Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 18

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20→Archive 25

Pending trades and signings

According to this article, due to physicals needed to complete trades and some free agent agreements and the current pandemic affecting the world, we may not see transactions announced for a while. In the article: "The memo says teams may not announce a player has agreed to terms pending a physical -- only if they have executed a contract with the player." Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:33, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Just saw that on NFL Network, that players aren't allowed to travel until March 31, if i heard it correctly. So, we take "agree to terms" and handle it like official (as long as it comes from an official website)? Kante4 (talk) 20:04, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Many teams are putting out statements saying they won't be able to announce official signings until players pass physicals. We can't update our articles until teams announce. I don't think we can accept "agree to terms" because these deals are contingent on physicals. At least in the meantime we can change infoboxes to "free agent". Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Same with the prose (Just so we are clear what to do and what we do not)? In NBA articles we at times list those "agreed to terms" without uodating the infobox. Kante4 (talk) 20:11, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
NBA posts "agreed to terms" in the body? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
At times, and those were replaced when deals were official. Not sure if that's good or not, but here and there it helped before editors changed everything (if i remember it all correctly, not counting on that). Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, those would typically be one-off cases where a named reputable representative was attributed on the record that terms were agreed upon. In the NBA, this might happen during its July moratorium. As the deal has not been completed, neither the infobox nor the lead should misleadingly suggest otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Tagging other "regulars" for input: @Bagumba: @Muboshgu: @RevanFan: @Dissident93: @Larry Hockett: @Tarl N.: @CatcherStorm: @Rockchalk717: @Slasher405: @Yankees10: @Red Director: @Chiraq Bears: (sorry if I've missed people, there are a lot to remember). Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:14, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Lol, sticking out of 2020 for a while... just too much chaos and the sports world is practically dead untill COVID 19 is over Chiraq Bears (talk) 05:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Messed up a couple: @Jrooster49: @PhoenixRancor:. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Aaron08: @PeeJay2K3: Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:16, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Mavbmf22: Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm a regular. Right? Freefalling660 (talk) 20:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Freefalling660: Yes!! I'm sorry! Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: nah its all good. I'm just pushing your buttons. Freefalling660 (talk) 20:30, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Your timing is excellent. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:31, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't know about that one. CatcherStorm talk 20:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@CatcherStorm: Oops, I meant I was pinging everyone for input on how to proceed with NFL transactions in general, given many transactions won't be considered "official" potentially for a while. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:20, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Tough call. Agree with changing the infoboxes to free agent so that there is something. Red Director (talk) 20:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)


@Eagles247: We’d have to change it right back once players pass their physical, which I assume most will. Personally I prefer just leaving it as is, and if they fail their physical just revert it. CatcherStorm talk 20:23, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

This is how teams are announcing moves right now. Is that good enough for WP:RSBREAKING? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I suspect the right thing to do is leave the text as is (or change infobox to free agent, for those who are no longer under contract) and put announced incomplete transactions in a separate, easily recognized hatnote. Avoid making major changes to infobox or text until the transactions are actually complete. Tarl N. (discuss) 20:32, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
This does sound pretty good. I think it's tough to monitor all articles and reverting over and over again until they are official (April most likely). So a compromise may be needed if we won't protect most articles. Kante4 (talk) 20:50, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I have no opposition to this approach, assuming people will watch over the articles and make sure they stay that way until they pass the physical and the contract becomes official. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:03, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
I'd be fine helping out with that, I've already adopted the role of "guardian of the wiki". Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: It should not be a hatnote per WP:LEGITHAT. Hatnotes are typically for disambiguating, not to provide information on the subject.—Bagumba (talk) 22:17, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Perhaps it's time for WP:IAR? Either that, or some kind of special infobox that says "yes, it's known that he might go to xxxx, but it has not yet happened". The idea would be to make it something prominent and easily recognizable, so we can hunt them down and kill them later on. Tarl N. (discuss) 00:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: The {{Current sports transaction}} tag provides that.—Bagumba (talk) 01:04, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: All that template does is say "something is in progress". The Brady article has that template, and the unceasing storm of edit requests on the talk page indicate editors aren't realizing that means we're holding off editing the article until the 30th. We need something that says "yes, we know he's reported to go to the Buccaneers. It hasn't happened yet, it can't happen until..." Tarl N. (discuss) 02:01, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: There is a customizable |reason= field, where that could be mentioned. That aside, are there any sources that have gone on the record regarding Brady?—Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Wasn't aware of that, will play with it. In answer to your question, the NFL website reports it, although it's still "according to...". Tarl N. (discuss) 02:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Tested it, the reason does not appear in the article. That's what we need - an acknowledgment visible to readers of the article showing that the rumors are known, but are still only rumor until paperwork is signed. Tarl N. (discuss) 02:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: It works at the 4th example under template:Current_sports_transaction/doc#Usage. Do you have a diff or testpage of where it fails? (If it helps, you dont need to ping me as I have this on watchlist)—Bagumba (talk) 02:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure why it didn't work for me yesterday. Either way, I've modified the Brady article with a reason, "...is that a contract with Buccaneers has been finalized, but not signed. It's unlikely to be signed while the NFL travel ban (through at least March 31st) is in effect."Tarl N. (discuss) 17:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: FWIW, Brady is taking his physical with a neutral physician in NYC today, so the contract should be finalized soon. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: That tweet only acknowledges the existence of the NFL Network report; the Bears did not confirm or deny the report.—Bagumba (talk) 22:29, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know! I appreciate it Aaron08 (talk) 20:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

I had seen that. I know it’s gonna be a battle with IPs.--Rockchalk717 22:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Regarding input though, I do feel we should wait until announcements are made. This is an unprecedented time and we’ll need to make sure infoboxes are accurate.--Rockchalk717 22:53, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

While Brady's article shows him as a free agent, Philip Rivers is listed as having signed with the Colts, sourced to NFL Network reports from "sources". The reference says it's just a signature away from coming true. Ideally, all players should be listed consistently.—Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I’ve reverted these changes and updated the hidden note. Phillip Rivers and Tom Brady both should be listed as free agents until they sign.--Rockchalk717 06:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Packers (and others do the same maybe) are reporting that Bulaga and Martinez agreed to terms (Bulaga even announced his new team on instagram). I can see IP's and editors changing the articles. Do we revert those articles with "announcements" like that and wait until if's "official"? Just so i/we know if it's worth reverting until they have signed. Kante4 (talk) 09:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Per above, I see no issue with this as long as the wording directly states "agrees to terms" instead of "signed". ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:38, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
What about leaving the infoboxes as is, but add new subsections for their reported new teams with a one or two line statement that states "agreed to terms", but also additional wording like "..., however it won't become official until..." and then put in a date or a passed physical or... whatever. Maybe this is what is already suggested and I'm just rephrasing it. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:51, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
We do something similar with trades, so I don’t see an issue with that. What does everyone else think?--Rockchalk717 14:37, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
I agree. Already reverted twice on some articles but other editors just adds it back. I think adding it with "agreed to sign" saves us time, energy and trouble. Kante4 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the info! Looks like the Bucs and Colts have yet to announce the Tom Brady and Phillip Rivers transactions, though I imagine they will soon if that’s the case.--Rockchalk717 01:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
The Brady to Buccaneers transaction has been announced as signed. Presumably others will follow, the travel ban is no longer the limiting factor. Tarl N. (discuss) 15:03, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

(Just skimmed all the above so maybe this point was made, but) just because there’s a travel ban in place doesn’t mean teams aren’t faxing over contracts (see: Brady), and most are using local doctors to have players take their physicals. So in many cases, especially when the teams make announcements, the deals are inked. There are certainly some exceptions, but for the most part it seems to be business as usual. TropicAces (talk) 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)tropicAces

@TropicAces: Yes, some of the "major" signings have been officially processed by now (Brady, Rivers, most of the traded players), but by my personal count there are still 150+ transactions that have been reported in the media that haven't been announced by teams outside of the "media reports say we signed..." tweets. There's no issue with the official signings, but the "media reports say we signed..." and "agreed to terms with" tweets are not reliable enough per WP:RSBREAKING and WP:SPORTSTRANS. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
  • An update from Ian Rapoport says this doesn't actually change much, players can still get physicals from third-party physicians near them. They don't necessarily need to be part of the NFL Physicians Society. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for input

Just to be clear about handling NFL transactions right now:

  • Transactions reported on the NFL.com transactions page and announcements by teams indicating "official" signings (not just "agreed to terms") should be considered absolutely official, and this applies to player articles, roster templates, and roster navboxes.
  • Team announcements that "according to reports..." are not reliable enough for anything to be updated here.
  • Reports from "insiders" like Adam Schefter, Ian Rapoport, Mike Garofolo, Profootballtalk, Josina Anderson, etc., are usually based on anonymous sources and are not reliable enough for anything to be updated here.
  • NFL.com and ESPN articles are sometimes reliable. In cases in which the article only relies on the reporters listed above, it should not be considered reliable enough. In articles in which they cite a team announcement as "official", they should be okay.

The remaining "sources" for transactions that I'm still unsure about include announcements from teams that they have "agreed to terms" with a player, and announcements from the players themselves. How should we be treating these announcements in regards to updating player articles, roster templates, and roster navboxes? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

  • My opinion is that the roster templates should only be updated once one of the "absolutely official" sources report transactions (official announcements by teams and NFL.com transactions page). I would be okay with updating player articles if a team or player announces "agreed to terms", except that this would be inconsistent with the roster templates and I think consistency is more important here. I have been generally enforcing only transactions announced by the "absolutely official" sources site-wide, but several editors (mostly newer ones and IPs) have contested this. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Player and templates should be treated the same. When there’s some sort of official announcement from the team or the player themselves, regardless of its “agreed to terms” or “officially signed”, we should go ahead and update the page or template.--Rockchalk717 19:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • I say we include them as official because it's not like the team is citing anonymous sources like an insider does when they claim the same "agreed to terms". Yes, a player can fail a physical or back out before the contract is signed, but those cases are so exceedingly rare that I don't see why that should be the driving reason against this. I understand your argument Eagles247, but this is a (hopefully) one-time special case caused by something the NFL has never seen before. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: I'm not sure coronavirus is making as large of an impact on these signings as it seems. March 19 had 9 official signings, March 20 had 20, March 21 had 24, March 23 had 23, and March 24 had 28. That's a total of 104 players that were still able to take their physicals and execute contracts in the first six days of free agency. Last year there were 175 official signings in the first six days of free agency. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Eagles247, I'm aware, but it has had some effect on this free agency that it normally wouldn't have had (teams have never previously announced "agreed to terms" until the contract was signed and physical passed). Due to that, we should have some sort of exception for this, otherwise it's going to be an uphill battle. Seems like consensus so far is for this as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:31, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Darqueze Dennard's contract with Jaguars, which was announced by the team as "agreed to terms" on March 19, has now fallen through [1]. The tweet says the deal fell through because of contract terms, not a failed physical. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:15, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Michael Brockers' deal just fell through too. I think you could make the case that because of this effect on free agency it is actually better to wait because there is a higher chance these deals are not going to go through. I'm not concerned with the "uphill battle" with IPs and newer users, page protection works and luckily many deals have already been officially completed now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  • Marqui Christian's agreement with Jets fell through now. Dennard and Christian weren't announced by the teams as "agreed to terms" because those teams are waiting for official signings, but other teams who have been announcing "agreed to terms" contracts would have announced these and been inaccurate. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:34, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann (American football) to WP:FAC

Cbl62 and I are going to be taking Bob Mann (American football) to WP:FAC in the next few weeks. If anyone has a few minutes and wants to read through the article and/or review it, it would be appreciated! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Eagles247, I think I fixed the item you mentioned in your edit summary! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @
Yes, you addressed my concern there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

NFL 100 Team Finalist -> Career Highlights and Awards? WP:NFLINFOBOX

During this corona downtime I noticed the finalist for the NFL 100 Team were not recognized. This seemed like a monumental achievement and something I could easily edit. It is come to my attention that 2nd team All Pros are deemed more of a 'Career Highlight and Award' than being named on a short list of greatest players over the course of the NFLs 100 year history.

Is this really the case? It seems out of touch when comparing significance. I think it adds a ton of perspective and value to the bios, for instance look at Bill Willis:

Career highlights and awards 

   NFL champion (1950)
   3× Pro Bowl (1950–1952)
   4× First-team All-Pro (1950–1953)
   4× AAFC champion (1946–1949)
   3× First-team All-AAFC (1946–1948)
   Second-team All-AAFC (1949)
   NFL 1940s All-Decade Team
   Cleveland Browns Ring of Honor
   National champion (1942)
   Ohio State Buckeyes No. 99 retired

He looks like a forgotten player from the 40s and 50s, truly lost to history. Having a link to the NFL 100 Team and Finalists page shows that his ability transcended enough time to still be regarded as one of the most notable defensive tackles in NFL History as his name appears next to fairly modern day stars like Warren Sapp.

If I need to go back and delete the line of text in the career highlights and awards I will, but I will be baffled while doing so. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgconboy (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

For clarification, this user is requesting that NFL 100th Anniversary All-Time Team finalists have that information be included in infoboxes and at WP:NFLINFOBOX, and is seeking consensus for this addition. Similarly, we do not include Heisman Trophy finalists or Pro Football Hall of Fame finalists at the moment, but include what Pgconboy considers "runner-up awards" like second-team All-Pro. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:14, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to help clarify Eagles247 comment added by Pgconboy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgconboy (talk • contribs) 17:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Listing someone as being a finalist is the equivalent of a participation trophy. It is a completely different thing in listing the "Second-team All-Pro" since the NFL announces both teams in a strict order. For example, 2019 All-Pro teams. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Sabbatino, So to be clear, it is your stance that being named a top 7-12 OLB over the course of the NFLs 100 Year history (the equivalent of being an NFL 100 Finalist) is a 'participation trophy' and being named a 2nd Team All Pro for a single year outshines it as a crowning achievement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgconboy (talk • contribs) 20:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

The NFL 100 team was also announced in a strict order. All finalists for a position, and then team members: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_100th_Anniversary_All-Time_Team — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgconboy (talk • contribs) 20:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

After taking a few minutes to look around it is clear no one here cares about the NFL Anniversary Teams, (Eu)Gene Upshaw is missing his 75th Anniversary status on his Career Highlights and Awards and a page doesn't even exist for the 50th Anniversary team that was made in 1969 that was comprised of 16 members and 30 runner ups. I don't know what kind of information gate keeping agenda you people employ but it makes perfect sense that the consensus viewpoint here is that a 2nd Team AP All Pro is more important information than being a 100th Anniversary Finalist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgconboy (talk • contribs) 22:21, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pgconboy: No one here has an agenda, and attacks like that violate Wikipedia's policy on assuming good faith. We're all volunteers here, and it's more likely that no one has gotten around to creating that page yet or updating the others. Looking into Gene Upshaw's page, it appears that it was vandalized on February 22, 2018 with an IP user removing the honor in the process, with a good-faith IP user restoring some of the content the next day. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:53, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: If a center was an NFL Finalist it means they were honored as being in the top 5-9th at their position for the NFLs entire history. When a single 2nd team AP All Pro is viewed as more meaningful information, I obviously am out of touch with this reality and have nothing to contribute to Wikipedia. I will undo the revisions tomorrow.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Pgconboy (talk • contribs) 23:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)

Only 9 centers were nominated, the exchange rate on that is essentially making a 11 YEAR All Decade team.

@Pgconboy: Thanks for the bold edits. Wikipedia being crowdsourced, we all bring different perspectives. When there are differing opinions, we proceed with dispute resolution, like in this discussion, to try to reach a consensus. The topic you have touched upon is a classic case of what is considered a "key fact" to be included in an infobox or meriting mention in the lead of a biography. Independent of the infobox debate, at the very least, I don't think there would be any objection to mentioning a player being a finalist in the prose in the body of the article. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: :@Sabbatino: :@Bagumba: I undid all the NFL 100th Anniversary Team Finalist, spot checked a bunch and I don't believe I missed any. Wikipedia says "Non-autoconfirmed user rapidly reverting edits" next to some, though the original changes are gone so I don't think it is causing trouble.

In the event I consult Wikipedia for award information in the future I will make a mental note the information is being compiled by people that think being honored as a top 8-16 CB of all time like Aeneas Williams, top 7-14 S like Donnie Shell, the 3rd or 4th greatest punter of all time Jerrel Wilson, or being a top 11-24 WR in the last 87 years since the forward pass was legal, that the 26 member panel team that debated 100 years of NFL history, all that is a participation trophy and is insignificant pixel space on the highlight section compared to 2nd team AP All Pros. Pgconboy (talk) 15:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

RFC regarding tables

Please see Template talk:CBB yearly record start#RFC request for an RFC that has widespread implications for this project. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 17:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

This issue had now been generalized into a broader RFC, which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility#RfC on table captions. This has wide-ranging implications for this and other sports projects. Please take a look. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 15:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

75th anniversary 2-way players

Moved from #NFL 100 Team Finalist -> Career Highlights and Awards? WP:NFLINFOBOX
 – —Bagumba (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I noticed some of the 2 way 75th Anniversary Team members have 75th Team in the NFL Info box (Like Bednarik and others don't like George McAfee). What way should we unify this? Note 2-way in the info box with a link to the 75th page? Pgconboy (talk) 14:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pgconboy: I actually wasn't aware that there was a two-way team selected as part of the 75th anniversary (National Football League 75th Anniversary All-Time Team § 75th Anniversary All-Time Two Way Team). Looking at Marion Motley's profile at the HOF, they list the two-way team as "75th Anniversary All-Two-Way Team". That could be the way to go to distinguish it from the more familar 75th anniversary team. As for the infobox, I'm not sure how notable it is. I don't see too much mention in sources, but did find a few (Dayton Daily News, Christian Science Monitor) If it's really that notable, perhaps it should also be a WP:SPINOUT into a separate page too? I'll wait for others comment on whether it should be in bios' infoboxes. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: My stance is and always will be that sub teams (like the 2 way team) and honorable mentions for NFL Anniversary teams that come out every 25 years are far more noteworthy than 2nd team All Pros, but I know I am in the minority. I think the 2 way team at the bottom of the 75th page is fine, though I am unfamiliar with wiki protocols. Pgconboy (talk) 16:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Pgconboy: FWIW, Bednarik's obituary at The New York Times did not mention the 75th anniv 2-way team, but did mention the 50th selection. I'd be more convinced seeing evidence that the 75th 2-way team is generally mentioned when describing a member's legacy. Again, there's more leeway if someone just added it to a bio's prose as opposed to adding to an infobox, which is ideally reserved for "key facts."—Bagumba (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The trophy that was made for each player gives the notion that it was a legitimate offshoot of the 75th All Time Team: https://goldinauctions.com/NFL_75th_Anniversary_Team_Trophy__George_Musso_-LOT15771.aspx Bednarik also has his award listed at the NFL HOF website under awards and honors: https://www.profootballhof.com/players/chuck-bednarik/highlights/ Why it's not more popular in the media? I would guess since most of the 2 way players have long been dead, there simply wasn't much traction to talk about it. 10 of the 19 players died before the end of 1995, that's back in the 33.6k dial up modem stages of the internet (a third of the team didn't make it to the 80's). All that being said, it's evident that the notoriety of the two-way team completely pales in press compared to the 75th Team. From what it sounds like, it was appointed by the same committee so despite the lack of print appeal, I don't know how much less important it is. In 1994 the 2-way player was dead and buried, along with most team members, but that doesn't take away the significance of the best to do it 50 years prior. I do think Bednariks should change, claiming 75th team isn't indicative of what people think it means. Pgconboy (talk) 19:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Colin Kaepernick

The fake reports of him signing with the Jets got me thinking (and I see a similar discussion on his talk page), when exactly is it gonna be ok to make his page reflect like his career is over? For any other player we would already have it reflecting his career being over, but I feel like because of the kneeling and everything surrounding him the last 4 years, he’s become a special case. I know he’s still seeking a team, which by definition makes him a free agent, but if a player hasn’t played in that long, historically, they don’t typically get signed again. So again, the main question is when is it ok to change his page to his career being over?--Rockchalk717 21:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the Colin Kaepernick talk page from October/November 2019 if you want to include your thoughts there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)
My thoughts are in that talk page discussion. In general, if a player hasn't received any real interest from NFL teams (workouts, visits, signings) within a 12-month period, their articles should be changed to "former". In Kaepernick's case, he had an official workout in November 2019 so I think his page should be updated in November 2020 if there isn't any more interest by then. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)

Specialists in Super Bowl starting lineup sections

It was brought to my attention here that several Super Bowl articles have kickers and punters listed along with the rest of the game's starters in the "Starting lineup" sections. The NFL does not consider specialists to be "starters" for games, as evidenced by gamebooks and statistics pages, so IMO they should not be listed in those sections. TheWikiJedi suggested that maybe specialists should be listed somewhere at least. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Maybe putting the entire roster, in addition to the starting lineups, for both teams in the Super Bowl article? That will have the special teamers listed. NBA finals pages include rosters for both teams and NHL pages list it for Stanley Cup finals as well.--Rockchalk717 06:56, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I thought that was standard. Guess not. The World Series don't seem to have either.—Bagumba (talk) 07:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah I noticed that, I was kinda surprised they didn’t include the rosters. I think listing the rosters and starting lineups (excluding special teams) would be the best way to include special teams players.--Rockchalk717 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)
If official statistics don't consider special teams players to be starters, I don't see any reason for us to crowbar them in. We are not here to right great wrongs, so while it may be a shame that special teamers don't get the same recognition as players on the offensive or defensive platoons, that is the way it is. – PeeJay 23:14, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a consensus about Combine results?

I remember the subject of pre-draft measurables boxes being discussed but I can't remember how it resolved. It just seems to me that the measurable boxes are never really explained and usually a useless information dump, especially when they are included for undrafted players (example Chandon Sullivan), and all they really do is throw off the formatting of the article. GPL93 (talk) 15:26, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It is WP:FANCRUFT.—Bagumba (talk) 17:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Previous discussions about this topic for reference: January 2010, April 2016, September 2018. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:29, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba & Eagles247 thank you. So I'm taking that there isn't a consensus either way? Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I'm surprised there's a consensus not to include this info. Under what circumstances could we include it? – PeeJay 18:32, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I think truly notable performances (record breakers such as J. J. Nelson or players who's stock was significantly boosted by their combine performance) could be included, and even then it should probably be discussed in the article itself beyond the measurables template. In the vast majority of cases it isn't encyclopedic and isn't even explained, it's just a random numbers dump. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@GPL93: Consensus can change, even from no consensus to having one.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
This kind of trivia should be removed. Every record from the combine can be written in prose and we certainly do not need a table for that, which does not even explain anything. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Seems like there is growing consensus to remove them, then? I can properly nominate the template at WP:TFD if that's the case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:58, 11 March 2020 (UTC)
Dissident93 I'd support that measure or at the least a formal consensus dictating that the template not be added except in very specific cases. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Would "very specific cases" just include ones with combine records? Because even then, that stuff is better off written into prose (and it's not like they would hold every drill record, just one or two.) ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Dissident93 You are right, best just to delete the whole thing. If not they will almost certainly still be used improperly. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
GPL93, the template is protected so somebody else with edit permissions needs to nominate it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Just to put a hat on this for future reference, the TFD closed as "no consensus" to delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:47, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
To follow up on this, we should at least update the template to get rid of dumb stuff like hand size (trivial, nobody cares a week after the combine unlike the other measurements), and to also automatically hide any cell that does not have any information. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
If it were that dumb, why would they measure it? The combine measurables are very limited, so I think it's fair enough that we include them all. The design of the template means none of it takes up that much room. – PeeJay 16:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Job security.—Bagumba (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
PeeJay2K3: Even if so, there is still no reason to show unused cells. It should be an easy enough addition. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 07:04, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
Oh sure, if a parameter is unpopulated in the code, it shouldn't display in the article (unless it's a mandatory parameter). – PeeJay 08:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Denver Broncos color codes

I would like to start a new discussion regarding the Denver Broncos' colors. Officially speaking, the Broncos' primary color is orange, per DenverBroncos.com & the club's 2019 media guide. With that said, yes, I'm aware that white text on an orange background (such as this:  #FB4F14 ) fails WP:CONTRAST guidelines & should not be used. However, if we use black text on an orange background (such as this:  #FB4F14 ), it passes the contrast guidelines. I'm requesting other editors to comment here so we can reach a WP:CONSENSUS regarding the formatting for the Broncos' colors at Module:Gridiron color/data. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Below are the current and proposed color schemes. Discussion from December 2019 here for reference. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Season breakdown templates?

I noticed that 1983 Dallas Cowboys season uses two different templates to talk about the season's games: Template:Americanfootballbox and Template:AFB game box start (and other templates in the AFB game box system), which is rather distracting. I don't have the technical know-how to address it, but I wanted to ask if there was an agreed standardization regarding which boxes are used for the season breakdowns. Spot checking various other season pages, I noticed that some use the former template and others use the latter template, others have a mix, and some don't even use the template at all. bibliomaniac15 02:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No one uses {{AFB game box start}} in any new articles any more. In fact, I've been working through some old articles to get rid of it. – PeeJay 09:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

Isaac Alarcon

@Eagles247: removed the undrafted information from the article Isaac Alarcón and he is also suggesting that the player is not notable enough, even though his story is appearing in relevant sites like ESPN and SI, plus he is going to be participating in an NFL camp and he is going to make the Cowboys practice squad.

I would request your help to figure what to do. My arguments are: 1) For sure he didn't play any professional football, he went from high school, to college, to the NFL, and many articles confirm this. Example: https://www.americanfootballinternational.com/dallas-cowboys-add-huge-mexican-ot-isaac-alarcon-to-roster/ 2) What I found is that he was a senior in college in 2019, which that should be good enough to clear the question if he was eligible. He actually had to leave his last semester unfinished to join the Program. In the following link, translating it to English mentions: Alarcon is one semester away from graduating from Automotive Design Engineering (IDA) at Tec de Monterrey. https://maximoavance.com/2020/04/isaac-alarcon-el-mexicano-con-el-talento-la-disciplina-y-la-fe-para-triunfar-en-la-nfl/ 3) Even if you consider the contract being different (which it is), a player that was signed by an NFL team and was not drafted, by definition is undrafted, this is a clear cut definition.Tecmo (talk) 23:09, 1 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tecmo: For context, see this discussion from my talk page, as well as this edit I made to the article that is being disputed here. As to the notability claims, being a practice squad member is not covered in WP:NGRIDIRON and there have been many articles deleted at AFD despite the player being on an NFL practice squad. This player has received coverage for only one event (WP:BLP1E), and I find it highly unlikely he receives much more future coverage unless he makes the active regular season roster. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: If you are going ahead and remove a current training camp attendee and a current practice squad member, you will need to do that with all the players in the NFL that are in this situation, even most of the current rookies.

In regards to the article you are using as a reference, the automatic translation it is using from Spanish to English is too literal. The Tecnologico de Monterrey is a college. "Liga Mayor" doesn't mean Major League as in professional football, it means a college league like the NCAA, here is the English Wikipedia article about it: ONEFA.Tecmo (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

@Tecmo: Several of the recently-drafted and undrafted players are not yet notable, and I do not think some of them should have articles at the moment. However, in the cases of the draft picks, it is much more likely they will receive significant coverage soon, as draft picks usually make team rosters and play in games, or at least garner enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Only two of the previous 18 International Player Pathway players have actually played in NFL games so far, so it is possible but doubtful that Alarcon ever plays in a game and/or receives the coverage required to warrant his own article. In any case, WP:OTHERSTUFF exists and each article should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: You are free to request for a deletion of the article if you feel that it is necessary. Returning to the point of your edit taking out all of the undrafted free agent information from the article, I think that I have shown even using current English Wikipedia articles, that this player was in his senior college season and was eligible for the NFL draft and that he didn't play professional football, so I will revert your edit if everybody is OK with this.Tecmo (talk) 18:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tecmo: I do not agree. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: Obviously you do not agree, because you are using 1 poorly translated article to make your point and that is why we are also discussing it in an open forum to hear other neutral opinions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecmo (talk • contribs) 19:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tecmo: I still see no source that explicitly states Alarcon was eligible for last weekend's draft, and being one semester away from graduation does not necessarily mean someone is a "senior", so despite your own analysis of the situation I do not believe it is proper to say Alarcon was signed an undrafted free agent. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: Here are 2 articles that can help settle this argument one way or the other: 1) This article:https://operations.nfl.com/updates/the-players/nfl-international-combine-heads-to-germany/, from the NFL website, that mentions that to participate in this program "All participants must meet NFL eligibility requirements" and "The athletes will have the opportunity to showcase their talents to NFL scouts in March in hopes of signing as a free agent". 2) Wikipedia refers to an undrafted free agent as: "The term "undrafted free agent" is most common in the National Football League (NFL), where rookies enter directly into the NFL and do not play in a minor league system". The player we are discussing is considered a rookie. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tecmo (talk • contribs) 20:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Tecmo: It's still original research to construct from that analysis that he signed as an undrafted free agent. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Headers for seasons

I recently had a discussion with another user over whether or not the sections for individual seasons for a player should have headers. Given how articles such as Peyton Manning have such headers, I find them to be useful as they help differentiate the seasons from the table of contents. The discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Eagles247#1k-1k_season DeathTrain (talk) 02:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

There's a couple of common extremes. Some bios suffer from MOS:OVERSECTION with too many short sections. It's OK to combine seasons into one section. Some journeyman with little text might even combine multiple teams together. On the other side are star players (QB, backs, receivers) that get into WP:NOTDIARY and are written WP:PROSELINE style e.g. "In week 3, he passed for 353 yards ... In week 5, he passed for 3 touchdowns. In week 6, he threw for 266 yard and ran for a career-high 41 in a win ..." Not every game is important in the big picture (WP:DUE). Even each of a QB's 300-yard games doesn't necessarily need to be mentioned. Specific game-by-game details are better handled in the team's season article. It's better to find sources that analyze a stretch of weeks or seasons instead of pulling everything from game recaps, which can unduly treat each game (or season) with equal weight.—Bagumba (talk) 06:52, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I have had multiple discussions with DeathTrain about headers in articles, but I believe the one they are bringing up here is related to the content of section headers as opposed to the quantity of headers. They want to have Christian McCaffrey's 2019 season section header be called "2019 season: 1k-1k season" instead of just "2019 season" and I've argued that "2019 season" is already neutral and descriptive enough. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
"1K-1K" should be avoided per WP:NEO. Headers should be neutral. A plain year is better than having a bad header. And McCaffrey's article does suffer PROSELINE.—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba:Does that mean you are completely against having headers for season sections? Could another header such as "1000 yards rushing and receiving season" or "First-Team All-Pro" be more appropriate? DeathTrain (talk) 00:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not completely against headers. They need to be good ones, not clichés or putting one just to have one. "1000 yards ..." is too winded, "First-team All-Pro" seems over specific and non-distinguishing when he was already 2nd team All-Pro the season before. The biggest problem with the article is not a lack of headers, it's the weekly stat dumps.—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba:So what would a better heading be? I only put headers for what I believe are significant seasons, and I believe that this is one such season. DeathTrain (talk) 14:00, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for input regarding status of XFL

Hello. There is a discussion at Talk:XFL_(2020)#Chapter_11_bankruptcy regarding the status of the XFL following their suspension of league operations and bankruptcy filing that may interest members of this WikiProject. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)


As For what I think is the rule, We would have to wait for entities to "cease operations". That goes along with chapter 7 bankruptcy, but they filed for 11. As an example, the AAF officially folded when they filed for chapter 7 bankruptcy, 15 days after they suspended operations. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 16:49, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

14 team brackets

Has anyone considered making Template:14TeamBracket-NFL yet, because next year will be the first under the new format. --–Piranha249 18:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Asking for a friend, this is important for next season's playoffs. Hopefully we get some progress started. –Piranha249 20:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Plays with names

I feel like we need to have a discussion to produce some guidelines for when notable plays that are relevant in NFL history should have their own articles, because it's a bit of a Wild West out there.

For instance, Helmet Catch and Super Bowl 42 each have their own article, although there are some (yet to be resolved) debates on the Helmet Catch talk page about whether or not the play should have its own article.

Also, The Catch is the name of an article, while 1981 NFC Championship Game is a re-direct page. When I originally created the page 1998 NFC Championship Game, it was originally called Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game because of the infamy of the play has extended beyond the game itself. I understand the issue with the original title, especially since there was no common name, but the same logic applies to each article, in my opinion.

The Sea of Hands refers to an individual play, but in this instance, it makes sense, because making it a part of an article titled, "1974 AFC divisional playoff game between the Miami Dolphins and the Oakland Raiders," would be silly.

Lastly, it was suggested that the 2018 NFC Championship Game article be titled "NOLA No-Call" because of a common name, but this was universally shot down.

Four different scenarios with different logic to each. I understand that WP:COMMONNAME comes in play here, but solidifying a published set of rules regarding this may be beneficial, especially if the common name refers to an individual play rather than the entire game. Helltopay-27 (talk) 23:45, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

The play must meet WP:GNG to have a dedicated page. Notable topics do not necessarily all get separate pages: Per WP:N: Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article. Non-playoff games are typically not notable. For example, Holy Roller (American football) is properly named after the play. If the article is about a play, it's WP:UNDUE to give a detailed recap of the entire game. A summary background to put the play in context is sufficient. The focus should be on the play. Do we typically have dedicated pages for playoff games like AFC or NFC championships? If not, then we probably shouldnt merely because it has a famous play. —Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
There is a recently-created article related to this discussion called Colts Catastrophe, if anyone wants to review it. Aside from the non-neutral article title that is not really supported in reliable sources, I doubt this play is notable enough for its own article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:20, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Based just on the existing sources cites (no WP:BEFORE), I don't consider NFL.com or NFL Network independent, and I generally dont think SBNation is reliable. So I dont see WP:SUSTAINED being met either.—Bagumba (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
There has been discussion before on the debate about what is notable, the actual play or the game itself. I.e. the only reason "a play" can become notable is because it is part of a larger game and had implications in either the result of that game or larger implications on the NFL. An example of this is Fail Mary. The game was unremarkable until the last play. However, common usage of "Fail Mary" refers to the game itself as much as just the last play. This occurs with other similar plays, the play begins to define the entire game. I am not arguing for either point, just noting that it is difficult to differentiate the notability of a play without looking at the larger context of the game itself. That's why we usually don't see these types of articles for pre-season games, because regardless of how crazy a play could go, it still doesn't mean much since it is in the pre-season. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:41, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
But is the interest in the overall Fail Mary game more recent because of COVID-19 and rebroadcasts amidst the lack of live sports? And I dont remember if there were other questionable calls in the game with the replacement refs.—Bagumba (talk) 01:02, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean. I'm not arguing about the notability of the Fail Mary game (which is clearly established), I am just noting that it is difficult to distinguish the notability of a single play vs the overall game that that play occurred in. Fail Mary is a good example of that, in that the play is what made the game notable. Thus, the article focuses on the play, but includes coverage of the whole game and its post-game impacts. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
My point with my post was more to propose solidified rules for naming conventions that can be published on the WikiProject's main page. These guidelines would of course have to comply with all of Wikipedia's overarching guidelines, but would also apply specifically to pages that fall under this project.
For instance, if a famous play known through sports media/NFL fandom occurs during a championship game, conference or otherwise, it would then be incorporated into articles about the conference championship or Super Bowl itself; such games (needless to say for Super Bowls) garner enough attention and coverage to justify separate articles, even if it is most notable for an individual play. That would include merging Helmet Catch with Super Bowl 42, Wide Right with Super Bowl 25, etc.
Famous plays outside of the context of championship games would be named for the play, for instance, Holy Roller (American football), Fail Mary, 4th and 26, The Sea of Hands, etc., etc. As noted above, the games can become known as the name of the play itself, and the background the game and the resultant aftermath are often required to provide proper encyclopedic context (at least, in my opinion). Therefore, I don't think that WP:UNDUE would necessarily apply.
Thoughts, or other courses of action? I'd just like a set of solidified, published guidelines so that there isn't a debate on every article's talk page. Helltopay-27 (talk) 21:38, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Just a heads up, it looks like NFL.com changed its player stats URLs again and many (or most) of the links in the infoboxes do not work now. The good news is it appears NFL.com has finally made all of its webpages HTTPS secure. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

I just noticed that. I was editing a rookie page that didn't have a link yet and didn't know how to link it. How do we handle that link? Jrooster49 (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
It should be fixable from within the infobox, right? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:34, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
The |nflnew= parameter should work now. In the case of Jalen Reagor, adding |nflnew=jalen-reagor will link directly to his new stat page. I believe all URLs that used the old |nfl=AAA000000 no longer redirects to the correct page. We'll have to eventually eliminate the |nfl= from infoboxes and replace everything with |nflnew=. When there are two players with the same name, NFL.com just adds -2 or -3, etc., after their last names. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Nice, so it's been made so simple now that we don't even need to copypaste arbitrary numbers anymore. This seems like a job a bot can handle, at least in terms of converting over to nflnew. The ID property on Wikidata should also be updated to support the new format (currently only accepts the numbers). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:54, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Okay, |nflnew= and |nfl= now have identical functions and outputs, so no need to change one parameter name to the other. This is a better strategy than just removing the nfl parameter everywhere. I'm a little wary of a bot making all of the changes, specifically because of the duplicate player names issue. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:08, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
I've put in an AWB request at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/Tasks#Infobox_NFL_player_url_changes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:24, 14 May 2020 (UTC)
Moved from Talk:National Football League § NFL.com recap link change as of May 13, 2020
 – Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Hello, when I was overhauling the NFL wikitable schedules dating from 2001–2008, I noticed that the link was changed when I tried to add links to schedules in NFL articles that doesn't have highlights was all gone all of sudden as of May 13, 2020, and instead got 404 error every time I tried to click on a link E g. https://www.nfl.com/gamecenter/2007090912/2007/REG1/titans@jaguars?icampaign=GC_schedule_rr and now NFL.com is now only focusing on 2009–Present recaps. with links like this E.g https://www.nfl.com/games/jaguars-at-colts-2009-reg-1. Can somebody help me here? Jack Skellington III (talk) 18:54, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

I really fucking hate when this happens. It seems like it's impossible to access any historical data from before 2011 right now. Makes me so grateful that someone from UEFA is actually going round fixing broken links to their website right now; if only the NFL could do the same. – PeeJay 19:30, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
@Jack Skellington III: @PeeJay2K3: I've moved this discussion here, as the WikiProject talk page is the more appropriate forum for this type of discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

Jared Mayden

Are undrafted free agents who end up signed by a team but who have yet to play in even a pre-season game considered notable per WP:NGRIDIRON? Perhaps this player received enough WP:SIGCOV while playing for Alabama per WP:SPORTBASIC or WP:COLLATH, but I didn’t find much after a cursory Google search beyond the types of stuff that seems to be WP:ROUTINE coverage when a team signs a player. Moreover, given the uncertainty about the upcoming season (though that’s not this individual’s fault in anyway), he might not really be written about in a meaningful way if the NFL doesn’t return to its normal schedule anytime soon. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

When I assess these types of players, I first look at WP:NGRIDIRON. If they don't meet that, then I assess against WP:NCOLLATH. If they don't meet that, then I assess against WP:GNG. It just comes don't to how much coverage they have received. Devon Cajuste was a good example of this type of player that had WP:GNG without a significant NFL or college career. I tend to lean deletionist on these type of players, but others are much more inclusionist (basically saying the routine local sports coverage of the player meets the "significant coverage" criteria of WP:GNG--with the NFL as it is today, basically any college player who has a chance gets a lot of coverage...). Based on a cursory review of Jared Mayden, I would probably vote delete at WP:AFD, but based on the coverage I think that it would end up being kept. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 15 May 2020 (UTC)
Seems to meet GNG per [2] [3] [4]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

Bob Mann (American football) at WP:FAC

If any members are interested and available to review an article, Cbl62 and I have nominated Bob Mann (American football) for WP:FAC. The nomination can be found here. Any comments would be appreciated. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Justin Blackmon

Isn't it time to remove Justin Blackmon from being considered a valid member of the Jaguars? It's been over a half a decade since he was last on their active list, and we don't list R. Jay Soward as a member of the Jaguars despite him being suspended in 2002 and never released from his contract either. It just doesn't make much common sense when Blackmon is a known alcoholic and later stated (I can't find the source right now) that he has no passion to ever return (and this is not even counting his age or how difficult it would be to even get back into the game after this amount of time). At the very least, can somebody give me a good reason why the status quo should stay? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

He has not been released from the team, so his roster status is the same as Randy Gregory currently and Rolando McClain from 2016 to 2019. It is original research to suggest that because Blackmon is an “alcoholic” and a certain amount of time has passed that a subsequent transaction will never take place. There is no reliable source saying he has been removed from the team, and every NFL player has a transaction in which they are removed from their team eventually. This is an odd case, of course, much like Tyrone Robertson, who remained on the Bills’ reserve/suspended list for 14 years before finally being released from it. Soward is a slightly different case, as it has been 18 years since his suspension and there might have been a subsequent transaction in the pre-Twitter era. Blackmon had been listed on the Jaguars’ NFL.com roster up until their website redesign in the last few months, but there would be brief news coverage if he were released from the suspension list. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:29, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
This still doesn't answer the question I proposed in the OP. At what point would it be fine to just consider him a former player? In 5-10 years? Maybe never if you want to be super technical about it? Note that I never said we should call him a free agent, because he isn't. And while yes, it would be OR to assume that him being an alcoholic and out of the NFL for 5+ years would mean his career is definitely over, we should factor in common sense here too, which is something Wikipedia is generally really bad with. If he ever does return, then we can simply take 5 seconds to adjust the article to reflect that. Pinging @Gonzo fan2007, PeeJay2K3, Yankees10, and Bagumba: (I can't think of any more super-active NFL contributors off the top of my head) for more opinions. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
I think this is a perfect example of using common sense (or more specifically WP:IAR) and just convey his realistic status, which is that of a former player. I am always a fan of clarifying {{Note}}s in these situations, where we could elaborate on the technical aspects of his status without messing with the flow of the article. That said, I am not sure there are enough examples to make a cut and dry rule, but rather it seems like a case-by-case approach would be sufficient. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
We could simply follow the same general guideline we have about free agents, which is if they make no effort to return to the NFL after 2-3 years then we can just consider them a former player (it takes 5 seconds to fix if they do return). As it is nearing a decade since he was last active in the NFL, this really should not be controversial. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)
I’m with you in this @Dissident93:. After 2 or 3 years of being suspended, it’s usually a safe bet they won’t be returning. I know it isn’t what is “official”, but I think we got hung up on that a little too much here.--Rockchalk717 01:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Blackmon's NFL.com profile indicates he was still on the Jaguars' roster for the 2019 season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Eagles247, I'm not arguing that he ever was a free agent, just how Wikipedia handles this. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
TIL I have the most edits on the page. I'm fine either way, I always kept the page to show him as a (suspended) member of the team, as I understood that is his official status and policy is/was to show that in the infobox. If the policy changes I'll keep the page to show him as a (quasi-)former member of the teamDragonFury (talk) 21:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Is keeping him on the roster a legal or contractual requirement due to his suspension? It doesn't make any sense otherwise. - BilCat (talk) 22:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
BilCat, depends on the contract, but generally there is zero harm in keeping him under contract while he remains suspended since they don't have to pay him anything. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
I think teams do that so they don’t risk losing the player if by some miracle they get reinstated. I get that he’s still officially a member of the Jaguars too, I just feel after so long, we should consider just updating similar to free agents who never “technically” retired being marked as retired.--Rockchalk717 06:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
"Former player" vs. "free agent" isn't much of a difference from a technical standpoint since in either case the player isn't under contract with a team so it's just a matter of opinion from editors. Debating whether to say a player is still on a team when, by all accounts, he is still under contract with that team, is a much different discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Fair point, but at what point, assuming no official transaction has been made, do we say he’s done? Let’s say come oh 2025, he hasn’t played in 13 years, he’s 35 years old, he’s by far and away assumed his career was over working a regular job like any of us editing on Wikipedia, is it safe to change it then? Or is his article gonna be forever stuck in this “officially on the team” loophole? Not upset or anything, just genuinely would like to know if there’s a point we can change it without an official transaction.--Rockchalk717 21:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Rockchalk717, exactly my question. Eagles has yet to give a proper answer to this, and if it's just "when it feels right", then how come that time isn't now, over half a decade since he was even expected to possibly return? I'm not even saying we consider him a free agent or retired, but rather as a "former" player like we do with any other inactive player from 5 years ago who never filed for retirement and has no clear indication of wanting to return. Again, common sense should triumph over any rigid guideline in this case. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Oh I agree 100%. I get it for the first few years, but it’s getting a little excessive now.--Rockchalk717 22:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
I would be okay with including "former" in the lead paragraph with a note explaining his status, but leaving the infobox as-is. It is accurate that he is both a former player and still a member of the Jaguars. At some point in the future, either the Jaguars will release him from their reserve/suspended list, the NFL will reinstate him from suspension, or he will die (and void the rest of his contract). One of these three things will definitely happen, as all NFL player contracts eventually end. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Eagles247 and at some point the universe will end and void everything as well. I still think this is over-complicating it, but it's still better than potentially misleading people who only read article leads (which is more than you think). It would take 5 seconds to adjust the article if and when he is released or reinstated, so I don't view that as a problem. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Final rosters

I've noticed in franchise season articles there's a tendency to list the team's final roster as of the end of the season. This is somewhat doable for recent seasons, but for historical seasons like 1969 Minnesota Vikings season, how are we supposed to know who was on the roster all season and who just made a cameo while a player was on a reserve list? What is the recommended procedure for listing rosters for historical seasons if not just listing every player who played for the team that year? – PeeJay 18:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

14 team bracket design

Hey, since the playoffs are expanding to 14 teams this season, I made a rough outline of what the new bracket might look like. Please note that this is not a finished product and the source code isn't template-ready; I'm just trying to get a discussion going about the design. It's a little bit different, but I think that should be fine since none of the playoff bracket templates from before have had identical design choices. So, what do y'all think? (P.S. I do intend on there still being the date and stadium above each game, I just haven't added that part yet.)--IndelibleAppleJuice (talk) 13:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

  Wild Card Playoffs Divisional Playoffs (reseeded) Conference Championships Super Bowl LV
                                     
  2      
  7    
      1    
         
  3     American Football Conference      
  6          
           
         
  4    
  5    
      AFC    
    NFC    
  2    
  7    
      1      
         
  3     National Football Conference      
  6          
             
         
  4    
  5    
  • During the first three rounds home field is determined by seeding number, not position on the bracket. The Super Bowl is played at a neutral site venue.
  • The bracket is reseed after the Wild Card Playoffs so that the 1st-seed faces the lowest remaining seed in its conference. The other two remaining teams in that conference face each other.
  • * Indicates overtime victory
In general, I like it, but shouldn't the higher seeds be displayed in the lower boxes for each game? – PeeJay 04:58, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Proposed style change to multiple templates

So far no one has raised any concerns regarding this change to Template:Washington Football Team seasons. As discussed above in the Washington Football Team section, this format is used in NFL team templates such as Template:Washington Football Team and in team templates of the MLB, NBA and NHL leagues. It is a cleaner option in the title bar; current name only with the previous names in the sub-bar. In the Washington seasons example mentioned, it looks much better imo:

Washington Football Team seasons, as opposed to Boston Braves–Boston / Washington Redskins / Football Team / Future Permanent Name seasons

It has the added benefit of outlining the years of each team name in the sub-bar (or |above= parameter).

I am proposing changing to this style for the seasons, coach, general manager, principal owner, starting quarterback and first-round draft picks navboxes across all NFL teams that have multiple names in their histories. Without having gone through every navbox of every team, this may/will apply to the navboxes of at least the following teams:

  • Washington Football Team
  • Arizona Cardinals
  • Chicago Bears
  • Detroit Lions
  • Indianapolis Colts
  • Kansas City Chiefs
  • Las Vegas Raiders
  • Los Angeles Chargers
  • Los Angeles Rams
  • New England Patriots
  • New York Jets
  • Pittsburgh Steelers
  • Tennessee Titans

--DB1729 (talk) 12:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that for certain teams that changed their nickname and not city, such as the Redskins and Oilers, they could probably be included. For minor ones though, like the New York Titans, and name changes via relocations, like the Oakland Raiders and San Diego Chargers, I agree we should not really include them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Sorry you are going to have to clarify. Do you mean for "minor" changes, as in a single name change like Template:New York Jets seasons, and location changes like Template:Las Vegas Raiders seasons, the title bar should remain as it is? The point is to clean the title bars up. If they are "minor" changes, then the point is still, clean them up. (Maybe all the more reason to do so). --DB1729 (talk) 21:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
DB1729 sorry, I was thinking of something else when I replied. Your formatting is way cleaner and I fully support it (IE, current name as in the title bar and any former names below). However, this would only apply to NFL teams and no other sports as you'd need to gain consensus first on their respective projects. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. Understood about other sports. I have no intention of applying this to any others leagues in the near future. If I do, I will run it by those project talk pages first. --DB1729 (talk) 21:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

COVID-19 opt-out

Laurent Duvernay-Tardif’s announcement got me thinking, what should we use as the designation on roster templates for players that do this? I feel the “exempt” tag is the most appropriate when the Chiefs officially make the roster move, just because from what I understand, they don’t count towards the salary cap and the roster limit? And then in the infobox, just put whatever they name the reserve list for the opt-outs.--Rockchalk717 07:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Rockchalk717, we should go with their official roster status and then can explain it further in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: My main concern is roster templates since there’s only certain statuses that can be used. I doubt it will be NFI, IR, PUP, Exempt, anything like that, it most likely will be a special roster designation specifically for COVID-19 opt outs, and that status probably won’t likely be one available in the NFLPlayer template.--Rockchalk717 20:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Rockchalk717, well it can be easily added to it if it's a special designation (and removed at a later date once the pandemic is over), so I wouldn't worry about that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Rockchalk717, seems like it's an official thing now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Yeah I just that. Looks like the Chiefs just put a player on that list too. I imagine that’s probably were Laurent Duvernay-Tardif, and others that opt-out, will go too. Can someone add that parameter to the NFLplayer template?--Rockchalk717 01:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Rockchalk717, I added it, the code is COVID and shows up in the template as COVID-19. I didn't see the "reserve" part as necessary since the other designations don't seem to include that either. BTW, the KC player placed on it today was Aleva Hifo, so Tardif may be placed under another designation as he opted out and was not diagnosed himself or has a family member who was, which is what this designation seems to be used for. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Got it. I’ll wait to add Hifo til we get an official announcement from the Chiefs, which I’m guessing will come tomorrow. Guess we’ll see what they’ll call the COVID-19 opt out. It might be just simply “COVID-19 Opt-out list” or “Opt-out list”.--Rockchalk717 02:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: I added the opt-out parameter to Template:NFLplayer (using "opt-out" as the third parameter there). The Ravens said it's called the "reserve/voluntary opt-out list" FWIW. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Eagles247: Got it. Thank you.--Rockchalk717 22:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Headers for seasons

Should the season sections for players have headers on them? Given how articles such as Peyton Manning have such headers, I find them to be useful as they help differentiate the seasons from the table of contents. I tried to add some to the Christian McCaffrey article, only for them to be undone. An earlier, but never resolved discussion can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_18#Headers_for_seasons DeathTrain (talk) 23:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I do not see why necessarily each season needs its own section see Walter Payton. But based upon the link you provided the previous discussion wasn't about whether or not each season should have a header but what they should be titled. That part was settled, and I concur with Bagumba's assertions for that the article, espcially 2019, violates WP:NOTDIARY. "Not every match played or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person."-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay:Of course what I mean by a header as what you call a title. Do you have any ideas for them? DeathTrain (talk) 09:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I think it was settled in the previous discussion, "[Those] should be avoided per WP:NEO. Headers should be neutral. A plain year is better than having a bad header." it seems like WP:IDHT.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 11:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
No, each season should not have a separate year header. This is a product of recentism, where editors include game-by-game descriptions as seasons go on, even though 20 years later, the fact that Peyton threw a seven-yard touchdown pass on 4th & 6 to rookie tight end Tom Santi to make the deficit 27–17 is not notable or relevant to a concise summary of Manning's career and life. Look at historic NFL players and you rarely see that Peyton Manning-type layout. Don Hutson is a good example of an NFL career being summarized in one section, which follows Wikipedia:Summary style, among other policies and Manual of Style guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: But do you have ideas specifically for the Christian McCaffrey article? DeathTrain (talk) 23:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
I don't think I have any ideas that you are going to like. I think I was pretty clear above, if a player has played in 20 seasons, they shouldn't have 20 year-by-year section header titles (whatever you want to call them). See Brett Favre for a good example of how to break-up a long career. Christian McCaffrey is way too long and full of game-by-game summaries. It should be trimmed and merged into one section. I know he is great and all, but he has only played 3 seasons! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Trim it and merge it all into a couple of professional career paragraphs. It is what everyone has been saying.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: Once again, this discussion is not about the quantity of headers, but whether or not they should have what you call titles. DeathTrain (talk) 10:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@DeathTrain:, Au contraire I think @Gonzo fan2007:'s comments suggest otherwise. MOS clearly states that the article in question has too many headers. This isn't a message board ideas can shift and change. But since you insist, on keeping it about season headers. If for some reason the season headers remain they should not have WP:NEO titles. But policy mandates that there are too many headers based upon seasons.–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 13:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Furthermore, I am done discussing this every editor in these discussions have indicated that the article shouldn't have stuff like 1k-1k season, which as a huge football fan, I have never heard of and don't have any idea what you are talking about. If you cannot see that we are actually saying that these edits are not productive then you just want your way and you should drop the stick.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 13:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: Not the most civil replies, but if you want sources on "1k-1k":
https://247sports.com/nfl/carolina-panthers/Article/Christian-McCaffrey-2019-1000-rushing-yards-1000-receiving-yards-133863667/
https://www.nfl.com/news/panthers-rb-christian-mccaffrey-joins-1k-1k-club-0ap3000001092445
https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2868931-panthers-christian-mccaffrey-is-3rd-player-in-nfl-history-to-join-1k-1k-club
I really don't care if the "1k-1k" header is used, but Bagumba did mention that he is not completely against headers. Even if they are merged into sections like with Lawrence Taylor, they still can have header titles; they do not have to be neologisms. With Christian McCaffrey, since his career is not yet over, we do not yet know the whole big picture of his career, so I think it is premature to merge them into a few paragraphs as with Brett Favre. I also agree that there are too many game by game summaries, which I have no problem agreeing that they should be altered. DeathTrain (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay:@Gonzo fan2007: The reason why this is about header titles is because I started this conversation because there was no general consensus to the original discussion. I do not mind if a player whose career is long enough has their season-by-season sections merged like with Brett Favre, but most players do not have careers that long, usually six or seven at most. In such cases, season-by-season headers are a lot more appropriate. This is also the case with Christian McCaffrey. If ever his career does get sufficiently long that it does have too many sections, then it certainly would be more appropriate to model his professional career section after those of Lawrence Taylor, Brett Favre or Don Hutson, but it is not appropriate yet as his career has only been three seasons. I propose we create a benchmark for deciding between season-by-season headings or merging them into condensed sections like with the aforementioned players. DeathTrain (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay:@Gonzo fan2007: I expect a prompt reply. If you want the Christian McCaffrey professional career section to be condensed like that of Don Hutson, go ahead. I won't do it, as I do not believe it should be yet for the reasons listed above. I take your recent silence and seeming ignoration of the compromises I am offering that you just want your way. DeathTrain (talk) 21:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
DeathTrain, drop the rude tone. We don't work for you and are under no obligation to reply to you. You have received advice here and a clear explanation of the Manual of Style guidelines for section headers. There is no consensus to add a "1k-1k" with the 2019 section header, as the article already has too many headers and "1k-1k" is not a common phrase for most readers. The section "titles" used in Peyton Manning (which I don't agree with, because, again, the article has too many sections as is) at least are clear phrases that most readers would understand: First MVP, First Super Bowl Championship, etc. The reason I keep bringing up the number of sections headers is because when you condense an article down to an appropriate size and number of section headers, you lose the ability to have overly descriptive headers. Thus, like Brett Favre, you get a nice grouping based on the team he played for. In the case of Christian McCaffrey, it would be Professional career -> Carolina Panthers with a concise summary of his career up to this part.
Now I (and I imagine others) don't care about Christian McCaffrey, Peyton Manning, etc that much to go and make wholesale changes. We all have our own articles we care about and are working on. In your case, you came here asking for consensus and we took our time to respond and provide feedback. No one is jumping up and saying "Do it, go for it, you got the right solution"; instead you have a number of editors expressing reservations or outright opposition. So, you have your answer. What more do you want? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Once again, I already said I do not care if 1k-1k season is used. Note how I never brought it up in this discussion. For Christian McCaffrey, we still do not know the whole picture for his professional career, and user:UCO2009bluejay has already explicitly told me to "Trim it and merge it all into a couple of professional career paragraphs" to the Christian McCaffrey article. I already said I have no problem if the excessive game-by-game stat dumps are removed. For Christian McCaffrey, I am suggesting "First Team All-Pro" for 2019 and "Second Team All-Pro" for 2018. I believe that most other players like Dorial Green-Beckham, Aaron Hernandez, Justin Hunter, JaMarcus Russell or Vince Young do not have careers long enough to warrant condensing seasons. I still have my reasons I do not think it should happen, you have your reasons why you think it should. I just want to resolve this through a general consensus. That is why I am proposing creating a benchmark. DeathTrain (talk) 21:42, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Chris Gragg FAR

I have nominated Chris Gragg for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Tonystewart14 (talk) 03:36, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

"in the NFL Draft" articles

KingSkyLord has been creating a number of "List of COLLEGE in the NFL Draft" articles, such as List of Duquesne Dukes in the NFL Draft. In my opinion, this runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN, however I would be interested to hear from other members on what they think. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't really bother me. Most college football team articles would list players of theirs who have gone on to play in the NFL, so it stands to reason that when those lists get quite long, a standalone article could be created for the players who ended up getting drafted. Perhaps they should be expanded to include players who went undrafted though? Or is that too inclusive? – PeeJay 19:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps they should be expanded to include players who went undrafted though?: Yes, undrafted players who play in the NFL are more notable than drafted players who never play. That said, the list would be better as "List of ACME Roadrunners in the NFL", which includes all NFL players from the school as well as those drafted who never played.—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment. There are 300 such articles in Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team. The recent activity has been at the longtail FCS level. UW Dawgs (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I used the wrong example article. Lists like this: List of Lafayette Leopards in the NFL Draft. In this case, there is only 6 total in the list, with only one of those having a Wikipedia article. There are a number of these type examples, with only a few players listed and only one source from drafthistory.com. That doesn't seem to meet WP:LISTN to me (and to clarify, I am not proposing deleting every one of these types of articles). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, any short list like this can just be merged to the main football team's article. These should only exist for size reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)
Ideally should meet WP:LISTN so some prose could be written on the group. If we are lax on that, what is the cutoff for minimum number of entries for a standalone list?—Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
List of Johns Hopkins Blue Jays in the NFL Draft would not survive an AFD since there is one total item in the list and the subject is not notable enough for its own Wikipedia article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Eagles247, that's kind of what I was getting at. I would nominate that one right now for AFD, but it may be better to have a group nom for any that have under 5 entries (or some similar random number). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
I think five is too low. There should be a minimum set just so there can be a cut and dry number for notability guidelines. I feel like maybe 10 would be an appropriate number. Every power 5 team has at least 10 and several mid majors. 10 will get rid of these colleges that don’t regularly produce NFL talent, like the Johns Hopkins example.--Rockchalk717 01:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
I also agree with at least 10 players, but only if they happen to be notable. A list with 14 total but only 3 notable (by that I mean with an article) wouldn't feel much different from a list with 5 total to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
10 sounds like a good threshold for a stand-alone list. Cases with under 10 can be merged into the main article for the program. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
The more I think about it, what makes these lists notable? Even List of Alabama Crimson Tide in the NFL draft doesn't have one source that discusses this group as a whole (one of the prerequisites of WP:LISTN). Even a search on Google doesn't provide any promising results. I don't know, I just see these articles as a a sports almanac topic better suited for off-Wikipedia resources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Pro football reference has data going way back. Alabama’s page there goes back to 1936. The list for Kansas for example, cites this and the data matches.--Rockchalk717 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
I did just add a citation for the Alabama article.--Rockchalk717 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi Rockchalk717, I think you are missing the point. Pro Football Reference can be used as a verification source, but we need other sources discussing the list as a whole to determine that it is notable. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Gotcha you did say that, I think I just read through your comment too quickly and inadvertently missed the point you were making. Taking that under consideration, you do bring in a good point. But if we discuss these articles very existence under WP:NOT, that potentially disqualifies a multitude of sports related list pages (unless I’m misunderstanding that policy but I don’t believe I am). I don’t think the conversation should be as much about if these types of articles should exist in general, but more what the requirements should be for them to exist.--Rockchalk717 03:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007 and Rockchalk717: I dont think WP:NOT actually says "not almanac". In fact, WP:5P1 specifically mentions almanacs: Wikipedia combines many features of general and specialized encyclopedias, almanacs, and gazetteers. The biggest issue isn't that most of these lists don't have any prose, it's filtering out which ones could reasonably have independently sourced prose that meet WP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 05:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba and Rockchalk717, Wikipedia is not excessive listings of unexplained statistics is the direct quote. In the sports world, an almanac is excessive amount of statistics and not an encyclopedia. Sorry if my language wasn't clear enough. WP:NOTSTATS also sayd Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists offers more guidance on what kind of lists are acceptable. Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists says that standalone lists are warranted for topics topics discussed as a group or set by independent reliable source. Herein lies the problem, other than other "sports almanac" type sources (like pro football reference), there really isn't much out there that talks about all the college draftees of specific schools. What could be a notable topic would be a list of all college players who played in the NFL by school. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
What could be a notable topic would be a list of all college players who played in the NFL by school.: Gonzo fan2007, I had suggested something like "List of ACME Roadrunners in the NFL" above (at 10:38, 7 July 2020) Is that what you had in mind?—Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, yes, if you were to ask me what I thought was a notable topic, I would choose "List of ACME Roadrunners in the NFL" over the status quo. Your proposal would definitely include notable people and seems to have more sources for these types of topics. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:50, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: That seems like an article that would be excessively long. There’s been 85 NFL drafts, each draft with an average 200-300 picks that’s between 17,000-25,000 entries on a the page.--Rockchalk717 20:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Again, missing the point. I am not advocating for these articles, just giving an example of why this topic isn't that notable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Holdout (sports)

Just a heads-up, I created Holdout (sports) today, as I see this term constantly in articles but it never had a link to help explain the concept more to those who are not aware of what it entails. Please feel free to expand it and link to it in articles. I will also note that I came across Lockout (sports) while researching holdout, and it was in a really bad state. I did a little cleaning and tagging, but didn't really feel like going any further. If anyone has anything to expand on in that article, it would be appreciated. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus on what constitutes a "league championship"

There needs to be a consensus on what constitutes a "league championship" because the Packers article is not consistent with the Raiders, Chiefs, Jets, Vikings, and Colts articles. The Packers article does NOT count their 1966 or 1967 NFL Championships as "league championships" and has sources to verify that. The other five articles all do count those championships. My two ideas are either to NOT count 1966-1969 NFL/AFL Championships OR to simply get rid of the title "league championships" and let the reader decide what to count. Please give me a notice on my talk page if you're replying here. Otherwise I may forget to check this page.Politician818 (talk) 05:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

The Packers website says they have 13 "World Championships", which count their 1966 and 1967 Superbowl wins. The site also says they have "13 NFL Championship Seasons", which count their NFL Championships in 1966 and 1967, but not those two Superbowl wins (since they were not "NFL Championship" games). But I agree, those seasons should not be counted twice – the four inter-league World Championship Superbowl games were not League championships. There are literally hundreds (even thousands) of WP:RS references for the Vikings being the 1969 NFL champions or the Raiders being the 1967 AFL champions. I don't know how you can argue otherwise, and your idea "to NOT count 1966-1969 NFL/AFL Championships" is straying into WP:OR. But as I mentioned at Talk:National Football League#The Chiefs Don't Have Five Championships, those first four Super Bowls are messy, and don't fit easily into what came before or after. As I mentioned there, I'd support changing the Infobox template to just list all of the different championships and remove the "League championships (X)" line (or suppressing it for the teams that played in Superbowls I-IV}. But, as evinced by the myriad previous discussions and resulting lack of consensus, no matter how much forum shopping you do, you may not find interest in discussing it further – you may be beating a dead horse. Mojoworker (talk) 06:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
To be fair Mojoworker, I pushed Politician818 to open a discussion here, instead of the Chiefs or NFL pages, as this is the best place to go for NFL-related consensus. I wouldn't hold it against them for finally coming here for a general consensus.
That said, nowhere is there a source that says the Packers have won 15 championships. Thus, it is impossible to make the change here on Wikipedia to go from 13 to 15, as it would be original research. That said, this does create issues, especially for teams who won the NFL/AFL Championship but lost the Super Bowl.
Proposal: we remove the summed total of League Championships from the infobox and team templates (i.e. {{Green Bay Packers}}), as well as any other templates where it is summed. This would allow us to simply list the number of specific championship-types. I.e. the Packers would have 11 pre-1970 NFL championships and 4 Super Bowl wins, with no need to sum those. The infobox would look like this, minus the "()" after "League Championships". Other areas where the number it summed, it can be explained in prose. I really don't see any other viable solution at this point. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, but basically if you look at facebooks, the NFL lists pre-Super Bowl champions as the equivalent of conference champions. So AFL champs are listed as AFC champs and NFL champs are listed as NFC champs. Effectively, this means that the league places its actual champions in the four merger years as the overall, NFL champions. Toa Nidhiki05 17:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
I have to admit, I have no idea what you mean by "facebooks". That said, we all are aware of how many times it has been discussed. I think the key here is to finally come to an agreement on how to address the issue. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
D’oh. Meant to say “Factbook”. As in, the book the league publishes with all the official stats. It’s also on the Pro Football Hall of Fame site. The league clearly regards “league titles” from 1966-1969 as inferior to the Super Bowl. Toa Nidhiki05 19:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Haha that makes more sense! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
League Championships, in my opinion, should include the combined count of pre Super Bowl AFL/NFL championships and Super Bowl wins, so in the Chiefs case for example it should be 5. But that’s my opinion. That could be me wanting to see my team (the defending champs) have more than two titles listed lol.--Rockchalk717 07:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I think that a league should be considered NFL, AFL, and AAFC championships pre 1970 and of course super bowls V-present. I have made the argument before on the Minnesota Vikings page re 1969.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:54, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Washington Football Team

And here comes another round of mass moves of templates, navboxes, wikilinks, and backend code (before we have to do it again once their permanent name is announced after this season). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I can already see some potential problems with this. For example, should Template:Redskins2020DraftPicks stay were it's at because they were the Redskins during the draft? Or should it be moved? If so, moved to what? Template:FootballTeam2020DraftPicks? I would guess Template:WashingtonFootballTeam2020DraftPicks myself. Sound good? --DB1729 (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Err..or actually, should it be Template:Washington Football Team 2020 draft navbox, based on how I see formatted with other teams? --DB1729 (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
They were drafted as Redskins, so I'd keep the template the same. However, they did not sign their contracts as the Redskins, so their infoboxes should reflect that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Indented above reply. Yeah, makes sense. But I'm sure someone in the future (maybe years down the road) will move that template, to make the point. --DB1729 (talk) 21:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, but I don't personally don't see my opinion on it changing. They were drafted by the Redskins at the time and all coverage of them being drafted includes that name. Them not playing as the Redskins is a separate matter. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Am I correct in assuming that the name change is not supposed to be retroactive? If I'm correct, the users like this one are making a BIG mess. I reverted two of its changes already, but I don't have the time now to follow up on the rest. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 23:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes you are correct. It is NOT retroactive. At least I couldn't find anything from a web search that supports it being so. This isn't the first time a team has changed their name and it should be handled similarly when referring to the team in past years. Thank you bringing the user's changes to attention here. I've reverted one before stopping by to write this. --DB1729 (talk) 01:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Update: The IP's changes mentioned above have now all been reverted. This is something we will need to keep eye out for in the next few days at least.
The more I think it about, it is very unlikely the team is intending to retroactively change their history, at this point anyway. I mean, if they were actually going to scrub the offensive name entirely from the franchise's history, they wouldn't be replacing it with "Football Team". They would've already chosen a new permanent name. However, when they do change to their permanent new name, it is possible that may be precisely something they may consider doing. We will see and have to deal with that situation if it happens. --DB1729 (talk) 02:12, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
(Off-topic discussion moved to User talk:DB1729) --DB1729 (talk) 12:00, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

To go back on topic, we should also be avoiding the use of Washington Redskins/Washington Football Club in infoboxes in favor of Washington Redskins / Football Club, which follows the same standard as the Tennessee Oilers > Titans name change (and is easier to read). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 09:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Per MOS:SLASH, when separating items with internal spaces, a spaced slash should be used. So yes, Washington Redskins / Football Team should be preferred, and not Washington Redskins / Washington Football Team. No need to repeat Washington twice.
Also looking at some template title bars like Template:Tennessee Titans seasons vs. Template:Washington Football Team seasons, where its title bar changed from Washington Redskins seasons to the awkward Boston Braves–Boston / Washington Redskins / Football Team seasons. That hyphen correct? --DB1729 (talk) 10:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Just noticed you used "Washington Football Club" and then I copy-pasted it without even noticing. I assume you meant "Washington Football Team".
Adding to my other comment above. Should that title bar instead be Boston Braves / Redskins / Washington Redskins / Football Team seasons? --DB1729 (talk) 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
DB1729, oops, it seems more natural that way to me I suppose. I'll go through the rest of the player's articles and fix any that remain. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, the player articles should mostly be updated now but we still need to move or create several new categories, some of which may be move-protected. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
If you list any move-protected pages here, I can move them for you Dissident93. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll continue working on it this weekend. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, Category:Washington Redskins seasons is one of them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Gonzo fan2007, Category:Washington Redskins draft navigational boxes needs to be moved as well. --DB1729 (talk) 03:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Neither of those look move-protected? You guys want Category:Washington Redskins seasons --> Category:Washington Football Team seasons and Category:Washington Redskins draft navigational boxes --> Category:Washington Football Team draft navigational boxes, right? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
I moved them. If someone has access to AWB and wants to update all the pages, that would be an easier task for automation. Not that it matters as much, but we also have Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Washington Redskins subproject to deal with. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007:@Dissident93: I have moved the subproject page. What should be done with Category:WikiProject Washington Redskins members? Should it be moved to Category:WikiProject Washington Football Team members?
Should the user box Template:User WikiProject Redskins be moved, to Template:User WikiProject Washington Football Team, a template I have already created, which would have to be deleted to make way for the move I assume; or leave those templates as they are and just create Category:WikiProject Washington Football Team members? --DB1729 (talk) 15:21, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Ideally, everything should be moved that isn't relevant to the Redskins-part of the history of the team. I think the bigger issue is {{WikiProject Washington Redskins}}, which will need to be moved to {{WikiProject Washington Football Team}}, meaning all the categories for article quality and rating will also need to be moved. The Redskins fan user box and category should be moved, with the old ones deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: I have yet to look at {{WikiProject Washington Redskins}}, but I will check it out. In the meantime, can you now move Category:WikiProject Washington Redskins members to Category:WikiProject Washington Football Team members? It's move protected. And could you delete Template:User WikiProject Washington Football Team to clear the way for the Template:User WikiProject Redskins move? --DB1729 (talk) 16:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
DB1729, both done. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - I am just going to throw this out there for you guys to take or leave. You may want to consider following the model that MLB, NBA and NHL use for the macro-level templates and just display the current name at the top with a list of former names underneath - it is WAY cleaner than trying to list out all former names in the header (see here and here and here). ETA - I know you use this for the team template, but I am talking about the “seasons” and “coach” templates too. Rikster2 (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I'm in favor of that scheme. We use it for Template:Washington Football Team. Should be fine for the other templates. --DB1729 (talk) 14:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. They were only in Boston for a few years anyway, no need to give them undue weight when many people wouldn't even be aware they were based/founded there in the first place. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I went ahead and changed Template:Washington Football Team seasons to the style discussed above. I will wait a little while before doing any others and see if it draws any feedback. --DB1729 (talk) 00:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
DB1729, looks good. The only issue I have is the two cells would look better if merged to form a single, cohesive border. But that's just a personal nitpick. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
I might do that if I can figure out how. Do you or anyone know how to display that kind of cell and border? --DB1729 (talk) 22:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
Not in a non-hacky way, no. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Updates needed?

Started a new section to keep things easier to read. I am guessing a number of pages, categories, etc need updated here: Category:Washington Redskins. I did a little bit of work on Category:Washington Football Team players and it's sub-categories. How do we generally handle this type of thing? Does everything Redskins-related become a sub-category of the new Football Team category (similar to how it looks in Category:Washington Football Team players)? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Gonzo fan2007, basically, if it includes any current/present/ongoing info (like current roster or staff), it should be renamed to Football Team. Anything historical and set in stone should be kept at Redskins (like all of the ones listed as a subcategory there). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
Cowboys–Redskins rivalry, Washington Redskins Marching Band, Washington Redskins records, and List of Washington Redskins broadcasters all seem like they need moved. Category:Washington Redskins lists should probably get moved. Gahhh there's so much that has been weaved into Wikipedia. And we are going to have to do this all over again next year! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
The team website has not been updated regarding the marching band. So that is why I haven't moved it yet. We simply don't know if it's going to change to "Washington Football Team Marching Band" or something else. Apparently the cheerleaders, for example, have officially become the "First Ladies of Football". So I made that move a while ago. --DB1729 (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007:@Dissident93: As for Washington Redskins records, personally I don't think it should be moved until it needs to be moved. In other words, when a record is broken by player or team not named "Redskins", then move it. But I have lost a similar argument at another page. It's not huge thing to me though, I can see the other side of the argument, and I'm here just trying to help and not cause more problems, so if someone wants to move it that's fine. However, consider Template:Washington Redskins Ring of Fame and Template:The 70 Greatest Redskins, etc. Which rationale do we use, and does it matter if it's inconsistent?
List of Washington Redskins broadcasters should probably be moved.
Redskins rivalry pages with Cowboys, Eagles and Giants have been moved. --DB1729 (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Oh and forgot to mention this Category:Wikipedians interested in Washington Redskins? --DB1729 (talk) 23:16, 5 August 2020 (UTC)
Adding Redskins Rule --DB1729 (talk) 19:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
DB1729, do we even need a records page? It's just a stats dump (WP:NOTSTATS) that other databases like PFR handle better. But if it has to stay, then it should be moved since it still relates to the current team. As for the Ring of Fame and 80 Greatest Redskins, they should should remain at their current titles, as they are proper nouns, until we know what the team decides to call them. The Redskins Rule, Marching Band, and Hail to the Redskins, should also stay (for now) for the same reasons. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:37, 8 August 2020 (UTC)
Ok. Keeping those pages as is, until it's clear they should be moved, and to what they should be moved to, is the wise way to go I believe. I really have no preference on whatever you want to do with Washington Redskins records. Fwiw, looks like about half-and-half; other NFL teams with a similar page or not. --DB1729 (talk) 20:08, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Christian Kirksey image

It appears that the original photographer of the image in Christian Kirksey's infobox is repeatedly attempting to remove the image of Kirksey. At first, they claimed Kirksey himself wanted the image taken down (it is a high-quality image of Kirksey in a Browns uniform and is in no way disparaging to the subject, so not a valid reason). Then the photographer tried to change the license of the image on Flickr to "All rights reserved" (still not valid, as Creative Commons licenses are not revocable per [5]). I semi-protected the page for two days but that has not deterred him. Next, he made the image on Flickr private (Wikipedia has an archive copy showing the CC license, so doesn't matter), and tried to upload an image from the Packers' Twitter account of Kirksey in a Packers uniform that is a clear copyright violation. I'm not sure what's going on here, as the photographer has 34,000+ of his images uploaded to Commons (Commons:Category:Photographs_by_Erik_Drost). Maybe he's upset that Kirksey joined another team? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you sure they changed the license just now in response, or it could have been that way for a while?—Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: The image was uploaded to Wikipedia in August 2018 when it was under the CC license, and this archive link from April 2020 confirms it was still under the CC license at that time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:00, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
I guess we AGF that it's a change of heart. But I'm not sure what can be done. Still, perhaps it was months ago and not days, and this editor is not the photographer. The only way to more definitively know is to contact them off-wiki, if you are inclined.—Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Even if we were to grant this person's wish to remove the image from the infobox, it would still remain on Commons since it's been licensed there as CC for more than two years, and it's still by far the best image of Kirksey we have. Another user would likely add it back to the infobox after a quick search of Commons. I'd like to AGF here, but initially claiming Kirksey didn't want the image up (probably a lie given the rest of what happened here) isn't a good start. Commons:Flickr_files#Changing_licenses says It is important to note, though, that once a work has been made available under a given license, the copyright holder cannot legally change or revoke the license on copies of that work. Thus, an image originally licensed as CC-BY and uploaded to Commons under that license (and verified), but later changed on Flickr to All Rights Reserved, may remain on Commons under the CC-BY license. Such a situation is undesirable, of course, and politely asking the Flickr user to reconsider may be a good idea. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:39, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
Eagles247, you have it right. Unless there is something ridiculous going on IRL, it should stay up on his page. I have his page watched now and will keep an eye out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:44, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability in NFL player articles

@Kaleodu:

Editor Kaleodu has begun marking numerous former NFL player articles with Template:Notability.

The relevant Wikipedia:Notability (sports) guideline is: WP:NGRIDIRON - Which states American football/Canadian football players and head coaches are presumed notable if they -- Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game...

Kaleodu has begun restoration of at least some notability tags to various NFL person/player articles (and same re Olympians re WP:NOLYMPICS). Both the project and editor should discuss, to avoid wasted edit/revert efforts on all sides.

On Kaleodu's Talk, I noted that Template:RefImprove is an option for minimally-sourced article stubs. UW Dawgs (talk) 01:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

UW Dawgs I have also left them a note and expanded one of the articles they tagged +1000 bytes [6] including adding two in-depth articles on the subject. @Kaleodu: please stop with the mass tagging, it is becoming disruptive. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:05, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
I also suggest that if you truly believe these articles fail our notability criteria, take it to AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 02:12, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

2020 preseason

This may be controversial, but I think the preseason schedules for the 2020 season should still be listed in the team season articles. Even though the games were cancelled, it seems weird to completely omit them from the articles. Thoughts? – PeeJay 20:24, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

PeeJay: agreed, whoever went around and removed them didn't have any consensus to do so. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Better ping User:DPH1110 then. I was gonna undo it for the Vikings, but then I saw every team had been done. I'm also not a fan of the boilerplate text that just says "The preseason was announced on May 7, but was later cancelled due to COVID-19". Surely there is more info we could provide for the readers? – PeeJay 22:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Well how much more can be added there? Maybe the fact they still wanted to do two before cancelling all four? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure, it just feels a bit sterile when I see exactly the same text in all 32 articles. – PeeJay 23:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Hmm...this is debatable. With the explanation of the cancelled Hall of Fame game between the Steelers and Cowboys on those two 2020 season articles, I'm thinking maybe it might be a better idea to reinstate the schedule tables on the preseason after all, and indeed display what would have been each team's preseason opponents. Just deciding what would be the best way to go about this. DPH1110 (talk) 00:38, 5 September 2020 (UTC)DPH1110
Here's an example from the Broncos' 2020 preseason schedule table that I am proposing:
Week Date Opponent Venue Result
1 August 15 San Francisco 49ers Empower Field at Mile High Cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic
2 August 22 Chicago Bears Empower Field at Mile High
3 August 29 at Los Angeles Rams SoFi Stadium
4 September 3 at Arizona Cardinals State Farm Stadium

I'm debating whether it would be worth it to display where the games would have occurred, but FOR SURE, definitely NO NEED to display the Time, Record or Recap fields. DPH1110 (talk) 00:53, 5 September 2020 (UTC)DPH1110

Yeah, that's better than having no table/overview. Kante4 (talk) 17:08, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
As a result, I will start restoring the preseason schedule tables in an example just like the aforementioned Broncos' table. I want to do all 32 teams all at once instead of just a few teams. I won't be able to pull that off today due to my work schedule, but will do so as soon as I can. DPH1110 (talk) 17:58, 5 September 2020 (UTC)DPH1110
DPH1110, I'd personally just link to COVID-19 pandemic, as specifically piping to the US sub-article seems unnecessary to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:04, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright—there will be support and opposition NO MATTER WHAT WE DO, and we won't be able to please everyone all at once, but I just finished restoring the preseason schedule tables for all 32 teams. DPH1110 (talk) 18:11, 8 September 2020 (UTC)DPH1110

Rwf5256 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)I agree with to include the preseason games again.Rwf5256 (talk) 20:07, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Bob Keyes

A couple of editors have been trying to sort out Bob Keyes on Talk:Bob Keyes since someone asked about the article here at the Wikipedia Teahouse. While trying to did up sources for Keyes that might be usable, I came across quite a few that state he played for the University of San Diego and not San Diego State University. This contradicts what PFR page cited as a source lists as his school, but I think that might be just be a mistake made by PFR. I also can't find any record of Keyes attending San Diego State or any record of him playing with the 49ers prior to the Raiders. Keyes seems to have only played four games with the Raiders in 1960 so whatever claim of notability he may have seems more likely to come from his career after football. Anyway, I'm wondering if anyone can find out more about his football career, either collage or pro. Was he drafted? Invited to camp as an undrafted free-agent? Get cut after one season? Get injured and retired? Anything that anyone can find would help a lot. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:34, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Referee jersey numbers in game summaries

I am wondering as to whether or not referee jersey numbers should be included in game summaries? It seems that the only team to have that in season articles is the Minnesota Vikings. Jersey numbers were posted for the Week 1 NFL Kickoff on both the 2020 Houston Texans and Kansas City Chiefs season articles. Since they were, I assumed that it would be a new trend across all 32 team articles for consistency. DPH1110 (talk) 16:27, 12 September 2020 (UTC)DPH1110

I do not see a reason to include them. Seems trivial to me. Kante4 (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait... refs have numbers?
I can't imagine why anyone would want to include such a thing. Then again, I can't imagine why they should have numbers to begin with. --DB1729 (talk) 20:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:FANCRUFT. It's clutter to even have the ref's name in the game summary, but it's not as bad as it being in Super Bowl infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 11:00, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
It was a thing I started doing a while back because I saw the info in the NFL game book PDFs and never saw a reason to stop. It's not taking up any space that wouldn't otherwise be blank, but I'm not going to kick up a stink if people want to go through all the articles and remove them. – PeeJay 23:07, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Pastteamsnote parameter

Hello, I have rendered the |pastteamsnote= parameter in Template:Infobox NFL player obsolete by changing the infobox to automatically add the "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" note in infoboxes in which an asterisk is used at the end of a line within |pastteams=. My change can be found here. This removes the need for an additional parameter to switch on/off the note, and makes things a bit simpler for updating articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247, nice. And since we are on the topic of the template, could you make it so NFL.com and PFR links (CFL too) appear bulleted on the same line instead of split into two? Basically, it would follow the same formatting as Template:Footballstats and look so much cleaner. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I have a (mostly) working version in the sandbox, still a few kinks to resolve before implementing. One of the issues is having the dot not appear when |cfl=(some number) because that's an old CFL link and shouldn't appear. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:44, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Perfect, thanks. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:46, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Eagles247, any updates on this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:59, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Been busy with real-world stuff, catching up on quality checks for recent transactions edits, and a GA review. I’ll get around to it eventually. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:32, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Steve Owen's page

Here is the page of Giant's coach Steve Owen.

Unlike most notable head coaches on Wikipedia, his head coaching record is not shown on his page. Would it be possible if one of the editors on the NFL Wikiproject please give him a chart of his record as a coach to match with the other coaches in the HOF? WakandaForever188 (talk) 14:04, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

NFL.com player page links

Can somebody show me how the NFL.com player template is supposed to work? I am seeing a lot of errors, for example Adrian Arrington#External links. It seems like NFL.com at some point switched from numerical IDs to names for player pages. So I switched it at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4684835#P3539. The link there now works, but on the Wikipedia page it still shows the same error for the template. Thanks in advance.

–CWenger (^ • @) 21:00, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Listing attendances in schedule tables

Can I please ask why people think replacing zeroes with dashes in team schedule tables is a good idea? A dash can imply that the information is unavailable for whatever reason, but we know that the attendance for many games this season is precisely zero. A dash is too vague for this. I've already fixed the 2020 Minnesota Vikings season article, and I'm prepared to do it for all the other teams, but if anyone has a closer connection to any particular team, please feel free to do it yourselves. – PeeJay 16:38, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with None, this person always reverts edits because it’s his way or no way. This isn’t the first time PeeJay’s done this. This is the same person that keeps reverting my talk page over some nonsense that I edited the box score during the game after the fact, while he lets the others who did the same thing go Scott free.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 17:06, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
When we have a field for countable values, using a word ("none") instead of a number ("0") is ridiculous. Please explain why a word is superior here. – PeeJay 17:27, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Also, if someone posts on your talk page, it's probably because they want to have a dialogue with you about something. You deleting the conversation and imposing your will unilaterally is counterproductive in that regard. – PeeJay 17:28, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Yeah and you discussed a ridiculous topic, that in itself was counterproductive so you should have took your own advice.--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 17:31, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
If two editors have a disagreement about how the encyclopaedia should be presented, a discussion is never counterproductive. You're telling me there wouldn't be a disagreement if I just agreed with you, and while that's true, it's also a truism, since I don't agree with you and I've actually provided a reason-based argument for my position. Now, what is your reason for your position? – PeeJay 18:07, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
Attendance is typically numberic. Therefore, I'd opt for "0" over making an exception to use the word "none". I also agree that a "-" is ambiguous and should not be used if the attendance is known to be "0".—Bagumba (talk) 09:50, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Thanks for the input. Any chance I could ask you for your opinion as to whether we need to say "game played behind closed doors" or if just "behind closed doors" is enough in the game summaries? User:GalaxyFighter55 seems to think it doesn't make sense without the words "game played", but surely it's obvious the game was played and the words "behind closed doors" are all that is needed as an explanation for why the attendance was nil. "Behind closed doors" by itself is in common parlance, at least in Europe, so I'm certain there's no need to overegg the pudding by adding "game played", just as we can get away with writing "limited attendance" and not "game played with limited attendance" elsewhere in the 2020 Minnesota Vikings season article (again, apologies but my focus is the Vikings so I don't know how the other 31 teams have been doing it). – PeeJay 12:08, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
My suggestion would be to 1) Write a few sentences of prose about the impact of COVID and crowds. 2) Use a key (e.g. *, ^, etc) or footnotes if it's really important to note the crowd situation for each game. Don't repeat and clutter the same text. 3) It's probably sufficient to just note it in the schedule table, if at all, and not every boxscore.—Bagumba (talk) 14:23, 14 October 2020‎ (UTC)
I had a similar thought, to be honest. It's not really necessary to say a game was played with a limited attendance or even behind closed doors when the listed attendance is so drastically below the capacity of each stadium. So I figure we take away the parentheticals. – PeeJay 16:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Ok guys, is ANYONE going to help me edit all the other team pages based on this consensus? PeeJay, how about you do AFC and I do NFC. How can we come on a consensus here but only have it apply to Minnesota?--GalaxyFighter55 (talk) 03:09, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
I can do that, but it doesn't do you any favours to start whinging instead of just asking nicely for people's help. It's actually quite childish. – PeeJay 13:06, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

3 NFL player articles PRODded

Due to containing zero sources. Walter Young (American football) Kindal Moorehead and Colin Branch. Could someone add at least one source to each? Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 13:39, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed changes to NGRIDIRON

Please see discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#World Football League. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Should we have to add that someone is reverted back to the practice squad when that happens automatically for elevated players?

Hi everyone. When players are elevated from the practice squad this season that is obviously usually included in a player's article, but should we also include that the player is reverted afterwards when that is what automatically happens unless they are then signed to the active roster or released? I feel as though this lends to some articles turning into an elongated transaction report. Another option is at the end of the season recapping "X was elevated to the Y's active roster for Z games" could clean this up. Also is it necessary to include the rules regarding the transaction (example: Stephen Sullivan (American football) "On October 31, 2020 Sullivan was bumped to active roster without having to sign him to the 53-man roster under a COVID-19 season call-up exemption") within an individual player's article? Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:45, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

@GPL93: I've pretty much been one of the only "regular" editors adding the gameday elevations to articles. Edmond_Robinson#Atlanta_Falcons is probably the most extreme example so far, as he's been called up I believe the most this season, and I think that's about as clean as I can get it while including all the necessary details. In the majority of cases, players are only elevated twice per season (with COVID replacements being the exception), since twice is the limit for standard elevations. I think a simple "he was elevated for the week 5 game and reverted to the practice squad after the game" is fine, but the reversion should be noted because someone who doesn't understand the intricacies of the new rule may assume that player stayed on the active roster for the rest of the season. Explaining why they reverted is a tad excessive IMO and I've removed instances of that from articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Head Coaches that need their own images

Currently their is five head coaches who don’t have a image on their page and it will be a great deal of help for the Wikipedia NFL project if we can tackle (no pun intended) some of these pages that do not have a image. These are the list of head coaches that need a picture in their infobox.

BigRed606 (talk) 04:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

BigRed606, it's really up to photographers putting up photos under a CC/free license, or at least granting us permission to use one of their copyrighted images. Otherwise we can't do much here. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Separate categories for renamed franchises

Why do we have separate categories for each iteration of a franchise? Franchises are not reformed every time there is a change of location or name, they're the same organisation. So why do we have, for example, Category:Washington Redskins and Category:Washington Football Team? Category:Houston Oilers and Category:Tennessee Titans? We don't have separate articles for those teams' different iterations, so why split the categories? – PeeJay 12:38, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Baseball players categories exist for teams that move. For instance the Category:Philadelphia Athletics players and the Category:Kansas City Athletics players. Many players, Jim Finigan and Vic Power for just two examples, are categorized as both....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Right, but that doesn't really answer my question. We may do it for all sorts of things, my question is why do we do it? – PeeJay 13:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
Because it's kind of logic to have it that way imo. Having Warren Moon for example with the Tennessee Titans category wouldn't make any sense since he never played for that team or even in that city. Didn't really answer your question I guess, but just my opinion.-- Yankees10 16:23, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
No, it's a decent answer, but surely it would make more sense to have a single category for all players who played for the Houston Oilers, the Tennessee Oilers and the Tennessee Titans. They're contracted to the same team, essentially, so why not have a single category? In soccer, we don't have different categories for players who played for Newton Heath LYR and Manchester United, after all. – PeeJay 16:33, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
PeeJay, if we did that then the category name would have to reflect every single name they have ever been known by. Just listing it by the current name seems wrong, like Yankees said. Unless you can think of another solution, then Washington's would be Boston Braves / Boston Redskins / Washington Redskins / Washington Football Team players, which is obviously too bloated (not to mention we'd have to add to it if they reveal another name in the next year or so). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:30, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's the case. Like I said, soccer players who only ever played for Newton Heath are all in Category:Manchester United F.C. players, so why would the NFL team categories need to have all the different names in? – PeeJay 22:15, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you proposing? Are you suggesting that a) Earl Campbell be listed in the Tennessee Titans category (College football does this example) b) former team names be categorized within the current team name categories, or something different?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Option A. Anything relating to former names of the franchise should be contained within a category with the current name, and the categories with the former name should be deleted. – PeeJay 01:21, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
But we do have a separate page for Houston Oilers so that is why Category:Houston Oilers exists. Placing a player in the category of the team he did not play for would be nonsense. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:30, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
You do realise that link is a redirect, right? So we don’t have a separate page for the Houston Oilers. I’m not suggesting anyone be categorised as playing for a team they didn’t actually play for, my point is that - to all intents and purposes - the Houston Oilers, the Tennessee Oilers and the Tennessee Titans are the same team, just with three different names. A player who played for the Titans and a player who played for the Oilers effectively played for the same team. – PeeJay 08:28, 21 November 2020 (UTC)
The "History of ..." is a technicality. For whatever reason, this project names it that instead of just using the former team name like Montreal Expos (baseball) or Buffalo Braves (basketball).—Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

List of second overall National Football League draft picks

The original AfD of the list of second overall National Football League draft picks was closed despite having no discussion beyond the OP, so a deletion review is now open here. Comments are welcome. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:24, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Markus Paul

Is there anyone willing to help expand the playing career section of the Markus Paul article? Would be helpful to getting it on the recent deaths section of the front page.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 22:53, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Improving NFL playoff results

Today I made some changes to the NFL playoff results page, specifically the Conference Championships section. This included the addition of reference columns for adding sources to the article. I would like some help in retrieving these sources (like pro-football-reference.com, ESPN, and others) and updating the other tables to accompany this change so we can make the list one of the better lists on Wikipedia. –Piranha249 17:15, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

New England Patriots strategy

Can some editors improve this article? Many of the paragraphs in the article are unsourced, and may be WP:OR. I think this topic as a whole is notable, but the article needs a lot of cleanup to be more encyclopedic. Natg 19 (talk) 01:19, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

AfD: Hail Murray

There is an open AfD that the members of this project may be interested in, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hail Murray. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 01:12, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Cowboys–Packers rivalry

Notice

The article Cowboys–Packers rivalry has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

There is nothing here to suggest an actual rivalry between these two teams. The fact that they are both teams in the NFL, even in the same conference, means they are bound to play each other on a semi-regular basis, but a rivalry needs some true enmity between the two teams, and none has been demonstrated here.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

Providing notice, Prod was done by another editor. UW Dawgs (talk) 17:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed article: Draft:The Catch II

There is a proposed article at Draft:The Catch II that needs discussion at Talk:1998–99 NFL playoffs whether or not it can be split off into its own article, per WP:NEVENT rules. Thanks. Malcolm L. Mitchell (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

AfD: Muppet Night Football

There is an open AfD that the members of this project may be interested in, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Muppet Night Football. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Infobox contents

The NFL game infobox template seems to be overfilled with some information not appropriate for an infobox. Opinions? Infinite mission (talk) 05:28, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy link to Template:Infobox NFL team. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:00, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
Is this conversation about {{Infobox NFL team}}, or {{Infobox NFL game}}? -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:25, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Looks like everything specific to a Super Bowl applied to a generic game. Frankenstein might have been a product of Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11#American football game infoboxes. Too often, we ignore MOS:INFOBOX: How important is the field to the articles that will use the infobox? Is it summary information, or more extended detail that may be better placed within the body of an article? ... If the field is relevant to very few articles, it should probably not be included at all—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
I think your appraisal is incorrect; almost all fields are involved in regular-season and playoff games.
I don't think this work should've continued. After I reverted the breaking changes that Infinite mission made to {{Infobox NFL game}}, he went on to remove fields he didn't like from individual game articles. We don't have consensus for such a sweeping change. We don't even have a list of which fields we might be considering to be superfluous. -- Mikeblas (talk) 20:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
It's definitely a more intensive task than what I first realized, but I intend to eventually be able to trim the infobox. Some of the important things to do before include moving references and information worthy of keeping to the prose. I appreciate more feedback concerning other steps to take before deleting the parameters we can agree to. Infinite mission (talk) 20:52, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Manual of Style fixes reverted

Hi all - I have been doing some basic MOS edits, fixing violations of MOS:POUND and MOS:TIME, on team articles so far from 2016 to present. Three or four of these edits (changing "12:00 p.m." to "Noon") on Vikings articles have been reverted by PeeJay, who told me to raise it here. I'm doing that in lieu of starting an edit war. MOS:TIME states that Usually, use noon and midnight rather than 12 pm and 12 am. Thoughts? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 14:10, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

I think the key word there is "usually". If we were dealing with prose, I would certainly agree with you, but I think it's more important to preserve consistency in the way kickoff times are displayed in these articles. Only those particularly lacking in powers of comprehension would struggle to understand from context that games did not kick off in the middle of the night, so I don't think it's that confusing to use "12:00 p.m." in this situation, especially when every other time is displayed as "1:00 p.m." and "4:15 p.m." – PeeJay 15:05, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
I'd prefer tables be consistent for times and use 12:00, something similar to MOS:NUMNOTES: In tables and infoboxes, quantities are expressed in figures (Years in office: 5); but numbers within a table's explanatory text and comments follow the general rule.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
I worry this might be the limit of people's willingness to engage with the subject, but this feels like a consensus to me. Assuming no more responses come in, User:PCN02WPS, would you be willing to revert the rest of your changes to the time formatting? – PeeJay 11:20, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Even if we were to call if WP:NOCONSENSUS, "a lack of consensus commonly results in retaining the version of the article as it was prior to the proposal or bold edit."—Bagumba (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba and PeeJay, I will revert my changes today. Thanks and sorry for the inconvenience. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 13:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
@PCN02WPS: No apologies needed for being bold.—Bagumba (talk) 14:02, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba and PeeJay, I have finished reverting. All instances of "noon" should be replaced with "12:00 p.m." PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:43, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
Thanks mate, and thanks for being a good sport about the discussion process. As Bagumba said, there's no need to apologise for being bold with edits, especially when somewhat backed up by Wikipolicy, but thanks for being gracious about it. – PeeJay 17:52, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Creation of articles

I’m curious, if a person gets an interview to be an NFL GM should we start making an article for them? Bigmike2346 (talk) 17:24, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

If the notability threshold is that they have to be an actual GM, then no, because getting an interview is not the same as getting the job. – PeeJay 17:53, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

CfD discussion

There is a CfD discussion in which you might be interested, involving:

The discussion is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 15. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Notable?

Hey, is this 2021 NFC Wild Card game (Chicago–New Orleans) notable? I guess not but wanted to check here first. Kante4 (talk) 22:59, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

American Football Minor Leagues WikiProject Proposal

I have made a proposal for a WikiProject, American Football Minor Leagues. It will improve football minor-league articles. Put your name in the "support" section of the article if you would like to join. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I have posed a question that may pertain to this proposed project at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football#Status of the United States Football League–UCO2009bluejay (talk) 02:36, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

CfD: Category:NFL International Series participants

There is an open CfD that the members of this project may be interested in; please see here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Pre-merger playoffs

Was hoping someone could clarify a minor thing. Would pre-merger Super Bowls be considered part of the NFL playoffs, or no? The pre-merger 1968–69 NFL playoffs and 1967–68 NFL playoffs were played out fully in the years 1968 and 1967 respectively, with the Super Bowl for those seasons being played out early the following year. The pages used to be located at 1968 NFL playoffs and 1967 NFL playoffs until recently when User:Bergeronpp moved them to the new location. I don't know what's more correct here. I personally would say that the old article titles are more correct, as these pages represent the NFL playoffs specifically, and therefore shouldn't include the Super Bowl, which was played out between the winner of the NFL playoffs and the winner of the AFL Championship Game. The Super Bowl game capsule aren't included in the playoffs article until after the merger, starting in the 1970–71 NFL playoffs. The 1969–70 NFL playoffs meanwhile are named correctly as the playoffs themselves didn't conclude until January 1970. KristofferAG (talk) 16:07, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the Playoff Bowl was played in January in addition to the Super Bowl (which is the championship game). The AFL-NFL acted as "separate but equal" between 1966–69 after the merger was announced in '66.Bergeronpp (talk) 16:22, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
That's a good point, I forgot about the Playoff Bowl to be honest, but aren't those considered to be exhibition games and not part of the playoffs? The current naming conventions however still state that the dates for pre-merger playoffs should be the year in which a majority of the season was played. I'm not saying that's the perfect way to do it, but it should be put up for discussion before any changes are made. KristofferAG (talk) 16:29, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

All-Pros in infoboxes

Since this is about info boxes is this the place to ask about why only Associated Press All Pros are shown in the info box and not all 3 organizations that are officially recognized in the current NFLPA collective bargaining agreement (AP, PFWA, SN)? Pgconboy (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pgconboy, isn't the AP one considered the "primary" one? I mean their player awards are the ones presented at the NFL Honors event, right? And I'm not taking anything away from PFWA and SN's, but the infobox would feel really bloated if we put every single publication there, especially when they represent the same general award. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:07, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
AP is considered the 'primary' but SN and PFWA are also official. The PFWA All Pro is even taken into account for the compensatory draft pick formula. I don't think the infobox would really grow in size because there wouldn't be a reason to distinguish which group gave the award, only the year it was earned, as it is currently done. Alternatively, renaming All Pros to AP All Pros would also be a possible change and factually correct. Pgconboy (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
What we could do is link to the generic article and then cite the groups after, similar to how we list college All-Americans. And if it's all three we could simply omit them. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:38, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
Dissident93, Forgive my wiki etiquette, since I made this account I've forgotten all of the tagging rules and responding rules. I don't have a strong opinion on what the solution should be other than that citing All Pros and then only counting Associated Press is unintentionally disingenuous. But easily solved by simply calling it AP All Pros or counting all official all pro organizations. Thanks for your ideas. Pgconboy (talk) 21:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree on principal, but how many All-Pros didn't make the AP team? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT says not to list the selectors in the infobox: When listing All-American and All-Pro selections, there is no need to list the selector.—Bagumba (talk) 12:30, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
The All-Pro article has a few references saying that AP is the most recognized. Pro-footbal-referece.com uses "All-Pro" to refer to the AP selections.[8]—Bagumba (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, There is no dispute that Associated Press is currently the most recognized. But there is an obvious problem with citing All Pros and then at the same time not allowing the name of the selectors, while only listing 1 of the 3 awarding groups. I don't know how proposals work but I propose that either the info box All Pros are renamed as AP All Pros (and leaving all of the current years and information the same) or counting all of the veteran media as described in the current NFLPA collective bargaining agreement (which would add a handful or so of all pros each year. 97.97.185.124 (talk) 19:43, 12 January 2021 (UTC) wasn't signed in... Pgconboy (talk) 19:44, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

The information at "Miscellaneous notes" underneath 'What to leave out' seems to expressively illustrate the point I am trying to make.

"Note: first-team All-Pro selections listed at the top of player bios on Pro-Football-Reference can be misleading. The top only lists AP selections, as explained here, and disregards all other selections"

That is exactly what I am trying to convey.Pgconboy (talk) 19:56, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Pgconboy: Leave it singular, independent of how many selectors are used. For example, we dont say "All-Americans".—Bagumba (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I haven't made any changes and so far as I can tell nothing as been agreed on. I am not sure what you are referencing. Pgconboy (talk) 20:13, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I propose that either the info box All Pro are renamed as AP All Pro or counting all of the veteran media as described in the current NFLPA collective bargaining agreement. Pgconboy (talk) 20:33, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I noticed the PFWA addressed the sometimes perceived idea that the Associated Press award is somehow official and reiterated which groups are equal under the CBA and how the Associated Press has a marketing agreement with the NFL. https://twitter.com/PFWAwriters/status/1351974429186797569 Pgconboy (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Arthur Smith

Hi, we currently have 2 articles about people named Arthur Smith who played and coached American football. These are Arthur Smith (American football) and Arthur Smith (American football coach). I plan on adding hatnote to each article, but in looking at both articles, but realized that neither one iz really. titled properly. Any thoughts on what to do here? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 20:03, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

In my opinion, Arthur Smith (American football coach) should be moved to Arthur Smith (American football, born 1982). The Arthur Smith (American football) should be named similarly, but I cannot find anything related to the individual's birth year. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:11, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, use the birth year for both per WP:NCGRIDIRON.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
The problem is the older one's birth year is unknown. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks. What can we do if the birth year is unknown? BilCat (talk) 19:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

I can't find much of anything about the other Arthur Smith, save that by 1921 he'd gone into trade: [9]. I'm not convinced he's notable; certainly, it's not possible to write an article about him. Mackensen (talk) 22:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Inconsistent founding dates of the post-merger divisions

The founding dates of the six divisions formed at the merger are inconsistent with the actual history of the divisions.

The current statement that the NFL's Capitol, Central, and Coastal divisions became the NFC's East, Central, and West divisions is pure original research, despite the two Centrals sharing their name and teams. The method in which teams were allocated to their post-merger divisions makes it highly unlikely the two Centrals share official continuity, much less the other disputed divisions. And don't get me started on the Century Division. O.N.R. (talk) 03:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Offensive Player of the Year in Player Infobox

As of now the Offensive player of the Year links to the Associated Press OPoTY. In contrast many of the DPoTYs infoboxes link to a page that talks about the several organizations that give out the award.

Is there any issue with adding Sporting News and Pro Football Writer's Association OPoTY awards to the info box and making a similar page that explains that all 3 of the organizations are equally recognized by the players and NFL?

Here is a link that shows the PFWA agrees with this claim and a page from 119 of the 2020 NFLPA CBA agreement: https://twitter.com/PFWAwriters/status/1351974429186797569?s=20

If anyone would like to review the NFLPA Collective Bargaining agreement they can download and view it at https://nflpaweb.blob.core.windows.net/media/Default/NFLPA/CBA2020/NFL-NFLPA_CBA_March_5_2020.pdf Pgconboy (talk) 21:05, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

The current issue is that while there exists a generic page that describes the various Defensive Player of the Year awards: (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Defensive_Player_of_the_Year_Award_) when changing Defensive to Offensive and looking for that page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_Offensive_Player_of_the_Year_Award

Wikipedia instead redirects to

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Associated_Press_NFL_Offensive_Player_of_the_Year_Award

The Associated Press does not have a monopoly of this award. Pgconboy (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

Pgconboy, oh you meant you wish to create a landing page for such an award and include all the publications and their winners there? In that case I fully support such a thing, as we already have consensus for it on other awards. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Ok, I will do that. Pgconboy (talk) 01:42, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Dissident93, Do the Defensive Player of the Year awards in the info boxes only count Associated Press? I noticed people like Bobby Bell and Curley Culp have DPoTY that were not from the Associated Press (rightfully so, in my opinion). However, when I added Aaron Donald's 3rd DPoTY it keeps getting reverted for not being Associated Press. Pgconboy (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
Pgconboy, it should be fine as long as PFWA is included with it, even though generally AP is considered the "main" award. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Dissident93, Fair enough, though I find it odd at the lengths people are going to discriminate between the awards. The NFL is a union and in the agreement they list what awards and media are legally recognized. If any of us were to hire a union in our day to day lives we couldn't pick an choose what part of their contract we wanted to ignore. When it comes to NFL contract incentives and compensatory draft picks, non-associated press awards have real meaning. Additionally, one of the requirements for being eligible for the HOF is having made an all pro team, pro bowl, or all conference team. Associated Press doesn't nominate anyone for all conference, the other groups that are seemingly deemed insignificant for the info box do. On the NFL MVP wikiepdia page there is a quote from a writer that says the award is the "de facto" award, a claim clearly disputed by the PFWA in a tweet at the top of this discussion.

Similar with the All Pro question I had, if only AP DPoTY awards count for the info box then the info box should rename the award from " NFL Defensive Player of the Year " to " AP NFL Defensive Player of the Year " because it is misleading, while most popular they are not offical nor have any extra merit within the collective bargaining agreement. Pgconboy (talk) 02:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Pgconboy, agree, if they didn't get the award from PFWA or Sporting News too it should be clearly marked as AP's. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
FWIW, WP:NFLINFOBOX list selectors for MVP, but not for the other awards. That being said, given the limited people discussing this here, there doesn't seem to be enough people to "enforce" that standard. Given the popularity of football, a lot of drive-by editors make changes that would not be aware of what's been written up. For example, I see at Aaron Rodgers editors remove 2020 MVP from the infobox because he has not won AP yet (he won PFWA).—Bagumba (talk) 02:22, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Mass Stat Table Edits

I don't have the time/energy to look into this, but just wanted to note the mass changes going on here: Special:Contributions/79.24.2.43. Not sure the purpose, as they mostly seem to be wiki-code/syntax changes. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the changes if it helps to standardise the way they look across the project and makes them look better, but what I don't like is the use of unexplained abbreviations in the column headers. I just had to look up what "FD" stood for in the table for Johnnie Morton; I'm pretty sure first downs are usually abbreviated to "1D" (at least that's what they do at Pro-Football-Reference.com). – PeeJay 15:49, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
PeeJay, ya, the edit that frustrated me was this one (which is a GA), where the IP removed the {{Abbr}} templates for those abbreviations. They seem to be on a mission, and I wanted to make sure that there edits are appropriate in case a lot of clean-up is required. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:09, 26 January 2021 (UTC)
There is zero reason to remove the abbr template. Not everybody reading the article is going to know what these things are, and they do not hurt by existing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

National Football Conference

I have nominated NFC for Wikipedia:Articles for improvement. Please present your views so that the article be improved fast.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 06:45, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Thoughts on adding new XFL to WP:GRIDIRON?

This came up in an AFD for Reece Horn, and it seems to me that borrowing the reasoning for presumed notability based on other projects like WP:FOOTBALL might suit us. Right now, WP:GRIDIRON's fully professional leagues are the A(rena)FL, the CFL, USFL, NFL, the old AFL and the AAFL. WP:FOOTY says much about "fully professional leagues," defining them (basically) as leagues where players are paid enough as to not require supplemental income. The Washington Post reported that XFL players were to earn over $50,000, which certainly would fit the mold. The same article also notes that Alliance of American Football players were also set to earn considerable amounts of money. Just some food for thought. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 16:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Etzedek24: See Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)/Archive_35#Adding_XFL_to_WP:GRIDIRON for a discussion from February/March 2020. The issue comes down to a significant majority of these players meeting WP:GNG, but many of them do not. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Practice squad to FA transition

I am encountering a problem on Jayron Kearse, as an editor lists that he is a free agent despite not being officially released from the practice squad, claiming that practice squad players not signed to reserve deals are automatically free agents. No sources provided. Is this a common practice? Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:52, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

When does the new year turn over? As in the start of next season? Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 01:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Etzedek24, it's always in March (March 17 this year). Basically it's the same day when free agents can officially sign new contracts with other teams. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:17, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Will continue to monitor the situation (had to check to make sure I was not 3RRing!). Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 02:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC)
@Etzedek24: @Dissident93: Practice squad contracts expire one week after the team's final regular season or postseason game. They are different from active roster contracts, which would expire in March when the new league year opens up. I'll find a source, hang on. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:20, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Here are some sources: [10], [11]. I should note that practice squad contracts expire the Monday one week after a team's final regular/postseason game of the season, as evidenced in the sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:23, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Additionally, the 2020 NFL Collective Bargaining Agreement includes a copy of a standard practice squad player contract (page 377). It says "This contract covers the 20___ football season, and will begin on the date of execution and end one week after the date of the Club's last regular season or postseason game, unless terminated by Player pursuant to Paragraph 10 or by Club pursuant to Paragraph 6 or Paragraph 9." Practice squad contract expirations are unfortunately largely ignored by the media, so it is very difficult to find references supporting these minor transactions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:38, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
That's helpful, even if this is a mundane part of the process. I happily sit corrected. Etzedek24 (I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record) 22:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Eagles247, was this the case prior to 2020? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Yes. The same language is in the practice squad player contract template from the 2011 NFL-NFLPA CBA ([12], see page 298). This template does not exist in the 2006 extension ([13]) of the 1993 NFL-NFLPA CBA, but I would be surprised if the language was only first introduced in 2011. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:02, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Eagles247, I guess that does explain the entire futures contract then. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:04, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NFL biography apperance

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography#Infobox bodystyle regarding the appearance of the infobox. — Goszei (talk) 08:47, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

College bowl games in NFL infoboxes

This one isn't explicitly mentioned under WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT, nor has there been a discussion here before from what I can tell, but is anyone in favor of including "bowl champions" to NFL infoboxes? I've seen several IPs adding this recently, as well as registered users (see [14] as an example). I think it should only be national championships (on any level) included in infoboxes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:31, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Bowls are a dime a dozen now. Some might call it recentism, but it's a tradeoff I can live with.—Bagumba (talk) 12:23, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
I also think we should limit it to national championships. The closest NFL comparison would be division titles. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:39, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

CfD: Category:Super Bowl champions

There is an open CfD that the members of this project may be interested in; please see here. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:43, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

I take it that anyone who had an opinion on these categories weighed in on the discussion, correct? This case and another are being used to justify expanding Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization#Sportspeople by event so all opinions need to be voiced at this time. Rikster2 (talk) 22:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposed requested move of all post-merger season articles

There is an open requested move to rename all the posr-merger season articles, that the members of this project may be interested in, since it would essentially override one of the core items listed on WP:NFL#Naming conventions. Please see Talk:1970 NFL season#Requested move 7 February 2021. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:30, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Removing odds and referee parameters from Template:Infobox NFL game

Both |odds= and |referee= have been removed for certain games at Template:NFLC-SuperBowl. For example, these parameters have been removed twice at 1958 NFL Championship Game, which I restored. Messages by two different editors have been left at User talk:Infinite mission#Removing information from football articles and User talk:Infinite mission#January 2021. The editor in question then went ahead and made a series of edits to Template:Infobox NFL game and Template:Infobox NFL game/doc (see histories of these templates) without even gaining any consensus. Should the removed parameters be restored in games where they were omitted? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:41, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

There was Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_18#Infobox_contents, but no consensus there. Pinging Infinite mission. I don't see that they have made any recent changes in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 09:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
I can see why the odds might have been removed, but not the referee. Either way, there was no consensus to remove anything, so this should be treated as disruptive. – PeeJay 15:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Formatting of NFL and college awards in infobox

So a few users think that we shouldn't clearly separate NFL and college awards/honors in the infobox on Chase Young's page. I oppose this, seeing as there is no guideline AFAIK that obviously prohibits it and I believed that it greatly assists in readability, especially to users who don't know where one ends and the other starts. I've seen this done in other articles so it's not something I just thought of on a whim. Does anybody else still oppose this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I oppose it for consistency reasons and I also believe it doesn't really make a difference in readability. Take a look at Jonathan Ogden's article, or any other player who has multiple college + NFL awards. Their awards and highlights are not separated, so giving Young's article a pass doesn't make sense considering he has 3 NFL highlights when there are other players with numerous other awards and they don't have their highlights separated between college and NFL. CatcherStorm talk 03:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
CatcherStorm, would your opinion change if he has 5 more NFL honors and awards in the next few years? WP:CRYSTALBALL I know, but is your argument about the overall number not warranting it? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
A player/coach like Jim Harbaugh would get messy, having to separate college from pro player awards. Then a seperate section also for coaching—do we further separate college and pro coaching too? FWIW, NBA infoboxes don't separate pro from college.—Bagumba (talk) 03:48, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, Harbaugh isn't the best counter-example because there was only one valid college level honor/award in his infobox (Heisman finalist and a bowl championship shouldn't have been there). Even if this shouldn't be a global guideline, I don't see why it can't be decided on a case-by-case basis. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't see why it can't be decided on a case-by-case basis: Honestly, case-by-case doesnt work very well on Wikipedia, esp. with all the drive-by NFL editors.—Bagumba (talk) 01:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, oh I'm aware, which is why I wish to come to a consensus here one way or the other. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:45, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

TfD nomination of NFL season templates

Hi there - I have nominated all of the NFL's team season templates for deletion. For anyone interested, you can find the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 February 16#NFL team season templates. Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 04:06, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_18&oldid=1140166000"