history.

McCarthy played high school football at Nazareth Academy in La Grange Park, Illinois, and then IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida. He led IMG to a high school football national championship in 2020.

Cbl62 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not your lead right now. You removed the Cade McNamara section and moved the high school section to the end, and erasing where he is natively from. You’re going back and forth again. But the general argument remains. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my suggestion. I don't think his city of birth is needed. Happy to restore Cade McNamara if you or Jweiss wish. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHPLACE is generally not notable for the lead. —Bagumba (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

McNamara is hardly a household name for a casual college football fan, so there's no point to name-drop him in someone else's lead. —Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the 3rd straight conf title, while true, just comes off as puffery, given his backup status. Keep it out, or refer to it as the team's 3rd, if it must be mentioned there. —Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be made clear that McCarthy was not a starter in 2021, but it’s not like he only warmed the bench and played in garbage time. He was involved in key plays in some do the biggest games of the entire college football season that year when the outcome of those games was still in doubt. And the dynamic between him and McNamara is a key element of his career to date. It was one of the biggest stories in college football going into the 2022 season. That is supported by some of the strongest sources referenced in the article and many more than can be found. The high school stuff I can live without, but a quick sentence or two isn’t crazy given the national title with IMG. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

HS: Yes, I had said national honors could be notable for the lead, but missed that he won a title there. —Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that he led teams to national titles at the HS and college levels is rare accomplishment and worthy of mention in the lead. Cbl62 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I can live with the mention of HS national title, but the point i was making is it definitely doesnt need to be listed before his college national title as your current lead writes, neither does it need to mention where he was born, and first attended HS at Nazerth. Just mention the title with IMG if you must. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My proposed lead is above and does not mention where he was born and places the high school bit after the college bit. Apparently, we agree on that much. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey we agree on the 27-1 winning percentage record too. Though I think you should include Division 1 as I originally wrote it. Most people know what D1 means, but FBS by itself less so. At least in my opinion. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

McNamara: That dynamic you referred to would need fleshing out at J. J. McCarthy § 2021 season. As a non-Michigan fan, I saw his name in the lead and thought "So what?" —Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think that may be an issue with the three consecutive big ten titles, non-michigan fans just chalk him up as a freshman with his helmet off all year, but there is no doubt he contributed to winning that conference title (from a Michigan fan’s perspective). Both on and off the field. I should have written “two as a full-time starter” after won a third consecutive Big ten title though. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, even practice squad players contribute to a championship. Do sources regularly attribute 3 titles to him, or is this just a statistic being cited to right a great wrong. The body should make it clear how sources are lauding his significance as frosh, which would need to be more than a stat line. —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so. I will work on the body and sources. But yes he is regularly credited with 3 big ten titles and defeating Ohio State three times. He never lost in his three years in regard to either. A three-year career when you win three big ten titles at 100% rate is worth noting in my opinion.

“With three straight victories over Ohio State, three Big Ten Championships and a national title to close out his career, McCarthy served as a key leader in Michigan’s renaissance.”

“After helping lead Michigan football to a 15-0 record, its third-consecutive Big Ten championship and the program’s first national championship since 1997, J.J. McCarthy has more accomplishments in front of him.”

I could do this 10x over but Ill just give two sources for the time being. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe wording like "helping lead" would make mentioning the 3 titles less objectionable? I'll leave it to the Michigan experts. —Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd omit the 2021 Big Ten title (when he was a backup) as undue for a lead. He was the starter for the 2022 and 2023 teams and led both of those teams to undefeated regular seasons and College Football Playoff berths -- and the 2023 team to the NC. Those are his most important accomplishments. Cbl62 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Two additional national publications, as not to present bias. It should not be up to you personally to omit and ignore solely on your opinion, despite a consensus of sports publication sources.

“McCarthy decides to turn pro after three straight wins over Ohio State, three straight Big Ten titles and three straight trips to the national semifinals”

McCarthy and the Wolverines finished a 15-0 season, capped off by a third consecutive win against Ohio State, a third Big Ten title and a national championship after beating Washington 34-13. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Of course, there are numerous publications referring to UM's three straight Big Ten titles. That's a big deal for the Michigan program, and it may even have a place in the McCarthy article, but it's "undue" for McCarthy's lead given that he was a freshman backup player in 2021 with only 516 passing yards. I thought before that you were saying we should only focus in the lead on the most important highlights? Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you even reading these sources? They are not sources talking about the Michigan football program. You’re intentionally spreading false information to slant to your point of view. They are all four each individualized summaries of JJ McCarthy’s college career accomplishments as he entered the NFL draft this year. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I read the sources. It's fine to include in the body, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the lead (any more so than the assertion in these articles that Michigan won three straight against Ohio). Cbl62 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Given the amount of information in your lead i cant see why you wouldnt include it. In all reality, JJ will be remembered for two things at Michigan.

  • 2023 national championship
  • 3 straight victories over OSU, with 3 big ten titles.

  
  

  Nobody will ever remember or care about Cade McNamara, a 2022 fiesta bowl (cfp “appearance”) or his big ten qb of the year award for that matter.

& for the record he accounted for 640 total yards with seven touchdowns in 2021, and as Jweiss said played in many critical moments. It may not be an exorbitant amount, but its surely worth counting him as a member of the 2021 Big Ten Championship he won. Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Your assertion that McCarthy will be most rememberd for 3 straight victories over Ohio State is seriously flawed given that he appeared only briefly in the 2021 Ohio State game and threw only one pass. Likewise, your assertion that "nobody will ever remember of care about" McNamara is astonishing given that he led UM to its first ever College Football Playoff appearance. Are you serious or simply trolling? Cbl62 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Im talking about Cade McNamara in relation to JJ McCarthy’s career and life. This should be the obvious I'm not saying nobody cares about him personally. In 20 years or 2 months, nobody will first think of him being Cade McNamara’s back up, as opposed to remembering him winning three big ten titles.

  
  

  Secondly, its a collective. In his three years at Michigan, he had three straight victories over Ohio State and three Big Ten Championships. I just presented you with the same exact information written by ESPN, Fox Sports, The Detroit Free Press and The Michigan Daily. Are they all trolling as well? Centurion Seraph (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

If a player has only played in college, can it be made into an article?

There are a few players that did not player or even make an NFL team yet they have Wikipedia pages. Is it important enough or no? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

They can have independent articles if they meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, so should I start it as a draft then, rather than just making a page? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea to start it in draft space if you are unsure. I do that often. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How did this look? Michael Geiger (American football) WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd remove the cookie-cutter prose listing his stats which are already listed in the table below and get rid of the professional section since he clearly never played or even tried out for a pro team. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Infobox NFL team sprawl

Looking at Chicago Bears, it seems that Template:Infobox NFL team is getting too long with less notable lists like the team's historical list of owners and presidents. They don't seem more notable than head coaches and GMs, and comes off as worshipping organizational hierachy. Certainly useful information, which I suggest moving into the body and sourcing (eventually). Then we can remove the parameters from the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I do agree that we shouldn't include the full owner and president history in the team infoboxes like that. I do think though that we could possibly wikilink some of the listed personnel to a list of the team's personnel, if it exists. For example, on Green Bay Packers, linking General manager to List of Green Bay Packers presidents, head coach to List of Green Bay Packers head coaches, president to List of Green Bay Packers presidents, etc., while still listing the active person in that role beside it. That would be one way to still provide that info, if it's available. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support that is what the lists are for. What is next a list of head coaches? Imagine if all of the countries had a list of monarchs and prime ministers in their infobox?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support but only if the ownership information is preserved in the article body, like what I've done here with the Washington Commanders. I'm indifferent on maintaining a list of team presidents, as they are a hired position that aren't notable in most cases (could any of you name 10 active ones without looking it up?). A list of general managers would make more sense. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm going to redo the list of NFL franchise owners page and add the same information under individual team headers. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dissident93: That article was actually on my to do list to rework and nominate for featured list status, so I'm open to working on it with you. But, based on your description, I think maybe a List of NFL franchise owners and List of current NFL franchise owners might be useful as different lists. That way we could have an "at a glance" for current ones and a full historical page for all that info. Thoughts? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I was actually thinking it would be best to prominently list the team's current owner first and then list the ownership history below. Having two articles makes more sense if we decide to list them in chronological order with notes on each (if possible) like the Commanders example. But anything is better than the current status of the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  List of current NFL head coaches and List of NFL head coaches provides a precedent for the layout that Hey man im josh is proposing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I love the idea of all the information in one place, but I do worry that if we include it ALL in one list, the entire ownership histories, we'd be doing a disservice to readers. I expect that they'd be normally searching for a current list first and foremost with the historical list of owners being a secondary thought. We could strike a good balance I think. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  For my first example, I was imagining a smaller condensed table for the previous owners that omitted prose and only included years owned, purchase price, and team achievements overseen. The current owner would be the one with a historical summary of their ownership that includes all of the above. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Purchase price was a difficult aspect for me when I was brainstorming about the owners list in the past. I thought about an acquired column instead of purchase price, where you could state it was inherited or purchased, and use either notes to include how that happened (at least when thinking about the "current" list) or an extra column. I'd think for a historical list you'd simply include a notes column that gives you the info instead of using notes themselves for that info, based on the goals of such lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another thing I'd like to work is changing the scope of Glazer ownership of Manchester United to include their Bucs ownership. Glazer family redirecting to Malcolm Glazer, somebody who has been dead for 10 years, isn't ideal. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd support the scope change, however, the article is already promoted to good article status... that makes it a little more difficult of a sell. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe then a subsection on Malcolm page? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: Yeah these seem a bit much to include in infoboxes. I agree with Dissident93 that the info should be in the body in a table. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Standardized naming for Category:American football team records and statistics

Within WP:NFL we have a tiny mess regarding the naming of lists related to records and statistics, as well as awards. Some examples:

• List of Green Bay Packers records
• Minnesota Vikings statistics
• List of Carolina Panthers records and statistics
• List of Chicago Bears team records

Regarding awards, we have:

• Baltimore Ravens awards
• List of Chicago Bears award winners

I propose we standardize these in the following ways:

• List of *TEAM* team records (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers team records): this clarifies the content of each list, which is "team records" and not an indiscriminate list of statistics
• List of *TEAM* award winners (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers award winners): this also clarifies the content of each list, which is a list of award winners (not a list of team awards)

Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Unless anyone objects in the next few days, I plan to make the moves as non-controversial. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I support standardization. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:21, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Also lending my support. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

All cleaned up now. Moved to Category:NFL team records and Category:NFL team award winners. All pages moved. Created the {{NFL team records}} template to keep them organized as a whole set. The pages are all in a pretty sad state, and we only have 14/32 created, if anyone is interested in a project. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:54, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

When does the season begin?

I changed the description of the 2024 NFL season in the infobox of National Football League, from current season to upcoming season, but my change has been rejected to. When does an NFL season begin? GoodDay (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Interesting question. The NFL has "league years", and based on this it would appear that the 2024-2025 league year began June 17 with the first official deadline for certain transactions. That said, you could argue the actual "season" begins with the first game and ends with the last game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:21, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I believe the league year actually starts in March. The link you shared, I believe, updates, given that the draft and other significant events are no longer listed. If you scroll down to 12-Mar, you'll see that it says "The 2025 League Year and Free Agency signing period begin at 4:00 p.m., New York time." Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

What josh said haha « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:53, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I've found a number of other sources on. It began March 13 this year as well, per the Giants, the Raiders, the Chiefs, Sports Illustrated, etc. It's probably regularly scheduled to be March 13, but that's just a pure guess based on it matching between last year and this. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

I reverted you once, mostly because in my past experience, the "current season" parameter in the infoboxes on team articles as well as on the NFL article has been updated when the new league year starts, so that's what I've gone by.

However, it's a good question. Whether league year and season are the same. All team season pages currently talk about the 2024 season being the "upcoming" season for a team, and we still consider this time period before the preseason to be offseason. It's all a minor thing, but if we're going to say that the 2024 season hasn't started yet we'll also have to change Template:Infobox NFL team with a parameter for upcoming season for consistency, as they all say "Current season". KristofferAG (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Personally I'd prefer upcoming season only be used between the conclusion of the Super Bowl and March 13th, since that's when free agency begins. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:13, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

This is how I've always looked at it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:33, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I support this also (noting that the exact date the league year starts varies within mid-March each year). Frank Anchor 19:49, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd say the season starts with the first week 1 game and ends with the Super Bowl, and is something separate from the league year that begins in March. Not too bothered if the vote goes the other way. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I can see the wording being a bit tricky. League - after March 13th and season - week 1. Someone actually said it to me last week, that they just planned their vacation so they don't miss the start of the season (Reg. season - in September). Even though we know there are preseason games prior to that. Like H. J. Cole said, not bothered with the vote either way. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:05, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Kane (American football)

Discussion within scope of this project. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

• Same issue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Quast. Cbl62 (talk) 18:39, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Early NFL players redirected

A large number of early NFL players were recently redirected. Help in finding sources to restore any notable ones would be appreciated. See:

1. Henry Lewis (1921)
2. Johnny Nagle (1921)
3. Charlie Lungren (1923)
4. Swede Erickson (1924)
5. Bill O'Toole (1924)
6. Ivan Quinn (1924)
7. Jack Daniels (1925)
8. Fred Beach (1926)
9. Steve Hanson (1926)
10. Red Quam (1926)
11. Gerry Sherry (1926)
12. Ted Nemzek (1930)
13. Wilmer Fleming (1931)
14. Porter Lainhart (1932)
15. Carmen Scardine (1932)
16. Harry Marker (1933)
17. Gil Robinson (1933)
18. Babe Scheuer (1933)
19. David Ward (1933)
20. Ollie Savatsky (1935)
21. Dominic Vairo (1935)
22. Zed Coston (1939)
23. Emmett Kriel (1939)

There's also, in addition to the AFDs on John Quast and George Kane above, an AFD for Tony Mehelich. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:55, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

• I made the above redirects (all one-game players from the early NFL) after tagging the articles back in 2022 for lack of SIGCOV. No improvements were made in the 18 months that followed. If you are able to find and add SIGCOV, feel free to return to main space. But per WP:SPORTBASIC, prong 5, these should not be returned to main space unless there is actual SIGCOV. Cbl62 (talk) 23:57, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Charlie Lungren and Ted Nemzek are not one-game players. They are four-game players and sub-stubs that I personally created before SPORTBASIC #4 was adopted. I have searched hard for SIGCOV without success, so I've redirected to the applicable team-season article. If someone can find and add SIGCOV, they are a better researcher than me, and they have my blessing to restore to main space. Cbl62 (talk) 14:18, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

• Additional one-game redirects were created in 2022. The process has shown us that the vast majority of these one-game players do not satisfy GNG. However, if anyone wants to take another look, help in searching for SIGCOV is welcome.

1. Les Asplundh
2. Burl Atcheson
3. Earl Bartlett
4. Eddie Benz
5. Mil Berner
6. Stub Blackman
7. Fred Borak
8. Les Borden
9. Phil Branon
10. Eddie Bratt
11. Phil Brennan
12. Rankin Britt
13. Max Broadhurst
14. Chuck Brodnicki
15. Matt Brown
16. Fred Brumm (AfD)
17. Bill Bucher
18. Al Burgin
19. Hal Carlson
20. Red Chenoweth
21. Bob Choate
22. Fred Clarke
23. Herbert Clow
24. Bill Connell
25. Ham Connors
26. Don Cosner
27. Zed Coston
28. Fred DaGata
29. Slats Dalrymple
30. Darroll DeLaPorte
31. Winnie Denton
32. John Depner
33. Don Dimmick
34. Emil Dobry
35. Sonny Doell
36. Bob Dwyer
37. Jim Eiden
38. Red Emslie
39. Arch Erehart
40. Al Espie
41. Charlie Essman
42. Fred Failing
43. Nick Farina
44. Bill Fiedler
45. Louie Fritsch
46. John Gabler
47. Patsy Gerardi
48. Fred Getz
49. Art Goerke
50. Tom Golsen
51. Aubrey Goodman
52. Glenn Greenwood
53. Len Gudd
54. Harry Hall
55. Hal Hansen
56. Fatty Harris
57. Wilbur Henderson
58. Fritz Henry
59. Hoot Herrin
60. Andy Hillhouse
61. John Hollman
62. Clarence Hosmer
63. Bill Houser
64. Karl Hower (AfD)
65. Cliff Jetmore
66. Lorne Johnson
67. Charlie Jonasen
68. Carl Kane
69. Sam Kaplan
70. John Kauffman
71. Adolph Kliebhan (AfD)
72. Charlie Knox
73. Steve Kobolinski
74. Lou Koplow
75. Mike Koziak
76. Emmett Kriel
77. George Kuhrt
78. Zvonimir Kvaternik
79. John Kvist
80. Doc LaDuron
81. Pete Lauer
82. John Law
83. Bernie Leahy
84. Franklin Lewis
85. Harry Livers
86. Roy Longstreet
87. LaDue Lurth
88. Max MacCollum
89. Herbert Magida
90. Joe Mantell
91. Phil Marshall
92. Gus Mastrogany
93. Charlie McBride
94. Bob McGee
95. Brian McGrath
96. Jack McKetes
97. Ralph Meadow
98. Bill Meisner
99. Buck Miles
100. Dutch Miller
101. Red Morse
102. Bill Muellner
103. Jim Nicely
104. Dick Noble
105. Clem Nugent
106. Henry Orth
107. Charlie Payne
108. Art Peed
109. Joseph Plunkett
110. Phil Poth
111. Spencer Pope
112. Bill Potts
113. Roger Powell
114. Bill Preston
115. Frank Primeau
116. Ken Provencial
117. Ed Rate (AfD)
118. Ed Reagen
119. Harry Richman
120. Speed Riddell
121. Rollin Roach
122. Loyal Robb
123. Gil Robinson
124. Glynn Rogers
125. Tony Rovinski
126. John Rupp
127. Reggie Russell
128. Bill Sanborn
129. Buck Saunders (AfD)
130. Carmen Scardine
131. Babe Scheuer
132. Art Schiebel
133. Jim Schuber
134. Heinie Schultz
135. Twing Seeds
136. Joe Setron
137. Frank Seyboth
138. Ronald Shearer
139. Fred Sheehan
140. James Sheldon
141. Stan Sieracki
142. Pete Slone
143. Bill Slyker
144. Marv Smith
145. Spike Staff
146. Mike Steponovich
147. Howie Stith
148. Aubrey Strosnider
149. Hew Sullivan
150. Jim Talbott
151. Charlie Tallman
152. Jim Tarr
153. Bob Tarrant
154. Rex Tobin
155. Ed Tolley
156. Hal Truesdell
157. Tiny Turner
158. Pete Vainowski (AfD)
159. Dominic Vairo
160. Roy Vassau (AfD)
161. Elmer Volgenau
162. Eddie Wall
163. Bill Wexler
164. Tommy Whelan
165. Walker Whitehead

Cbl62 (talk) 01:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm definitely gonna go rummaging through newspaper archives searching for SIGCOV just you can AfD it anyway. And you know full well that Newspapers.com doesn't have everything. You yourself used to use News Library before we had to pay for it. And there was a lot of SIGCOV on there that we couldn't find anywhere else. Links go dead on the internet all the time. Also, in regards to one of your messages on Beanie's talk page, the "wolves" are going to come if we appease them anyway. Once the one-gamers are gone, they'll just move on to the two-gamers. Deleting NFL players who actually played would have been unheard of 10 years ago. We used to just argue over practice squad, training camp, and college players. I suspect in another 10 years time base GNG might not even be good enough, there might be an explicit clause added to discount local/routine coverage. You do a lot of good work here but I felt like I should leave this comment. I'll move on now. Thanks for coming to my TED Talk. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:28, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, WO-9. We both care a lot about wikipedia's coverage of football history. And, yes, I do worry about the anti-sports wolves circling back to take deeper bites out of the herd. The best way IMO to fend that off is for us to act responsibly, to abide by the existing community consensus. to show that we are capable of policing our own project, and to avoid resorting to IAR arguments that just piss people off. The NFL of the 1920s did not generate the same level of publicity, and many (probably most) of the one-game players of the early years (and a lot of players with multiple games) fail to meet the current guidelines. Cbl62 (talk) 22:04, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. Thanks Cbl. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:41, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

I think you both, as well as Beanie, have great intentions to provide high quality content, which has been reflected in your many combined years of editing. I am probably one of the few who has wavered the most on this issue, at one time being a deletionist while other times wanting to save them. I have always been surprised and impressed on what Beanie has been able to convert into a great article, and I think for many of these it will come down to an article-by-article assessment. Either way, I think everyone here appreciates all of your hard work to provide high quality content across the history of AmerFoot. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:06, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Disagreement on the "We want the ball" game

Hello, looking for some help and consensus on a disagreement between Clarityfiend and myself regarding my recently created article "We want the ball and we're going to score!". First, I agree with their assessment that the article title should not have punctuation in it, so whenever this is resolved, happy to fix that and clean-up after the move. The crux of the issue though seems to focus on whether the eponymous name of this topic refers to the game itself, or just the comment by Hasselbeck. From my perspective, this game is notable for a few reasons: its the playoffs, it was the first consequential game in the team's rivalry, it was a competitive game, it went to overtime and then obviously what really did it was Hasselbeck's comment and then subsequent interception returned for a TD. I did consider just naming the article 2004 NFC Wild Card playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay), but that is clearly not its WP:COMMONNAME. Also, although the comment by Hasselbeck is obviously important, the actual play that is most notable is the interception returned for a TD. As I mentioned to Clarityfiend, this game was ranked as the 72nd greatest game in NFL history, so the game appears notable (noting that every source provides an overview of the game itself, not just the comment made by Hasselbeck). For assistance, Clarityfiend is proposing changing the opening lines to this version. I do not support that change because the topic of the article is not Hasselbeck's comment, its the NFL game that occurred in which he made his comment. Thank you for any assistance you can provide. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Can you provide any sources calling/naming the game itself "We want the ball and we're going to score!"?

I've never heard the game itself referred to directly as "WWtBaWGS". That's the problem with the current lead sentence, and I agree with the other user that it's awkward phrasing. The "WWtBaWGS" game... would be better.

The "We want the ball and we're going to score!" game was the 2004 NFC Wild Card playoff game between the...

Or have the lead sentence describe the phrase and then the rest of the lead and the article describe the game, as their edit does.

Article title is a separate matter that can be decided later through WP:RM.

PK-WIKI (talk) PK-WIKI (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

PackersNews.com is titled "'We want the ball and we're gonna score!': Looking back at Packers-Seahawks classic". I think the point about moving the article would resolve the main concerns, because the first sentence would likely no longer have a bolded title in it. I think the point I want to get across though, is that the topic of the article is the game itself, not Hasselbeck's comment. Had the game ended in a Packers' field goal or some other non-dramatic way that included Hasselbeck, its likely the game doesn't get anywhere close to the coverage it has gotten. Note that we typically try to avoid (at least in my experience) repeating what the topic is, so The "WWtBaWGS" game...was a game is not preferred. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the sourcing is there to name the game itself "WWtBaWGS". That phrase is often used as a "headline" for articles about the game, but I doubt we would ever see the game itself described as such in prose without being wrapped as "The WWtBaWGS game".

Note that I have no problem with the article title being "WWtBaWGS". Just that the lead sentence should be phrased with "The WWtBaWGS game" or describe the statement by Hasselbeck or some other solution like that. Likewise I have no problem with the article describing the full game + statement, rather than just the statement.

PK-WIKI (talk) 21:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Taken from Gonzo's talk page: The phrase is the proper name of the article, since that is what people remember (though there should not be quotes - see Category:Quotations and particularly Category:Quotations from sports). So really, this should be a quotation article, not a game one. And, as I have just noticed, A drive into deep left field by Castellanos uses pretty much the exact same phrasing as I did. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC) – While I don't have an opinion on the article title, I disagree with Clarityfiend on what the focus of the article should be. Those are two entirely different situations and, despite a quote from each being notable, they're not really comparable. I agree that the focus should be on the game, but I'd find it perfectly acceptable to expand aftermath section. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:47, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it now, is that both the game and the phrase are notable in and of themselves, but there is too much overlap to justify two articles. So I now propose that the article be moved to "2004 NFL wild card game (Green Bay–Seattle)" and the original title (less quotes) point to the Overtime section.

Is the game notable in itself, or is it notable because of Hasselbeck's hubris? The top 100 list mentioned above is about "the 100 greatest across five categories – Plays, Games, Characters, Game Changers and Teams", not just games, and this particular entry talks only about the quote and the overtime result, nothing about the game in regulation. Without the QB's boast coming back to bite him in the ass, would the game qualify? Only one of the references (#21) supports the contention that it is notable, while several are about the Hasselbeck's outbreak of foot-in-mouth disease.

One off-tangent point:

There should be a Category:National Football League plays (and also playoff plays); The Immaculate Reception, Butt Fumble, etc. are currently listed in Category:National Football League games. Clarityfiend (talk) 11:12, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

My view is generally what happens in a game is what makes that game notable. So if the game has a memorable play or some other single thing that happened, what becomes notable is the game. The event that is occurring is a game, not just a single play. Almost always, a play is only notable with the full picture of the game (there are exceptions, like the Butt Fumble, which had almost nothing to do with the game and more to do with the absurdity, lol'ing and meme culture afterward). The Immaculate Reception was notable not just because it was a crazy catch or there was controversy on whether it was a catch, but because it was a playoff game and a walk-off win. This is also why all of these articles still use {{Infobox NFL single game}}, have {{Americanfootballbox}} and almost all provide a synopsis of the game. Again, the phrase isn't notable without the lead-up (a playoff game going to overtime) and then the fact that Hasselbeck threw a pick six to end it.

I could live with a move to 2004 NFC Wild Card playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay), if everyone feels good that that would resolve some of these concerns. It's kind of funny, but I always thought these common name titles should have "game" after them, but we seem to not self-reference what things are in article titles unless that is clearly the common name (i.e. I Have a Dream and not I Have a Dream speech; and Day of Infamy speech and not Day of Infamy). So in my mind it should be the Immaculate Reception game. But I'm clearly in the minority there. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: There is nothing particularly notable about the game itself, only how it ended, and that is tied to Hasselbeck's comment. Playoff games that go into overtime, while rare, are not normally given articles solely on that account. The 2014 NFC Championship Game is another, much more unusual overtime playoff game that involved the same teams, and that one doesn't get an article. There are no good grounds to have two articles, and the quote is what football fans remember most. There are plenty of sources for the quote, almost none for the game itself, and the only one in the article for the game is just as one of a group of games involving the Packers and Seahawks. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:54, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I think that's where some of us disagree. This article is about the game and it absolutely should be from my point of view. The quote is what pushes it over the top in terms of notability. Without the game the quote wouldn't be notable and vice versa, they co-exist. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Clarityfiend, with respect, I just don't see any support for your position. You are welcome to try a larger venue, like WP:RM or WP:AFD. That said, Seattle Sports names the game as one of the most memorable in the rivalry SB Nation does too, noting it was the first playoff game and one of the first close games in the rivalry and NFL.com ranked it as one of the 100 greatest games ever, with most of the excerpt covering the game itself, not Hasselbeck's quote. Many sources cover a lot more than just the quote: the Associated Press story after the game dedicates just one sentence to Hasselbeck's comment, reserving the rest for the game itself and the Milwaukee Journal dedicates more than half the article about the game.

To your 'another article doesn't exist so this one shouldn't' argument, ironically enough two weeks ago I tagged that article (2014 NFC Championship Game with {{R with possibilities}} because I plan to make an article about. I am working on Packers-Seahawks rivalry right now, but it will likely be next up on my list. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

New AfDs

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Chrape - 1929 NFL stub (I created)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alec Anderson (American football, born 1894)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Red Shurtliffe - 1929 NFL stub (I created)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Herm Young - 1930 NFL stub (I created)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Meinhardt - 1923 NFL stub (I created)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Lanham - 1922-23 NFL stub (I created)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charlie Olmstead - 1922-23 NFL stub (I created)

Cbl62 (talk) 22:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Football biography cleanup

It will be a year next week since we started the above campaign. In that time, we've improved roughly 200 football player biographies, which is great. There are a lot more left that could use your TLC. If you have some time this summer, take a look and see what can be done.Cbl62 (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Al Shook

I searched for SIGCOV regarding the above but came up empty. Shook played two games at guard for Columbus in 1921. The article has been listed at the biography cleanup campaign for a year but it remains a stub. I have redirected it to 1921 Columbus Panhandles season. If someone can find SIGCOV and add it to the article, feel free to return it to main space. Pinging User:WikiOriginal-9 as the article creator. Cbl62 (talk) 20:49, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Same basic situation for Ed Sparr (2 games, 1926), now redirected to 1926 Racine Tornadoes season. Cbl62 (talk) 23:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

The confusing case of Ed and Eddie

We have articles on two Edward J. Doyles who played in the NFL around the same time:

• Eddie Doyle (American football) - played for Frankford/Pottsville in 1924-1925.
• Ed Doyle (American football) - played for Buffalo 1927
  

Both are shown with the same death date in Morocco. Are these the same person? Or are there two? Adding to the confusion, there is a third Edward J. Doyle (here) who also attended Canisius around the same time as #2 Cbl62 (talk) 17:26, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

• Per Beanie, PFR (here) shows second Doyle as dying much later in Canada. So this is probably just a case of mistaken identity on #2. Cbl62 (talk) 17:32, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
• According to PFR, Doyle # 2 is not even an Edward. He's an Elmer. What a mess. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62: PFR has an "Ed Doyle" that I believe matches up with individual #2 in your list.

• Both listed as born July 5, 1905
• Both listed as born in Buffalo, NY
• Both listed as having played for the 1927 Buffalo Bisons
• Same college (Canisius) listed
• Both offensive linemen

Ed Doyle's full name is apparently Elmer John Doyle as well. Apparears Ed Doyle may have also went by Bud Doyle, based on this roster the NFL has on their site, which includes a link to a Bud Doyle who matches up with the PFR individual. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Found a relevent article on Ed Doyle here. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:41, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Josh, the article has been fixed now. Cbl62 (talk) 16:09, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh and Cbl62: His name seems to be 'Elmer' and PFR seems to be the only source with 'Ed' – should the article be moved to Bud Doyle (his nickname) or Elmer Doyle? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

• Copying this discussion to the article talk page. Let's discuss further there. Cbl62 (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Monte Kiffin

Can anyone here help to clean up and add references to Monte Kiffin, so it can get posted at ITN/RD? Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, Jacoby Jones needs cleanup as well, for posting at ITN/RD. Natg 19 (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Natg 19: I did a significant amount on the article this past little bit, including 20 references and cleaning up the formatting of the rest. The only thing I see is expanding his Houston Texans section. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ainer Cleve

NFL player from 1920s. Cbl62 (talk) 00:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Team broadcast personnel in team staff templates

I wanted to know if there was a consensus against adding notable team broadcast personnel, such as play-by-play and analysts, to team staff templates? They are usually not listed anywhere else outside of the team's main article (if that) and in many cases are filled with former players who are clearly more notable than most that fill other minor roles such as strength and conditioning coaches and front office assistants. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

• I would oppose. Readers are much more likely to look for information on the play-by-play and color commentator(s) on an existing section like Washington Commanders#Broadcasting instead of Washington Commanders#Staff. If not all 32 NFL team main articles have a broadcasting or TV/radio section, they should have. Any play-by-play announcer, analyst, sideline reporter, studio host, etc., may be employed by the station itself instead of directly by the team. In addition, readers are more likely to look for the announcers next to where the TV/radio stations are listed on other articles. See the infoboxes on 2024 Baltimore Orioles season and 2024 Atlanta Braves season where they list both the stations and the announcers (2024 Washington Nationals season is one of the few 2024 MLB season articles that do not currently do this)--we could easily modify the infobox on 2024 Washington Commanders season to also read something like radio=[[WBIG-FM]] (Big 100):<br />([[Bram Weinstein]] and [[London Fletcher]]) or even list the full broadcast team like on those MLB pages. Template:Washington Commanders staff is currently not used on any page that does not include the team's station. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:23, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Local TV stations instead of streaming platforms?

I attempted to get some sort of consensus on this back in December, but the discussion ended up being about whether or not to include network information in the tables at all per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and quickly died out. While I agree that it's a discussion to be had, this is not what I'm trying to get consensus on now.

I've more than a couple times seen people remove streaming services from schedule tables and game boxes in favor of adding in the local networks broadcasting the games, like in this edit. Including the streaming service in these situations could at least be argued as useful for anyone using Wikipedia as their primary way of finding information about when/how to watch, but I don't see the value in having the local stations there instead. KristofferAG (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

... but the discussion ended up being about whether or not to include network information in the tables at all per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and quickly died out: But nobody there justified having any channel or network information listed. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

I have been slowly trying to get historical schedule tables to match contemporary ones (more or less). Sometimes some IPs will come along and add "notes" game times, networks and even TV announcers. This is even though 2023 articles have TV channels removed. I propose some common schedule template for the column headings be constructed that incorporates whatever parameters are deemed necessary, and also keeps track of team colors that change over time, (e.g. NFLPrimaryStyle) since that seems to be of some concern to some people. In regards to this discussion, I think that a 1:00 ET game between the Rams and the Seahawks listed on FOX that is the same time as a 1:00 ET game between Dallas and Carolina, also on FOX does nothing for the average reader. Since they may get one of those two games or not. I realize now that I said something similar in that discussion but college football, college basketball, MLB, and NBA schedule tables have a template. It might be something to look into.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I don't live in the US so I don't know exactly how it all works over there, but if a game listed to be on "FOX" doesn't necessarily mean people will find it on FOX depending on their location, I don't see any point in keeping the parameter in the tables at all.

Currently the TV parameter is removed when a team's season ends anyway. I don't mind network being included in game boxes as it doesn't really take up any space as commentators are listed anyway, but in my opinion, the TV column could and should be removed from the schedule tables. KristofferAG (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I will 100% guarantee that they will be readded if we do not create a template for the column headings for the schedule tables. As I stated earlier, the NBA, MLB, and college sports have templates, the NFL projects needs to as well. Furthermore, the UFL, and CFL have different formats for the same sport. This is inconsistent and readers need to know what to expect when reading a page. Granted consistency has been a point of emphasis in WT:CFB for a long time, and I am more of a college sports fan/editor.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Why include them in the first place if they are not considered important enough to keep after a season? Doesn't this violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE anyway? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I support a standardized template as well for past and present seasons. The TV network and time parameters should not be included, largely per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. If anything, those parameters should be removed from the templates for college football and other sports. I will add that if there is consensus to keep TV information (which I oppose), streaming service should be used instead of local channels to match the format of games on network TV. For example, a Broncos-Giants game on CBS lists "CBS" on each schedule template rather than the Denver or New York CBS affiliate. Frank Anchor 16:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

NFL recaps in schedule tables

As seen here doesn't this violate WP:External Links?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure I've seen those types of links thousands of times in soccer articles. Such as 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season (promoted to FA in February 2024) and 2022 FIFA World Cup (promoted to GA in March 2024). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, what's the difference between seemingly not opposing them there and removing them from this edit? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93: In my experience, we don't typically include external links for individuals who don't have an article of their own yet. I understand the goal and purpose of those links being added, but it seems rather excessive by comparison. As for the Sounders article, I wouldn't expect that link to ever change unless the site itself goes down permanently. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. We link to the front office page in the template so their profiles are still easily accessible. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I also see no problems with it as long as the link follows the same basic rules as WP:RS and isn't used excessively. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

The biggest issue is described at Wikipedia:Bare URLs § What is wrong with bare URLs? If the link changes, you don't have the luxury of searching for the source's title. And bare urls are less likely to be archived. But I suppose worst case, an alternative replacement can be found. —Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

List of suspensions in the NFL‎

The list of suspensions in the NFL‎ page violates WP:NOTCATALOG; we don't need to document every single suspension the NFL has ever handed out. I propose that we at least give it some sort of inclusion guideline if the page's scope can't be changed, such as omitting the (4-6 game) substance policy suspensions since those basically require no real work from the league as they are automatically given if a player fails a drug test. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)