The category Category:National Football League team season templates and all of its corresponding templates are unnecessary. All NFL teams' primary team navboxes already contain sections for season links. Having separate seasons-only navboxes duplicates the effort and only further clutters the bottoms of season articles with their redundancy.
I'm going to mass TfD them, unless WP:NFL has a consensus/previous discussion they can link for me which justifies why they exist. SportsGuy789 (talk) 02:01, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I agree that duplication is pointless. Soccer also goes along the route of a separate navbox for team seasons. Adding them to the main team navbox is unnecessary clutter. – PeeJay12:51, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Also support removing the seasons list from the main navboxes. The main team navboxes need some overhaul, as they've been bombarded with fancruft and tangentially-related topics in the last few years. Eagles24/7(C)22:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)
Miles Sanders and Clyde Edwards-Helaire's Pro Bowl status
Neither Miles Sanders nor Clyde Edwards-Helaire should be listed as Pro Bowlers for 2020 right? People keep adding them to 2021 Pro Bowl and to their infoboxes. I can't find any reliable source saying that they we named to the official roster (the NFL doesn't have them listed), all I can find are that the two won the “Video Game Numbers Challenge.”, which appears to be related to the fact that the Pro Bowl was a Madden Tournament and allowed them to participate in the tournament or something. It looks even after the selections, reliable sourcing has not considered them to be on the "roster" (Example: Sporting News) which is likely due to the fact that they technically were not selected due to actual on-field performance. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:18, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
They are not Pro Bowl selections. For the contest, I believe they were added to the Madden Pro Bowl rosters for this year, but not in real life. Eagles24/7(C)01:40, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
If they were not included on the roster when they were announced then it should not be added to their pages. Sources make it clear that the only two rookies to have made the roster were Justin Jefferson and Chase Young. ~ Dissident93(talk)01:53, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Infobox NFL biography stats display change
I've made some changes at Template:Infobox NFL biography/sandbox to have the stat links at the bottom of infoboxes appear all in one line instead of multiple ones as they currently show (as Dissident93 suggested months ago). At the moment, I've got NFL.com, PFR, and ArenaFan links all in the same line, but the CFL link is a bit too complicated for my technical skills to include on that line due to its self-checks for dead links. It still shows up in a second line, but I've coded it so "Player stats at" still only appears one time at the bottom, regardless of how many links show up. You can view the testcases at Template:Infobox NFL biography/testcases#March 2021 stat changes, and discuss below your thoughts on the proposed changes. Thanks! Eagles24/7(C)01:45, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
True. That seems like more that I could do in a single setting, but if done in batches it could be done within a few days. ~ Dissident93(talk)07:43, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
College years in infobox
Is there any reason we don't put in the timeframe a player attended college in infoboxes? They would look just like the ones we do for NFL teams. Example: Ohio State (2005–2008). ~ Dissident93(talk)20:07, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: It would make sense for players that played at multiple colleges. They do it with NBA player articles too, I don’t see why we can’t adopt it here.--Rockchalk71720:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Yeah this is true, there’s thousands of player articles and only a handful of us that participate in these discussions that regularly edit these pages, even I don’t participate as often as I probably should. I guess we can wait and see if anyone opposes this. Does anybody reading this have an objection?--Rockchalk71722:55, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
Still no opposition to this (and I don't see why there would be since we do it for other sports and their college infoboxes), so I'm going to add it to the infobox documentation. ~ Dissident93(talk)21:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Pastteams parameter in infobox
I was updating the Ross O'Hanley article, which had no mention of his 1966 season, when he was a member of the Miami Dolphins but was injured in the preseason and missed the entire regular season, before being cut after the season. I added the Dolphins 1966 season to the "pastteams" section of the infobox, but I wasn't sure if he should have an asterisk. He was only active during the preseason so I added the asterisk, but he was still on the team, albeit injured, for the entire season so I wasn't sure if the asterisk was warranted. So I am asking here what the proper procedure is. Thanks. Rlendog (talk) 00:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
So users continue to add every player tagged from the last 10 years to the article as well as a massive table showing contract numbers. Both of these violate WP:NOTCATALOG right? ~ Dissident93(talk)19:05, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
If someone looks up franchise tag, I think they'd expect to see a list of players who have been tagged before, especially since the number of players tagged historically is not too large. I would not support adding a list of players given restricted free agent tenders, however, as an example. Eagles24/7(C)00:32, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Eagles247, maybe a small list of notable ones, but we do not need to note every single player who has ever been tagged. There are better databases for that than Wikipedia. ~ Dissident93(talk)19:37, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93:How many total franchise tags have been given out? Okay I looked at one of the revisions, it's a lot of players and it was only going back to 2007 (the tag has been available since 1993). I don't feel as strongly about including them in the article now. Eagles24/7(C)20:50, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Change infoboxes from "(pre 1970 AFL–NFL merger)" to "(pre–Super Bowl era)"
If you go to the Minnesota Vikings article, it states (1) league championship. However, they lost the Super Bowl to Kansas City. If you go to the Chiefs article, it states (3) league championships but only counts the 1962 AFL championship, but NOT 1966 or 1969. So, if a club wins a Super Bowl between 1967 and 1970, they get rewarded with 1 league championship, but not 2, and the loser still gets rewarded with a league championship. I'm requesting a change on all NFL infoboxes to read: "(pre–Super Bowl era)" and ONLY count league championships prior to the 1966 NFL/AFL season(s). A casual football fan might at first glance believe that the first Super Bowl was 1970 b/c it states (pre AFL-NFL merger). A clear distinction needs to be made. Bergeronpp (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
So to clarify, you're asking to not count the Super Bowl I–IV losers as league champions, despite the fact they won their pre-merger leagues? The 1968 Colts and 1969 Vikings were NFL champions; just not Super Bowl champions. O.N.R.(talk)08:03, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
How about we just split |league_champs= into |nfl_league_champs= and |afl_league_champs= (including |no_league_champs= into |no_nfl_league_champs= and |no_afl_league_champs=)? That would seem to be the most logical approach. And the Super Bowl I–IV champion teams should use |pre1970sb_champs= and |no_pre1970sb_champs= since these parameters are still in the Template:Infobox NFL team but they are not used. The Template:Infobox NHL team has a similar arrangement, which has parameters for Stanley Cup and Avco World Trophy (for former WHA teams, which do not exist anymore) champions. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
This seems like a reasonable proposal (without introducing any WP:OR into the infobox. What do you propose pre1970sb_champs and no_pre1970sb_champs= should display in the infobox? "AFL-NFL World Championships" or something else? Mojoworker (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: Based on this (and previous) discussions, I think the crux of the problem is the WP:OR issue of calling the first four Super Bowls "League Championships" (and counting them as such) when they were inter-league "AFL-NFL World Championship" games. Hence something needs to change. Maybe removing the count is the easiest solution. Mojoworker (talk) 21:36, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mojoworker: I meant to say that |pre1970sb_champs= and |no_pre1970sb_champs= should stay as they are, while the "League Championships" parameter (count included) should be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
It's pretty simple what I'm asking for in the infoboxes: pre–Super Bowl era NFL champions (1920–65); pre–Super Bowl era AFL champions (1960–65); Super Bowl champions (1967–present). If you literally click on the league championship above, it clearly defines what I'm requesting to be changed. Bergeronpp (talk) 14:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC) 14:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
But from 1967 to 1970, the NFL and the AFL were still officially separate leagues, which is why we use 1970 as the line in the sand. The whole thing is stupid since they started the Super Bowl era before the leagues merged, but that notwithstanding, why would we all of a sudden change from using 1970 as the cutoff to 1967? – PeeJay17:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
They were but they weren't. The merger was announced in late 1966 and for the intermediate years, the two leagues were basically functioning like the AL and NL used to in baseball: separate "leagues" in name, but essentially the same overall organization. Both leagues still had their respective championships and intraleague schedules, but now there was a common draft (1967) and obviously a higher championship in the Super Bowl, among other cooperation. So yes, they were still separate leagues but more in name only and certainly not in the way they were prior to 1966. What happened in 1970 was simply the culmination and final step of the merger in coming totally under the NFL branding and reorganizing divisions. --JonRidinger (talk) 20:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
But the leagues had not completed the merger until after the 1969 "AFL-NFL World Championship" (as it was then called). From Forbes: "The 1969 season was the last year of the American Football League, as the AFL merged with the NFL prior to the 1970 season. Actually, the agreement to merge had occurred prior to the 1966 season, and the first Super Bowl (known as the AFL-NFL World Championship Game) would be played after that season between the Green Bay Packers and Chiefs. It wasn’t until the 1970 season that the merger was completed."[1]
It's not for us to take editorial license and arbitrarily choose to call those four "AFL-NFL World Championships" "League championships", in Wikipedia's voice, when there isn't agreement in the wider world on the issue. As I said in a previous discussion, there are plenty of WP:RS references for the Vikings being the 1969 NFL champions and the Raiders being the 1967 AFL champions, etc. Those are "League Championships". I don't know how anyone can argue otherwise without straying into WP:OR. Yes, those first four Super Bowls are messy, and don't fit nicely into what came before or after. Mojoworker (talk) 08:01, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
This discussion is just going to keep coming up time after time. We should seriously consider eliminating the “no_league_champs” parameter and just maintain the others. But if we don’t eliminate, I still believe in only counting AFL championships from 1960-65, NFL Championships from 1920-65, and Super Bowl Championships only in the parameter. Which means the winners of the first four Super Bowls should have a league championship listed for those years, but not the losers.--Rockchalk71719:49, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
It just seems odd to me to remove the merger year titles completely. At the very least they're as prestigious as conference titles, which are being counted in the infobox, and more prestigious than a division title or a playoff run, both of which are also included in the infobox. Just completely ignoring the fact that they won a major title one of those years seems wrong to me. KristofferAG (talk) 08:50, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
As stated above, I think the OP's proposal violates WP:OR by describing the four AFL-NFL World Championships as "League championships" when they were, in fact, inter-league games. I think Sabbatino's proposal above is reasonable, as is User:Gonzo fan2007's previous proposal that I mention above, which I'll copy here (and note that User:Eagles247proposed the same solution):
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"'. Mojoworker (talk) 09:03, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Reliable sources note That would be consistent with Official encyclopedia of football. 1989. p. 61, where it has a list for Green Bay showing "Championships Won", itemized by "Super Bowl" and "NFL (pre-1970)". It does not show a numerical total. At 2020 NFL Record & Fact Book p.559, it shows the NFL record for "Most Seasons League Champion" being 13 for Green Bay i.e. 1929-31, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996, 2010. NFL and Super Bowl titles are not counted twice.—Bagumba (talk) 12:17, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
One of the biggest issues I have is Super Bowl winners (I-IV) are counted twice, but losers i.e, 1969 Baltimore and 1970 Minnesota are counted in the summed total, but only the Super Bowl title for the New York Jets (1969) and Kansas City (1970) are counted in the summed total, but not the AFL championship (which it shouldn't IMO). Pro-Football Reference defines "League Championships" as NFL championships (1920-65), AFL championships (1960-65), and Super Bowl championships (1967-present).
Also, as I stated in the opening paragraph of this discussion, one of the biggest problems I have is that a casual fan who stumbles upon the Indianapolis Colts or Minnesota Vikings articles and assumes that (pre-1970 NFL titles) are before the Super Bowl era and SB I was in '70. If we are to include NFL championships (1966-69) and NOT change the infoboxes to read (pre-Super Bowl era), then a footnote must be added.Bergeronpp (talk) 13:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Another idea is to move NFL championships (1966-69) to Conference championships. For example, Minnesota would read NFL: 1969-70 and NFC: 1973-74, 1974-75, 1976-77.Bergeronpp (talk) 13:44, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I do not support WP going WP:OR and treating a league title 1966–69 as a conference title, unless, at a minimum, there are reliable sources that do the same.—Bagumba (talk) 16:33, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
I prefer the proposal suggested by Mojoworker. Do not sum the two types of championships. Then all the league championships are counted and all Super Bowl championships are counted consistently.
If the only problem as Bergeronpp mentions, is confusion among casual readers about when the SB era began, we could solve that by adding a parenthetical: "Super Bowl championships (1966-present)". It would look something like this for the Packers. Note this would also require removing the |no_sb_champs= infobox parameter. --DB1729 (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
If you to Pro-Football Reference and scroll down to Minnesota Vikings, it lists under Conference Championships: 4. If you move your cursor over Chmp, SBwl, and Conf (at the top of the table) it provides you with their definition. Bergeronpp (talk) 18:51, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Im on mobile, but found another glossary. It says "Times team won the conference championship, since the start of the Super Bowl".—Bagumba (talk) 18:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bergeronpp: But Pro-Football Reference doesn't say that their "Chmp" counts are "League championships", it says they're counting "Times team won the Super Bowl or before the Super Bowl the League Championship Game". I don't think we want to replace "League championships()" in the Infobox with that verbose and convoluted alternative (which would be necessary in order to be accurate about what's being reported), all so we can count the same way that Pro-Football Reference does (which seems rather arbitrary anyway). Better to just do away with the count. Mojoworker (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Mojoworker:The Vikings team page on Pro-Football Reference states "0 Championships Won" ~ NFL championships (pre-1966) and Super Bowl championships (1966-). This is exactly why I started this discussion in the first place. As I predicted in the opening paragraph, there is a new discussion from what appears to be a casual NFL fan in Talk:List of Super Bowl champions as to why the '69 NFL championship is included in the Minnesota article despite losing the Super Bowl. Bergeronpp (talk) 23:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bergeronpp: And the way that Pro-Football Reference defines what they count as championships is entirely up to them – and really has no direct bearing on what we report in our articles. What we can't say in Wikipedia's voice is that the Vikings have zero League championships, because that is patently false. You're trying to oversimplify something that's messy – but some things just don't fit in convenient boxes.
We should use |pre1970sb_champs= and |no_pre1970sb_champs= since these parameters are still in the Template:Infobox NFL team, but as Sabbatino mentioned, split |league_champs= into |nfl_league_champs= and |afl_league_champs= for league championships before the Super Bowl era (pre-1966). Bergeronpp (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
As I said above, the crux of the issue is the WP:OR problem of calling the first four Super Bowls "League Championships" (and counting them as such) when they were inter-league "AFL-NFL World Championship" games. Maybe removing the count is the easiest solution. Mojoworker (talk) 21:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
But as another user above pointed out, the merger was announced prior to the 1966–67 season and though the NFL and AFL were "separate" leagues, they competed for the same championship (AFL-NFL Championship/Super Bowl) just like the AL and NL (which are NOT conferences) competing for the World Series. In addition, between 1966 and 1970, there was a common draft, which is why O.J. Simpson was NOT drafted 1st overall by Philadelphia if the draft was separate among the two leagues. The easiest solution is to follow exactly what the league championship article (yes, the one that linked in all the infoboxes): NFL (1920–65), AFL (1960–65), Super Bowl winners (1967–present). Bergeronpp (talk) 22:20, 8 February 2021 (UTC)
I think you've illustrated my point. The History of the National Football League championship article you linked just above calls them the "AFL-NFL World Championship games", says "Following the NFL and AFL Championship Games for the 1966 through 1969 seasons, the NFL champion played the AFL champion in Super Bowls I through IV, the only true inter-league championship games in the history of professional football." And, speaking of results of Super Bowls I-IV: "leaving the leagues even at 2–2 in "Championship" competition when they subsequently merged." Under the section "1970–present: The Super Bowl era, in the Post–merger subsection: "After the 1969 season and Super Bowl IV, the AFL and NFL fully merged and underwent a re-alignment for the 1970 season." Those first four Super Bowl games were not "League championships". Stating or implying otherwise, in Wikipedia's voice is WP:OR. Mojoworker (talk) 05:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
Are you saying that the Kansas City Chiefs have five championships? Should we ONLY count the New York Jets 1968 AFL championship win over Oakland, and NOT their upset in Super Bowl III w/ Baltimore. Or, since New York won the AFL championship AND Super Bowl, they should be awarded with 2 championships? Rewarding Super Bowl losers (i.e. 1970 Minnesota Vikings) with a league championship is like rewarding the Tampa Bay Rays (winners of the A.L.) a share of the 2020 baseball championship b/c the AL and NL are separate leagues. Bergeronpp (talk) 21:11, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
The Chiefs have three AFL League championships in 1962, 1966, 1969, one AFL-NFL World championship in 1969's Super Bowl IV, and one NFL League Championship in Super Bowl LIV after the 2019 season. What the rest of us are saying is that we don't count any of them (at least not in a sum total at the top of the infobox section), only list them out. Alternatively/additionally, we could add a category called AFL-NFL world championships 1966–1969, or Inter-league championships 1966–1969, which would be even more accurate, but that may just complicate the discussion. See previous discussions for the difference between the AL/NL and the pre-1970 AFL/NFL. Apples and oranges and not going to rehash it here. These huge walls of text are why everyone's tired of this issue. I'm hoping we can reach some conclusion this time, otherwise, it'll just keep happening. Mojoworker (talk) 06:15, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
If we are to include the 1969-70 NFL championship on the Minnesota Vikings article, then you must include a footnote to indicate that they lost the Super Bowl. NFL Films literally made a documentary titled "Missing Rings: 1969 Minnesota Vikings" Bergeronpp (talk) 23:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
At this point, I think the League championships (sum total tally) should be removed from ALL infoboxes. However, I think that it would be appropriate to include (1966-present) for Super Bowl championships and just leave a footnote for teams that lost the Super Bowl b/n 1966-70. Bergeronpp (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: You keep ignoring my explanations in these edits. For the umpteenth time, you're keeping the '68 Colts and '69 Vikings NFL championships in their League championship tally, but ignoring the '67 Raiders winning the AFL championship as well as the Chiefs winning the AFL championship in '66 and '69. Where's the logic in that????? Bergeronpp (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're going to keep the NFL champions (1966-69) in the League championship tally, then you must also include AFL champions (1966-69) in the League championship tally. Stop cherry-picking! Bergeronpp (talk) 16:40, 13 February 2021 (UTC)
Bergeronpp, stop being WP:POINTY and have a little patience. This discussion has only been active for 10 days. Give it a little more time for additional comments, and then someone (preferably an Admin) can judge the consensus. Or we can open a formal RfC if necessary. Mojoworker (talk) 05:59, 14 February 2021 (UTC)
@Bergeronpp: The current consensus is not to list the AFL/NFL championship in the "League championships" count if the team played in the Super Bowl and won/lost it. However, I do not know why it is different on the Colts' and Vikings' pages. I understand that this is stupid, but that is the current consensus and you are always welcome to gain a new consensus, which is why this discussion is here. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:03, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
@Sabbatino: The confusion that keeps persisting in these discussions is defining what constitutes as "league championships." I would suggest ridding the "League championships" tally altogether and re-name the infobox parameters to simply just list NFL champions (1920-65), AFL champions (1960-65), and Super Bowl champions (1966-). For example, the Green Bay Packers would list 9 NFL champions b/n 1920-65 and 4 Super Bowl championships and NOT include a sum total of 13. Bergeronpp (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
For the pro-football season of 1969 (for example), are we currently awarding 3 championships? Minnesota (NFL champion, added to "League championships" tally), Kansas City (AFL champion, added to "League championships" tally), and Kansas City (Super Bowl IV champions, also added to "League championships" tally)? I understand that the Super Bowls I-IV were NOT league championships, but rather "world championships." This is also a reason why the "League championships" tally needs to be removed and list the championships I mentioned in the paragraph above. A Super Bowl b/n 1966–1969 is more valuable than the AFL/NFL championship games at that same time period. Bergeronpp (talk) 18:39, 15 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I was the first person to suggest for the "League championships" count to be removed at the very beginning of this discussion. So no, you are not suggesting anything new. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:55, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
If you're going to include NFL and AFL championships b/n 1966-69, then you need to include a footnote to signify readers that club lost the Super Bowl (aka "World Championship Game b/n NFL-AFL).Bergeronpp (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
Because as I've said repeatedly, a causal NFL fan might interpret Super Bowl I as starting in 1970 b/c we are listing NFL champions (pre-1970). I would strongly suggest including (1966-present) after "Super Bowl championships" on infoboxes OR simply a footnote that a team (despite indeed winning a "league championship") lost a "world championshp" meaning the Super Bowl.Bergeronpp (talk) 03:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
The Official encyclopedia of football didn't see it as a concern. Are there other sources that do? The link to List of NFL champions (1920–1969) would explain the situation clearly, for any casual fan that sought more information. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE discourages infobox clutter: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. As it is, the Green Bay Packers ibx already enumerates the SB titles with "1966 (I), 1967 (II), ...", so it's on the reader if they baselessly assume SB started in 1970.—Bagumba (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this should be included in an entirely new section, or if it belongs here. I just want clarification. According to the Packers website, it lists Green Bay having won 13 "world championships" and 13 "NFL championship seasons." Do Green Bay's 9 titles from 1929 to 1965 constitute "world championships"? And I'm assuming Super Bowls I and II are included in the "world championship" tally, but NOT the NFL championship tally as they were inter-league championship games. Correct? Bergeronpp (talk) 21:18, 22 February 2021 (UTC)
It's also mentioned above, but 2020 NFL Record & Fact Book p.559 shows the NFL record for "Most Seasons League Champion" being 13 for Green Bay i.e. 1929-31, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961-62, 1965-67, 1996, 2010. NFL and Super Bowl titles are not counted twice. I wouldn't use "world champion", as no other country is involved (though it's typical in the US re: NFL and NBA).—Bagumba (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
If Super Bowl and pre-merger NFL titles are NOT counted twice, then what specific championship game is included in the 13 sum total for Green Bay? If it's only the pre-merger NFL championships, then does that mean Super Bowls I and II don't count? Bergeronpp (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
From the Packers' website on the 13 NFL Championship Seasons: "They won their first three by league standing (1929, 1930 and 1931), and 10 since the NFL's playoff system was established in 1933 (1936, 1939, 1944, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966, 1967, 1996 and 2010)." Which confirms what Bagumba listed.
Count the NFL league championships in 1966 and 1967 and you get their 13 League championships or instead count the Super Bowl I and II wins in the 1966 and 1967 seasons and you get their 13 World championships. Mojoworker (talk) 23:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC)
In that case, would it be easier to re-name the existing parameters to list only "world championships" in infoboxes, which would include only Super Bowls (1966-present) and NFL titles (pre-1966)? The only problem is that I don't like the phrase "World Champion." Bergeronpp (talk) 14:42, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't think I've ever seen any team but the Packers claim world championships. Do you have references that this is a common term? Mojoworker (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
List them under "NFL (pre-1970)" or "AFL". Do not co-mingle with SBs. That seems the most accurate and least convoluted.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
Change "League Championships ()" to just "Championships ()" and only include "world championships" which is what Pro-Football Reference does. For example, the Green Bay Packers (13) includes 1929, 1930, 1931, 1936, 1939, 1944, 1961, 1962, 1965, 1966 (Super Bowl I, NOT NFL title game), 1967 (Super Bowl II, NOT NFL title game), 1996 and 2010.Bergeronpp (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
Should we include The Spring League tenures in infoboxes? I initially added them to several player articles in November 2020, but other editors have since removed them as they signed with other leagues. According to our article (The Spring League#2020 fall season), some players had to pay a fee to even play in the league. IIRC, we don't typically include exhibition or semi-pro teams in infoboxes. Eagles24/7(C)00:25, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 18:53, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
(First time doing anything on Wikipedia short of a format/grammar edit, so hope I approach this right.)
The format listed on this Project for Listing the team seasons no longer reflects the format currently in use on every page and needs updating. Currently, every single team seasons list also features a column listing the tenures of the head coaches; all but one (the New York Giants) formats this column by giving each coach a single cell spanning their tenure (the Giants' coach column uses an individual cell on each season, which looks redundant and a little messy). I believe this shows a consensus supporting a coach column with one-cell-per-coach; I think the existing format page (seemingly created in 2006) should be updated with the current Bears page and the Giants page should be made to match the others in this series.Claystripe (talk) 06:00, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
First off, new discussions should go at the bottom of a page. But to address your point, I agree that the Giants seasons list should use rowspans for the head coaches column. No reason to list them individually per season. I also want to address the two leftmost columns in the table, though; I don't see why we need two columns listing the year. These articles are lists of seasons for specific teams, so the only link needed is to the individual articles for that team's seasons, not the season articles for the entire league. I've already enacted that change in the Vikings list, and I think it would be a good change for the rest of the articles too. – PeeJay15:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for the mistake, thanks for the correction. I disagree on that last point; including the league season articles allows one-click access to the context of each season. Say someone looking through the list wants to see how the Vikings stacked up against other teams in a given year (like I was doing yesterday while trying to learn more about Super Bowl IV). Unlike the Giants' page, which is the odd-man-out on the coaches front, all 32 of these articles use this format, and I see no reason to abandon it.Claystripe (talk) 19:20, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
Readers should be able to check the league standings from the team season article too, at least from that team's point of view. You should only need to click on the link for the team's season article, which is why that is the only link that should appear. – PeeJay18:18, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
@PeeJay: The biggest problem with your proposition of removing the NFL season column from season tables is that not all teams' pages were updated to the current format, which you implemented on the Vikings' season pages (and some other pages) back in 2018. In my opinion, all team season pages should be updated accordingly and then the NFL season column could be removed. – Sabbatino (talk) 21:01, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, what changes did I make to the Vikings' season pages in 2018 that would have any bearing on this? Also, perhaps if we remove the NFL season column it would spur people to make the changes to their own favourite teams' season articles. It's too big a task for one person to do all 32 current teams' entire histories! – PeeJay23:32, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
My mistake. The change that I have in mind was made in 2017, but it was not applied to every team's older pages. And yes, I do understand that it is too much work for one editor, because I used to edit many NHL team season pages for about two or three seasons (infobox, game logs, statistics, transactions, etc.) with barely any help so I know what you mean. – Sabbatino (talk) 06:13, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I see. Yeah, I'd love to implement those changes everywhere, and I've done my best in some seasons but it's not possible for me by myself, so I just focus on the Vikings. But while providing links back to the main NFL season pages from the individual team season pages is a good idea, I don't think it's 100% relevant. I assume User:Claystripe meant they wanted to compare their team's performance against other teams in the league that year, and that can be done by simply putting the standings tables in team season articles; there's no need to have a link to the league season article and the team season article in the List of TEAM X seasons. – PeeJay06:23, 3 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, if we remove the links to NFL seasons at "List of TEAM X seasons" then we surely must have a link to NFL season at "YYYY TEAM X season" pages, because Template:Infobox NFL team season does not provide a link to the season. So we either alter the infobox to include a link or give a link in the lead. For example, the NBA (Template:Infobox NBA season) and NHL (Template:Infobox ice hockey team season) infoboxes provide links so there is absolutely no need to have a link to the season in the lead. – Sabbatino (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing that says you can't have a link in the infobox and the lead. Why would you think there was? – PeeJay19:15, 4 April 2021 (UTC)
Nowhere did I say that you cannot have links to NFL seasons in both the infobox and lead. I just expressed my opinion that having a link in the infobox could be enough. On the other hand, you wrote But while providing links back to the main NFL season pages from the individual team season pages is a good idea, I don't think it's 100% relevant, which implied to me that you thought that having a link to the NFL season is not really needed. In addition, the current problem with many NFL team season pages (for example, 2016 New York Jets season) is that when you go there and want to check the NFL season page, you either have to write "YYYY NFL season" in the search bar or go to the bottom of the page and click on the navbox's title to get there. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:29, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Right, but what reason would anyone have for wanting to get to the general league season article from the overall list of any specific team's seasons? It's just confusing having two columns that both say the year. I agree that the league season should be linked to from the article for the specific team's season, but that has little bearing on whether we need two columns that say the same thing just so we can link to two different places. – PeeJay14:39, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I do agree that this looks better than this. And getting back to the main issue – the "Coach" column. I do not see the reason for the Giants' page to be different than every other team's page. There is absolutely no need to list the same coach in every season's entry (listed examples also apply to this issue). – Sabbatino (talk) 07:47, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
This convo got a little derailed from my original intent; apologies for the vague topic title. Just to check: is everyone in agreement that the coaches column should be standardized? Claystripe (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Tanard Jackson signed with Washington in April 2012. He was suspended indefinitely by the NFL in July 2014, and the team officially released him from the reserve/suspended list in April 2021. What should the infobox say for his tenure with Washington? Please state opinions below. Eagles24/7(C)14:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
2012–2020 to be consistent with other NFL players who served suspensions with definitive timelines like Josh Gordon, Michael Vick, Rolando McClain, and Aldon Smith. This is different from cases in which we cannot verify the definitive timeline for a player's suspension (like Justin Blackmon since he is no longer listed on website rosters for the Jaguars, despite his release yet to happen or be reported). When a player is suspended indefinitely, his contract tolls indefinitely as well. That Jackson remained on Washington's reserve/suspended list for almost seven years should not make him an exception from players who were on suspended lists for only two years. It's arbitrary to say how long is too long in this case. Eagles24/7(C)14:54, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't know that I know the answer to this question, but I am watching with interest as we have had a few conversations pop up over at WP:BASEBALL about what to do when a player misses an entire season either due to injury or to a COVID opt-out, and the prevailing consensus seems to be to that those seasons should be completely omitted from the infobox even if a player remains under contract (e.g., 2012-2013, 2015-present if they missed the 2014 season). That strikes me as a little odd, and granted WP:BASEBALL's practice is different from WP:NFL in that we don't have the "offseason with an asterisk" policy, but all this is to say that this seems like a fairly extreme case in which the current notation (2012-2014 with a footnote) seems to make a little more intuitive sense to me even if I can't argue with the logic of Eagles247 above. No matter how we treat it, it seems worth keeping the footnote that explains the eccentricity of the situation. GoPhightins!15:27, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Posting my talk page comment for more visibility here: You say you believe consistency is the most important aspect but what's the difference between announcing your retirement and only being released off the reserve list years later like Kory Lichtensteiger just was too? Do we say he stopped being a member of the team in 2020 as well? And don't we already use an arbitrary cut-off for replacing "is a free agent" with "is a former player"? If the team simply kept Jackson on the list for another 50 years, would you honestly argue that he was a member of the team for that long? We had a more recent discussion on Justin Blackmon (you were there) where consensus leaned more away from the style you are trying to keep. We can fully make this non-arbitrary by saying that players who have been suspended for two years or more and were never reinstated (so players like Vick and Smith wouldn't count while McClain would) should simply have their final year they were active listed instead of the year they were arbitrarily removed from the roster. And in the rare case that a player like McClain or Jackson would end up playing for another team, it would take 5 seconds to fix them up like Vick/Smith. I just feel like technicalities are getting in the way of common sense here. ~ Dissident93(talk)20:22, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody else oppose this outside of Eagles247? I'd really like a WP:NFL guideline to come from this, one way or the other. ~ Dissident93(talk)10:29, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
NBA bios list the last contract year per WP:NBACAREERHIST, but there's no equivalent of a suspended list where the player is not playing nor getting paid. For me, the tenure should convey when their career ended, typically when they stopped playing, or otherwise when they stopped getting paid and were no longer taking up a roster spot, preventing someone else from being signed. I don't think there's a perfect way to handle this for the NFL and be "consistent", so I think we default to what info is most important to readers. If the decision was to not show Jackson on Washington anymore, I'd list 2012–2014. I'm OK with listing the release date for earlier teams in one's career.—Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm working on the 1960 Los Angeles Chargers season article. There's a few issues with using the current team draft template (example: 1988 Chargers Draft). Firstly, the "Round" and "Pick" columns are redundant, as the order of selections in the 1960 AFL Draft is unknown. Secondly, rows are shaded yellow when the player has played in at least one Pro Bowl. I believe, in the case of AFL players, that this should be extended to include the AFL All-Star Game as well. Thirdly, it could be useful to indicate which Charger draftees instead played in the NFL, as the bidding war between the two leagues was quite a big part of football at that time.
I've tweaked the table a bit, and come up with this. Does it look useable, or should I just stick with the established format?
1960 Los Angeles Chargers draft - First Selections
Dissident93, problem there would be that "made roster" is blue in the standard NFL draft template - it might confuse people if I switch it. How about if I just swap the magenta for green (I've edited the example table to show this)?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:07, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
Tampa Bay Buccaneers Cheerleaders has a notability tag since 2020 - I'm working through sports articles which are tagged, and it appears cheerleaders for teams tend to have their own stand-alone articles. The article is also terrible (my favourite is the space between You and Tube) and fails WP:GNG as written, but I thought I'd post here to check if the notability tag could be removed to avoid an AfD/PROD. SportingFlyerT·C17:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
So there was a recent discussion regarding the use of college years in NFL infoboxes that received no opposition. I've tried to add them for the 2021 rookie class but they continue to be reverted by people unaware of the discussion, so could WP:NFL try and help raise awareness? ~ Dissident93(talk)03:37, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba Yeah I added that to the documentation back in March. I'd just like other editors to help watch for this sort of thing (and add them in for pre-2021 players) to help set the standard, so by this time next year everybody sees it as normal. ~ Dissident93(talk)03:19, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Opps. I skimmed and missed it: "College teams should be wikilinked and the years they attended given." Maybe show example syntax (but yeeh, I don't think that's a major reason why people aren't doing it).—Bagumba (talk) 03:58, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Editor is adding wonderlic test scores[1] to the "Pre-draft measurables" table of players. That table appears to be be universally sourced to NFL.com in my spot checks.
There are at least two issues for feedback from the project. 1) Adding unsourced data to an otherwise well-cited table which is formatted with "All values from NFL Combine (or Pro Day)[cite]". 2) WP:BLP issues specifically around that Wonderlic data when unsourced.
As long as there is a parameter, somebody will populate it, often unsourced. If the community doesn't think it's important enough to source people's uncited edits, remove the param. For that matter, there's no consensus to even include the table. And it likely would never be suitable for full inclusion in prose. There's a certain segment of editors that get joy from plopping tables, merely because the data is true and "useful (to them)" e.g. college game logs at LeGarrette_Blount#College_statistics.—Bagumba (talk) 02:26, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, I supported the deletion of such a template when brought up a year or so ago for your exact reasoning. I just don't see why we need to put in player's hand sizes and wing spans in a dedicated template. If they ran a notable 40 times or something, then simply write it out in prose. ~ Dissident93(talk)02:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
I re-read the last TfD. Most supporters say it's useful relative to the draft or combine. If so, I'd suggest moving it to the draft page, where they would be readily comparable to their peers. In isolation without prose in a bio, it's not accessible to the average reader.—Bagumba (talk) 02:59, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Moving that info to the draft page would be even more ridiculous. The info is relevant to that specific player and their assessment as a draft prospect, not necessarily in relation to other draftees. – PeeJay13:47, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, the "average reader" wouldn't care what a 6th round draft pick ran in the shuttle drill in the first place. If any of their drill results were actually notable, it would be notable in prose anyway. Having such a template just reeks of WP:NOSTATS. The same people that support the template are probably the same people who add in per-game cruft such as "the player recorded 2 tackles and a pass breakup in Week 6". ~ Dissident93(talk)18:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Example links cleaned up for clarity. The content is located within an inline table atop the "Professional career" section (not the Infobox / not a parameter). I oppose removal of these combine results table from player articles, but reiterate that adding an unsourced metric purporting to be a measure of cognitive ability to an existing fully sourced table has BLP issues. The inserting editor doesn't often use edit summaries or Talk pages[6], so raising it here. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:54, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
not a parameter: |wonderlic= is a parameter in {{nfl predraft}}. I'm not exactly seeing how this is any more of a BLP concern than, say, a person's weight. I think I'm not alone in saying I don't know offhand how to gauge a wonderlic score, as opposed to seeing someone incorrectly listed at 50 lbs or 500 lbs, or having a 300 lb WR. The issue would just be plain unsourced edits, if this is regular and if it persists after requests to change.—Bagumba (talk) 12:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Hello, I have a few questions for the CFL and NFL project users
1. For the CFL, WP:NGRIDIRON states that Canadian football players are presumed notable if they played in the Canadian Football League, my question is, are the pre-CFL players notable too, because the league was founded as a merger between the IRFU and WIFU, so it was the same teams and players, just a different name of the league. I was wondering because I created a few Canadian football coach articles and wanted to make sure they would not be deleted (the current ones I have created I have made sure have received a lot of coverage (as some articles pass GNG with for say, 3 or 4 articles with SIGCOV, I made sure they received more than that, see Rev. Father Stanton)) And also, if they are notable, how far back would the notability go?
2. For the NFL, in 1920, some of the NFL teams played against non league opponents, and they were counted as official games (in fact, I've created articles for some of those teams, see Lansing Oldsmobile, Kewanee Walworths, Zanesville Mark Grays, Gary Elks, Columbus Wagner Pirates, Chicago Boosters, Moline Universal Tractors, and those are some of the weirdest team names I've ever seen) this was only in the first season, though. Should the players and head coaches from the non league teams have articles too? As NGRIDIRON says that players in the NFL are notable. However, the only sources for the players would most likely just be a short newspaper article listing the rosters, which is not significant coverage. In addition, these players do not have NFL.com, Pro-Football-Reference.com, or profootballarchives pages. I don't think these players should have articles since there is probably barely anything on them, as even some NFL players from the 20s don't have much on them.
3. Also for the NFL, should the Syracuse Pros players have articles? As they do not have Pro Football Reference pages and the Pros are a debated NFL team.
4. Again NFL, but this is more minor league, I was going to create an article for Dutch Slagle (I already did make an article for him, but it was changed to a redirect because "minor league coaches don't pass notability criteria", but that was good at the time because I barely had any sources), coach of the Wilmington Clippers in 1937, but I'm not sure if he is also George Slagle who played in the NFL in 1926. I think this because it says here that he spent time with Louisville, where George Slagle played. (and he does meet GNG based on my newspaper clippings, see [7][8][9][10][11][12][13] plus more)
If an article meets WP:GNG, it does not need to meet WP:NGRIDIRON. People that meet NGRIDIRON are presumed to also be able to generally (people will argue, say, 90-99% of the time) meet GNG. If you find that is not necessarily the case, NGRIDIRON might need tightening.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
WP:NFLINFOBOX seems to indicate we list awards in the infobox without specifying the selector (AP, PFWA, etc). At Dan Fouts, an editor keeps removing NFL MVP from his infobox because it wasn't from AP. Is NFLINFOBOX still the convention as written?—Bagumba (talk) 18:38, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, I think if another player won the same award (MVP) but from another credible organization, then the selector should be noted in the infobox. The reason we don't usually do this is because the different selectors pick the same winner 95% of the time. ~ Dissident93(talk)03:20, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
I think it would also apply to off/def player of the year, as well as the rookie ones and comeback player. But as with MVP, they are almost always going to be the same. ~ Dissident93(talk)03:51, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
OK. It just seems inconsistent when the AP awards are not made the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of the respective page titles, and listing selectors is contrary to the spirit of WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT saying to exclude selectors for All-American and All-Pro.—Bagumba (talk) 14:50, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't disagree but how many MVPs actually differ based on selector? Was Fouts the last? This would be the exception to the rule. ~ Dissident93(talk)17:42, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
The most recent PFWA MVP who was not the AP MVP was Jamal Lewis in 2003. The others are Faulk (2001), Cunningham (1990), Rice (1987), Fouts (1982), Campbell (1978). Faulk and Campbell both won the AP award on another occasion.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:23, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
Fouts' MVP had been listed for a few days, qualified with the NEA and PFWA selectors, but an IP outright removed the whole entry with comment "We DoN’t DiStInGuIsH sElEcToRs In ThE iNfObOx”. Do we:
I'd probably go for option 2. I'd also suggest that we don't need to mention non-AP awards for a player who's won the AP NFL MVP at least once (e.g. Marshall Faulk, who won the AP award in 2000 and two of the other awards in 2001). In the case of Fouts (as well as Rice and others), the PFWA NFL MVP was the biggest such award they won, so it merits inclusion in the info boxes.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:09, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Questionable edits by 68.192.55.96
Someone might want to check 68.192.55.96's edits. They seem to be doing massive changes to a number of NFL seasons, giving no hint for why the edits are being made (among other things, changing archives of nfl.com for active pro-football-reference.com links). In at least a copy of cases, making POV edits. Their technique is to carry out an edit in several parts, moving stuff around in the article, making it difficult to figure out what's going on. I'm essentially retired from the project, I don't have the energy. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:47, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
@Tarl N.: I do have the energy as most of my most recent edits have been to update the formatting of historical seasons to match current ones as closely as possible. What specific concerns do you have about this IP's edits? If possible can you provide a diff to the replacements of the nfl.com to pfr links. I have not found one in their contributions I have checked yet. I can tell you that in my experience, many of the archived NFL.com links have 404s. (Although I personally haven't changed them, as most of the ones I work on are 20th century). For example, 2005 San Diego Chargers season has this issue (also an example of how I left it alone.) I think the IP has good intentions although the lack of response to talk page requests makes me wonder if they know how we structure them. I see some problematic edits such as the changing of headers though so I will try to keep an eye on as much as I can.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Proposal to convert game recaps in NFL team season schedule tables to a source box
I know that this is a widesweeping request so I am expecting some push back but I propose to change the recaps in NFL team season schedule tables to a source box with inline citations. My reasoning is the following:
1. The NFL.com recaps only go so far. I tried to look up some from the 1970 season for reference and couldn't find any.
2. Some (mostly historical) articles use other sources. I will admit that I have added PFR recaps to historical articles because I couldn't find NFL.com links. This has also been used by editors before I have added these an example is the 1960 Dallas Cowboys season article which I drew inspiration from.
3. Per WP:CITE generally considered helpful section: ... replacing some or all general references with inline citations: an improvement because it provides more verifiable information to the reader, and helps maintain text–source integrity..
4 Per WP:CITE Avoid embedded links section: Embedded links to external websites should not be used as a form of inline citation, because they are highly susceptible to linkrot. and Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article,. like this: "Apple, Inc. announced their latest product ...".
From my experience on Wikipedia I know that there is a rhyme and reason that we have a standard way of doing things. I try to model the established standard to a fault, especially with college football articles which make up the bulk of my edits. I know this is a potential wholesale change so I want to do my due dilligence and ask other editors their opinions, especially since I am relatively new at working on NFL articles.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't edit those stats, so it'll be up to the do-ers to decide. If I was to maintain it, I'd suggest just to have one general page reference say to the relevant PFR team season page e.g. https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/sdg/2020.htm I think it's OK not to link every game, as long as its straightforward how to navigate the general source(s). And are TV and announcers ever sourced?—Bagumba (talk) 13:19, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Revisiting height/weight sources (again)
Hunterb212 (talk·contribs) is claiming that only NFL.com player profile height/weights should be used in infobox, despite them being less updated than team profiles (and just being a worse database in general since the style changes last year; go and check any old retired player and you will see they even lack basic stats about them any more). If the argument is we should use NFL.com since it already exists in the infobox then I propose we simply add the team profiles URL there as well, which would dynamically change based on the |current_team= parameter. ~ Dissident93(talk)03:19, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Why wouldn't we use NFL.com measurements when it is listed at the bottom of the infobox as the source for stats on every NFL player page? The team website's are not listed as a source on their pages and thus it makes no sense to use them. Hunterb212 (talk) 04:43, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Hunterb212, because they are not as updated in terms of weight as player profiles and have just been a bad resource in general since their formatting change last year (check the link I provided). NFL.com's will eventually catch up but they are months behind in doing that. We saw this same exact thing with Antonio Gibson last year, where three different sources had his weight at 220 but people insisted on NFL.com being different and thus decided to use before finally updating it mid-season. And BTW the team's profile page are listed as an external link on every WFT player, so that isn't an argument. ~ Dissident93(talk)03:11, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: NFL.com isn’t super accurate. In most cases it seems team websites are most accurate height and weight wise. Stat wise, NFL.com is typically spot on, but it seems when a player loses or gains weight they are slow to update. I do feel we should go with team websites.--Rockchalk71704:09, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
We should use the most accurate sources. However, the NFL.com link in the infobox acts as a de facto reference, so it can be confusing if the numbers don't match the link. If this is a rare issue, an explanatory footnote would address the verifiability concern. If NFL.com is generally unreliable, an infobox link in the infobox to the team site is an option, but it's a maintainence overhead when players change teams. It also starts looking like a WP:LINKFARM with more links.—Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I disagree and don't see a reason not to use the main source which is listed in the infobox. I've seen this same issue with MMA fighters and it was agreed upon to use Sherdog because it's listed as the source for stats in the infobox just like NFL.com for NFL players. I think the same rule should apply here personally but I'm not trying to edit war over it as you appear willing to be seeing as you've already broken the 3 revert rule over it. I'll let it go although I disagree and think you have no right to revert my edits when I'm using an official source cited in the infobox. Hunterb212 (talk) 05:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
How meaningful is player's current weight anyway? Depending on whether they had an extra biscuit at breakfast or had a large dose of metamucil last night could change the player's weight, do we need to reflect it? If it's correct to within ten kilograms (showing the difference between a receiver and a center), I'd say trying for higher precision is a meaningless pursuit. I'd far rather have a common source so we don't get into squabbles about whether this source took the player's weight last night vs. the other got it last weekend. Tarl N. (discuss) 06:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Tarl N., I actually agree, but listing no measurements would be something I can't see the rest of WT:NFL really support. I'd just like us to use a singular source (of which I've made my cases against NFL.com) to avoid this sort of edit warring over something as trivial as a pound or two of difference. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:32, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
... I'm using an official source ... What does that mean in this context? The team presumably makes the measurements. It's doubtful the league certifies results.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba does make a good point regarding the NFL.com link. But I still feel the team site should be used. @Tarl N.: Weights are important because they get listed with it. The Infobox is supposed to be brief mention of their football career. Yes weights can fluctuate but if you notice, most listed weights are multiples of 5. It appears most teams just round up to the nearest multiple of 5 instead of an exact weight.--Rockchalk71716:10, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
Hunterb212, MMA fighters don't belong to a specific team/organization though. And how are team profiles any less "official" when the team has direct access to the players and update the measurements a couple times a season? ~ Dissident93(talk)04:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, that's why I suggested that the parameter be auto-populated based on PAGENAME and the URL (standardized as WEBSITE.com/team/players-roster/FIRST-LAST) similar to how the colors are based on the team. We'd basically have to do zero maintenance once it's set up. ~ Dissident93(talk)03:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
You seem to be assuming that ALL teams will have the information available in a consistent format, and will be higher quality than what's available on nfl.com. What's the basis for this assumption? Tarl N. (discuss) 05:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
It's not that it's "higher quality", it's just that's more accurate by way of being more up-to-date. Eventually NFL.com updates theirs to include the same measurements. That is basically the root of the problem, as sometimes it takes months for that to happen. And what do you mean by me assuming they are in a consistent format? All 32 teams have used and share the same backend for their roster pages for a few years now. This is something that could easily be coded into the infobox. ~ Dissident93(talk)14:38, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
My question with that, is how would that look when a player is a free agent? When a player leaves the team, the link no longer works. What about upon retirement? Would we just do the NFL.com link at that point?--Rockchalk71723:13, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Rockchalk717, it wouldn't show when free agent is listed as the current team, just like any roster statuses. The NFL.com link won't be replaced with this if that's what you were thinking. I'm not sure if you have noticed, but you actually have to click on the "info" tab to get measurements, which is actually a separate URL as it defaults to their stats. I'll try and make a testcase shortly to show how it would look. ~ Dissident93(talk)12:04, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
Hunterb212 there is still no strong consensus to reverting team measurements in favor of outdated NFL.com ones. You claim that "These are his stats as per NFL.com where he was just measured after being drafted" (which is true), but don't seem to be aware that the team measurements (for Sewell) also had the same numbers before he reported to OTAs, after which they were updated. I really don't see how you think outdated measurements are somehow superior? Your only valid argument for NFL.com's has been because they are listed in the infobox, but I've already proposed a fix to that. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:11, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: there is no strong consensus to use team websites either and no proof you have provided that NFL.com is outdated by comparison. Also NFL teams are actually nothing more than subsidiary companies under the main corporation of the NFL. Therefore I don't see the logic in using team websites stats over the NFL which owns and has authority over those teams anyway. Your logic makes no sense and you haven't provided any proof of your arguments nor has any consensus ruled in your favor. Also there is no Wikiproject page for the NFL which states the team website measurements should be used over NFL.com. Hunterb212 (talk) 05:22, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hunterb212, if you want more proof I can find archived measurements with dates to show how NFL.com has always lagged behind the team's (this isn't a recent issue). From the comments here so far, Rockchalk717 supports team measurements over NFL.com, Bagumba's only issue is maintenance overhead with adding team profile links to the infobox (which can be easily avoided per my above comments), and Tarl N's issue is similar to Bagumba's and even questions listing measurements in the first place. You seem to be the only one who directly opposes using team measurements. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:31, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: Actually, I oppose it too, simply because I don't see a reliable source stating that NFL.COM's statistics are to be deprecated in favor of a team's statistics. Frankly, I don't really care if the weight is off by a biscuit, I'm much more concerned with having a unitary common source for data presented. Having a situation where people argue about "my data is better than your data" is not what we want on Wikipedia. Tarl N. (discuss) 05:37, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Tarl N., I fully agree, but there would obviously have to be some level of support for one source over the other for that to happen. And per Hunterb212's request, here is Sewell's Lion measurements on April 30 (pre OTA/minicamp and matches current NFL.com) and here is it now. There was clearly some sort of recent effort to remeasure the player here, making Sewell's current team measurement more accurate and thus my entire argument for using these. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:42, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I oppose because the teams are subsidized under the NFL anyway also there is no Wikiproject stating anything about using team website stats over NFL.com anywhere that I've found. So to me defaulting to the stats from NFL.com which is listed in the infobox makes more sense. Not every player even has a team website link on their page, every one does have an NFL.com link in the infobox though. This just seems to be a personal preference that you're deadset on enforcing because you claim team websites are more up to date and I don't think you can consistently prove that. Maybe in some case that may be true but overall there's no way to prove that on a large scale you'd have to research the numbers for every team and compare it with the NFL's numbers than add team links to the infobox which seems completely tedious and unnecessary in my opinion. Hunterb212 (talk) 05:40, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Hunterb212, which is why I've proposed something that the Wikiproject could finally agree on. Whether it passes or not is up to other editors. And again, team profile links would be auto-populated based on Wikicode (specifically the |current_team= parameter and the article's PAGENAME) and do not have to be manually added in at all. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:44, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I honestly don't have the time nor the inclination to argue with you about it man. I personally haven't seen enough to convince me that NFL.com is overall less accurate than team websites and as I've already stated there is no Wikiproject that states that either. So I'm going to continue to use NFL.com for NFL player stats as it makes the most sense to me. If a consensus comes about and establishes a Wikiproject stating that team websites should be exclusively used then I'll abide by it but until then I will continue to use NFL.com personally. You can do what you want. Hunterb212 (talk) 04:16, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Hunterb212, I gave you an example (could provide even more if needed) and you still don't see how it's clearly outdated? And how is that attitude going to solve anything? The whole point of this discussion is to settle on a single source to avoid these sort of back and forth edits. A consensus can't come either way if people aren't willing to make one, unless it's that the NFL.com link acts as the de facto reference due to its current status in the infobox? ~ Dissident93(talk)04:32, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems like NFL.com just updated a lot of their player measurements to match their teams finally. Again, the team measurements are more accurate and thus the better source for them. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:22, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Question
If someone is signed by a team but does not play in the regular season or post-season with them, should he be in the category for that team's players? Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
BeanieFan11, that category is for people who sign contracts with the team. They don't have to actually appear in a game or on the regular season roster. From what I know, this differs from the NBA one which does use that as the guideline. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:25, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
2007 NFL.com obit says "MacAfee, an end, played for the Giants from 1954-58, a team spokesman said." so [[End (gridiron football)|End]]. Split end (which redirs to WR) would be reasonable if a 1950s era citation offered that. Agreed that existing the Tight end value is "wrong," so have updated per above. UW Dawgs (talk) 05:20, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps, but the son is in the College Hall of Fame, so he's probably more notable than his father. And per WP:2DABS, we don't need a DAB page for 2 people either, so it's probably fine as is. BilCat (talk) 07:32, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Oops, you're right! Anyway, the son got about 10 times the page views as the dad in the past 12 months, so added to the CHOF, I'd say he's.the clear primary topic. BilCat (talk) 08:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello I have an issue with the user Swagging in the article Ben DiNucci, he is removing the following text because he says it is not sourced and it is trivial:
On October 31, 2020, the Cowboys announced that DiNucci would make his first career start on Sunday Night Football against the Philadelphia Eagles due to Dalton being in concussion protocol. In the game DiNucci was overwhelmed, finishing 21-of-40 for 180 yards, two fumbles (including one returned for a 53-yard touchdown) and was sacked 4 times, as the Cowboys lost 23-9 and failed to score a touchdown in back-to-back games, just for the fourth time in franchise history. It also squandered a good defensive performance, as the Cowboys caused four Eagles' turnovers.[1] Dinucci was passed on the depth chart by Garrett Gilbert for the backup job in the following games.
The following should've worked better instead which does not have a lot of trivia:
"On October 31, 2020, the Cowboys announced that DiNucci would make his first career start on Sunday Night Football against the Philadelphia Eagles due to Dalton being in concussion protocol. In the game DiNucci completed 21-of-40 passes for 180 yards, lost two fumbles (including one returned for a 53-yard touchdown) and was sacked 4 times, as the Cowboys lost 23-9.[2][1]"— Preceding unsigned comment added by Swagging (talk • contribs) 16:58, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
I'd agree that the bit about the Cowboys failing to score a touchdown in two consecutive games shouldn't be in there. Maybe, if DiNucci had started both games, but he came on midway through the 3rd quarter in the first one.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:11, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
OK, can we move forward with the following text?, because it is important to show how big the struggle was to get through that game and how it impacted his position on the depth chart and maybe even his future on the team, the text suggested by Swagging doesn't express that part of the story: "On October 31, 2020, the Cowboys announced that DiNucci would make his first career start on Sunday Night Football against the Philadelphia Eagles due to Dalton being in concussion protocol. In the game DiNucci was overwhelmed, finishing 21-of-40 for 180 yards, two fumbles (including one returned for a 53-yard touchdown) and was sacked 4 times, as the Cowboys lost 23-9. It also squandered a good defensive performance, as the Cowboys caused four Eagles' turnovers. Dinucci was passed on the depth chart by Garrett Gilbert for the backup job in the following games.".Tecmo (talk) 15:00, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
The struggle Dinucci had was real and reported in the media, so it should be a part of his bio, as it caused him to be demoted and will also affect his standing with the team going forward. Putting it in the 2020 season doesn't make sense. As I see, the only user complaining about my text is Swagging who removed it in the first place without a justified cause. If nobody else has a different opinion, I will put the text back in the article and expect Swagging to respect the decision and not remove it again.Tecmo (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
The layout of the NFL MVP page is causing confusion
I recently corrected the PFWA NFL MVP list on the NFL MVP page, where several entries showed instead the Associated Press winners. Already, a well-intentioned editor has changed the 2003 award from Jamal Lewis (PFWA winner) back to Steve McNair/Peyton Manning (AP co-winners). While the lede makes it clear that the AP award is viewed as the de facto official version, it seems that a lot of readers are just scrolling down to the first list displayed (the PFWA winners), and assuming that is supposed to be "The" MVP list, hence the mistaken edits.
I also support having a single table with the different selectors on the NFL MVP list and other similar ones. That way we can easily see when they differ.
For the general MVP table, I don't think we should co-mingle ones w/ individual conference player of the years e.g. Sporting News, though they did choose only one annual POY for some years.—Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, looking good now. We could skip the 1970s for the Sporting News in the general table. Should we also skip the current system, with an offensive and defensive award, or just assume the offensive player to be the overall MVP (as no defensive player has been given an overall MVP award since 1986)?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:39, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
UPI award draft now created. Should I switch the main page to show the summary table now, or wait until the drafts for these satellite pages have been approved?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:21, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
As there is no official way to determine a consensus selection for NFL awards, I'd prefer to just have each selectors' winners in its own column.—Bagumba (talk) 06:01, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
I've updated the page with the current summary table. If people think it's looking okay, I can resubmit the new PFWA and UPI award pages.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 09:35, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
This looks good. Thanks for making the combined table. I've accepted the UPI one out of draft and the PFWA was moved already. Please check that I have the copied attributions correct. AngusW🐶🐶F (bark • sniff) 15:59, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
Which All-Pro selectors should be included in infoboxes?
So I did a quick search in the archives and found a discussion on which selectors should be included in the infobox. The discussion didn't seem to have a conclusion. WP:NFLINFOBOX under the section "Miscellaneous notes" mentions that PFR only note the AP All-Pro in tables, and that you have to scroll down further to see the full list of All-Pro selections, but fails to mention which ones should be included in the infobox and which ones shouldn't. The discussion I found also focuses on AP, PFWA and SN, but not other selectors like UPI or NEA. I bring this up because there's been a bit of back-and-forth on Dan Marino about how many times he was selected to the All-Pro second team. An unregistered user points out that the HOF includes the NEA selections and claims he was a five-time All-Pro second team, ignoring the two times NEA selected him for All-Pro second team where he was also elected to the first team by other selectors. So which is right? Are all All-Pros selectors equal or not? What if one of those "equal selectors" choses a player for the second-team while others pick the player for the first-team the same year, should both then be listed? KristofferAG (talk) 08:44, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
This is similar to the issue with other awards at #Infobox_award (above). Should the infobox only recognize AP? If we count other awards, do we also list the specific selector in the infobox (AP, PFWA, SN, etc)? WP:NFLINFOBOX reflects a prior (weak) consensus to not just count AP, but don't clutter the infobox with details about the various organizations. However, IP editors might not know about what is discussed here, and it seems NFL pages get a lot of IP or new editors. For All-Pro, the NFL doesn't identify "official" selectors like the NCAA does with All-American's. NEA was popular in the day, but their awards are defunct now. Therefore, I don't think there is a "right" answer on how to do this. It's a matter of what the consensus is among editors on the WP:WEIGHT to apply to various awards, and whether drive-by IP editors follow it.—Bagumba (talk) 09:07, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: We're talking All-Pro, right? I'd be OK with listing AP exclusively and unqualified, but there's always a dissenter or two who wants others listed on the infobox as well. If we list more than AP, do we also ennumerate the selectors—weak consensus before was to combine but not mention the selectors.—Bagumba (talk) 05:51, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, yeah I meant that they should be considered the de facto selector due to their official partnership with the league that we already see with their other awards at the NFL Honors. But I also agree that we should just be listing AP only. In the rare case a player got a first-team placement by PFWA or SN but not AP, then we can still bring that up in prose without having to clutter the infobox. ~ Dissident93(talk)05:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
@Dissident93: I agree on listing AP only, both for first- and second-team. The edits done to Dan Marino were an IP adding years Marino was selected to NEA's second-team but no-one else, but not the years where he was selected to NEA's second-team All-Pro but also on AP's first-team All-Pro. At that point it just seems like an attempt to "pad the stats" so to speak. KristofferAG (talk) 20:05, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
To be honest I already thought that was standard. Typically most media is referring to the AP All-Pro team when they are calling someone an “All-pro”. So I do support AP being the exclusive all-pro team in infoboxes.--Rockchalk71722:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Minor question about birthplace
Just making sure but are we supposed to include (or omit) country subdivisions for players born outside of the US in the infobox? A good example would be Benjamin St-Juste, who was born in Montreal. Do we list Montreal, Quebec, Canada or just Montreal, Canada? ~ Dissident93(talk)12:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
There is also WP:USPLACE of which you are surely aware. And it is also the same for Australian pages – WP:NCAUST. Pretty much the biggest issue with this is that almost all NFL players are from the United States and for that reason (I think) the lead does not specify the nationality for players, coaches and other personnel so I do understand why you would ask such a question. For basketball BLPs we do not specify the country in the infobox for American, Canadian and Australian basketball personnel (unless they were born in a different country). – Sabbatino (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
People are just too lazy to write "American football player", instead piggybacking that the linked sport happens to start with "American". WP:CONTEXTBIO says nationality should be in the lead. I had earlier went and fixed a few Americans playing football in Canada whose lead misleading said the American "is a Canadian football player ..."—Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Maybe if the sport was just called gridiron or something this wouldn't be an issue. That being said, I personally don't like the "Canadian-born American football player" format. We can say he was born in Canada and then write when (and where if he attended a US college) he came to the US. See the St-Juste example for what I think is an improvement. Do you disagree with such a style? ~ Dissident93(talk)16:48, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Pretty much every WP bio has a lead sentence format of "... is a <nationality> <profession> ..." Also per MOS:TIES we generally use that person's native English. Americans and Canadian call the sport plain "football" and that other one "soccer". Therefore, I would ideally just write it "is a Canadian football player", linking to Amer football since he's only played college and pro ball in the U.S. Otherwise, link to gridiron football or Canadian football, as appropriate.—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
NFL roster navbox formatting
So PatriotsFOREVER126 (talk·contribs) has been going around italicizing rookies in every team's roster navbox to match the primary roster templates. However, if he's going to do this then why shouldn't we just be using the NFLPlayer template in them for full consistency between the two? Not only would rookies be italicized automatically (by way of a yes flag), but we'd also support for icons and abbreviation links for reserved statuses like NFI and PUP. ~ Dissident93(talk)06:33, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
I think both italicizing and using the template is unnecessary. Using the template would only be necessary if we also wanted to add the various tags and positions a player might have as well, which would definitely be overkill and clutter up the template. Italicizing rookies in the roster templates makes sense because those appear on the team pages and season pages, where such information is a lot more relevant for readers. Given that navboxes are placed on player pages, I don't see why information about who the rookies are is necessary. KristofferAG (talk) 17:23, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
PFR have added unofficial sack stats from before 1982, based on research by the Pro Football Researchers Association. (www.sports-reference.com/blog/2021/07/pre-1982-sacks-added-to-pro-football-reference)
Is it okay to cite these, perhaps with an explanatory note stating that they are unofficial? How about the largely incomplete records from the early 60s?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 11:20, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
This is probably something that could be discussed on multiple projects, but since he's an NFL player I figured I'd discuss it here because it does bring up a good point for non-NFL accomplishments. Should we include the Bucks championship in his Awards and honors section? Between him only being a minority owner, meaning he has minimal say in the day-to-day operations of the franchise and him not being able to win any other award as a minority owner, I don't feel it should be included, and another editor disagrees. I wonder what everyone else thinks, especially if you edit basketball player pages too.--Rockchalk71720:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The thing is though, if you look at the Aaron Rodgers article, I have included 3 references (from CBS Sports, Fan Sided, and Yahoo Sports), which clearly and plainly describe him as being an NBA Champion through his ownership stake. Is it a small stake, sure, but he does HAVE a stake, thus he gets a ring. A similar example I can mention is Russell Wilson - he bought a small stake in the Seattle Sounders of MLS. They went on to win the MLS Cup, Wilson got a ring and is considered a champion. Magic Johnson is another example. He has ownership stakes with both MLB's LA Dodgers, and the WNBA's LA Sparks. They won titles, and he got rings from both teams. Dirty little secret - that's why these guys buy small stakes in teams in other sports...so when they win a title, they can get rings and add it to their resumes. Nice little racket they have going, and sports media gives them credit for having the rings. Vjmlhds(talk). 21:59, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: The issue isn't if he does or doesn't have a stake, or even including it in the prose of the article. The issue is including it in the "awards" section. Russell Wilson and Magic Johnson neither one have their championship as a minority stake holder listed in their awards from playing section.--Rockchalk71722:40, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I think you're getting hung up on the playing part...no one ever said Rodgers got his NBA ring from playing, and the awards and honors section is far all hardware and accolades accumulated - no matter how it was attained. Aaron Rodgers is considered to be an NBA Champion, and is getting the ring to prove it. The HOW isn't relevant, all that is relevant is the fact he HAS the hardware. Vjmlhds(talk)22:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Vjmlhds: That's not what I'm hung up. I'm not hung up on anything with this except it's not an accomplishment he directly had any impact with. His ownership is an investment, nothing more, nothing less. He's not involved in the day-to-day operations of the franchise including personnel decisions, and you also mentioned Russell Wilson and Magic Johnson who won championships as minority owners of a sports franchise, but they don't have their championships listed in their awards section. Mentioning it the opening I'm ok with, but listing it with records, MVPs, etc which they were directly responsible for is where I have the issue. Winning a championship as a minority owner is not an equal accomplishment to all-star/pro bowl, MVPs, all-pro, records, etc, and listing it there gives that impression. You and are going around and around and I'm not intending for this to sound hostile and I apologize if it does, but I'm going to wait for other editors input before responding again on this.--Rockchalk71722:58, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
It does sound like you're hung up on his NBA ring because it wasn't achieved by "doing the work", but the fact he just paid some money to have a small piece of the team, and thus is "piggybacking". It isn't that complicated - awards and honors simply means hardware accumulated...regardless of how it was attained. I'm not trying to pick on you or fight with you, but your whole argument isn't that he has the accolade, it was how he attained it. Does he have the hardware - yes, thus it is an award/honor he has attained. Everything else is trivia when you get right down to it. Vjmlhds(talk)23:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
We should not be calling him an NBA champion. Using that logic than any famous fan who owned a part of the Packers share in 2010 should also be considered a super bowl champion. I strongly oppose this. ~ Dissident93(talk)18:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
This isn't a thing about how we (as individuals) view Rodgers' claim to an NBA Title - the bottom line is there are 6 references in the article from mainstream sports outlets which clearly and plainly refer to him as an NBA Champion. If the statement is made that he is an NBA Champion, and there are 6 references from mainstream sources verifying it, then it's out of our hands - we are letting our personal views on what makes a champion cloud things..kinda sounds like a case of WP:OR. To say he's an NBA Champion isn't an opinion/OR, as the references back up the claim. Vjmlhds(talk)19:38, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
I was doing some fiddling around with game backgrounds on some of the NFL team season pages and I think we should consider changing them. For losses, I think #fbb" is better than #fcc" cause it is darker and the color pops off the page more making it easier to notice that it is a loss/win. I think the same goes for wins and #bfb" vs #cfc" as well. I hope there are others out there that agree with me. Thanks. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 08:52, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba I attached a picture of what the updated background would look like. It is only slightly different from what is currently used so I think that it could work. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 09:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The only sure-fire test is to run one of those contrast scripts. Unless one has a visual impairment, the eyeball test is unreliable. Even then, visual impairment differs from person to person.—Bagumba (talk) 09:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba I ran the Colour Contrast Analyser (CCA) with both of my backgrounds (#fbb” and #bfb”) and the results had green check marks next to all the tests on both of them. I tested these backgrounds with a black foreground text since the majority of the text is black. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 09:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba: I ran the test for what I think is the right color for the hyperlinks and you're right. 4 of 5 had check marks next to them. The one fail was contrast enhanced regular text. The thing is though if my color choice is right (#0645AD), then I ran the test with the original red and it fails in the same spot as well. Thanks. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 08:49, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
GoWarriors151718: Wikipedia is WP:NOTCOMPULSORY, so I don't expect anything from you per se. If you're still interested in changing colors, my comment is that MOS:CONTRAST should be met. If you're saying that even the old colors didn't meet contrast, then it would seem that a darker color could be even worse. I don't know if the numbers gave any indication. In any event, it seems ideally we should find new colors that meet CONTRAST, or don't use colors at all.—Bagumba (talk) 06:03, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Do you want to work on that with me? I could be in charge of finding a solution for wins and you could be in charge of losses or something like that. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 06:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, colors are not really an area of interest or expertise for me, other than offering high-level guidance. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba I think that I found two colors that could work. One is (R182, G255, B0) and the other is (R255, G236, B0). They both meet the 7/1 contrast ratio. I know these colors may look weird at first but it could be the solution to our problem. GoWarriors151718 (talk) 19:12, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@4meter4: I've added a source. I also move the page to Dan Brown since it appears that's what he was listed as when he played there. The main thing that still needs a source is the date of death. I can't find anything about it.--Rockchalk71719:55, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
High school location redudancy
Does anybody else agree that high schools in the same location as the player's birthplace do not need to have the state listed again? For example, a player born in Akron, Ohio, who also attended high school there does not need to have Ohio listed again, just Akron. Not only is this extremely redundant as it's within glancing distance of each other, but also helps fit everything on the same line without needing a linebreak. And for any player born in let's say Paris, France, but attended high school in Paris, Texas (or whatever), then that would clearly be noted anyway to avoid any sort of confusion. ~ Dissident93(talk)19:06, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
Repeated city and state doesnt bother me, but I won't go around reverting it either–can't say what drive-by editors will do.—Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
"Offseason and/or practice squad member only"
Why is it so difficult for some users to understand how this is used? If a player at any point plays in a game with a team they no longer get the "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" next to the team. The current status of a player is literally what the "roster status" is for. I am currently in a edit war at Devine Ozigbo about this so It would be nice for others to chime in to confirm this is the way we've always done this.-- Yankees1022:26, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
To my knowledge, the asterisk is added if a player exclusively spends his tenure with a team on their offseason roster or practice squad (hence the only at the end of the note). If a mainly practice squad player has played a regular season game for a team, even if he was just a one-game promotion, the asterisk isn't included. ZappaOMatic (alt) 15:57, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
This whole system of marking players who only were a part of practice squads should be abandoned, IMO. Especially with these newer COVID-based rules that allow for one-game promotions. ~ Dissident93(talk)18:11, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
I'd support removing. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, we should only provide "key facts at a glance", and notability is not derived from this. The offseason roster inclusion, in particular, is a joke.—Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
I don't know that I agree with you. If a player has only been a member of the practice squad and hasn't played a snap in a real game, that goes directly to the WP:NGRIDIRON notability guideline. If you don't list the practice squad teams at all, you'll be dealing with endless IP/low-information editors who are (reasonably) adding that information in good faith. Mackensen(talk)11:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that's my point. Practice squad status, as opposed to having been on the active roster and playing a snap for the given team, is a key fact. Mackensen(talk)12:48, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
It’s confusing to say the least but I can admit when I’m wrong and I was wrong I only went by the prompts but I agree i think it should be abandoned or updated to a better understanding so it doesn’t confuse people like it did me, even tho I’m semi retired on here, I think it would be easier to update it or abandon it so we don’t have pointless edit wars TheKinkdomMantalk11:08, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
The simplest fix is to only use that formatting for offseason players who were signed and cut before making any game appearances with that team. I fail to see why we have to treat practice squad players differently (in the infobox at least). ~ Dissident93(talk)18:58, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
Request for input
Hey I'd like to get some people involved in the project to comment on a page move request involving a former NFL player. It is for Anthony Gonzalez, the former Colts receiver turned congressman. Thank you in advance! The conversation is here.--Rockchalk71702:19, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
Practice Squad Injured List
Just want to clarify and make sure we're doing this correctly, because this is an interesting one. When a player is placed on the practice squad injured list, should they remain on the practice squad section of the roster page with the "PS/I" designation or be moved to the reserve lists? I usually keep them on the practice squad, and add 1 to the PS-exempt since they don't count against the 16-man squad. Recently I noticed that when the Falcons signed Elliott Fry to the practice squad, the corresponding move was to place George Obinna, who was on the practice squad, on injured reserve, and not the practice squad injured list. The person who edited the roster before me moved Obinna to IR, not as PS/I. Just want to standardize what we are doing with this roster move moving forward. Thanks. Jrooster49 (talk) 16:19, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
While doing some cleanup at Sam Wyche, I noticed some inconsistent information with sources about the final season of his playing career. His NFL.com profile says he played in 1976 for the Buffalo Bills, but his Pro Football Reference profile says he spent the 1976 season with the St. Louis (now Arizona) Cardinals. They both state he threw and completed his only pass attempt for 5 yards but they lost different teams. Maybe he played for both and was cut or traded during the season? Anybody ever run into this? Is there a consensus for who to believe with inconsistent information?--Rockchalk71722:58, 2 October 2021 (UTC)
The reference to the NBA was to offer another sports-related example, which the project might find useful. I was 95% certain WP:NFL didnt have anything formalized.—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. The genus of the debate was whether or not to use the most recent image of Dobbins (which shows him sulking on an injury cart) versus a picture of him in uniform during a game. So I would argue for an exception to that point. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)17:56, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
I've seen a similar dilemma with Tom Brady. In a twist from basketball, football needs to deal with pictures with helmets where the face is not as visible as another non-playing pic.—Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
The athlete at their "most recognizable" should not include their face being obstructed by a helmet or anything else. I seriously doubt anybody could tell he had just suffered an injury from looking at the image itself without knowing any further context, so him "sulking" should not be used as an argument against it. The discussion on Tom Brady is different since the White House photo doesn't put him in the uniform of any team and therefore can be still be relevant once he retires/if he ever plays for a third team. ~ Dissident93(talk)09:12, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
I think readers seeing a player's face and being able to identify him is more important than seeing him in his current team's uniform but obscured by helmet. Of course, a portrait in current team's jersey with helmet off is most preferable.—Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Removing info based on WP:NOTTVGUIDE and WP:NOTSTATS
Recently, info from player profile pages based on the above rules. I'm not saying its wrong, but I would like some clarification on this since I don't go into this project and edit very often.ChessEric (talk·contribs) 00:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
To add some clarification, there is no reason that "... on Monday Night Football" (or Thursday/Sunday) needs to be added to a player's page every time he plays in a primetime game. All it does is promote those programs and adds nothing to the value of the player's article. Likewise, posting weekly stats is in direct violation of WP:NOTSTATS. Important records and milestones are fine, but not routine stats, such as "In week 1 against the Pittsburgh Steelers, Tom Brady went 30 for 40 for 350 yards, three touchdowns, and one interception in the 34-24 win." Frank AnchorTalk01:49, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Yes, MNF and primetime games are not as notable in this current era, and generally not worth distinguishing without a notable reason. QB stats listed in prose for every game is monotonous. The team's season page can provide that in the game-by-game recaps, as can external links to the player's stats pages. Bios should summarize notable seasons or notable stretches, as described by secondary sources, not stats sites or box scores. Single-game career highs or especially notable individual games may merit mention in a bio.—Bagumba (talk) 09:42, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@ChessEric: I'll add to what has been said. It's also ok to mention an uncharacteristically bad game for a good player, for example, if a quarterback like Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Rodgers, Tom Brady, etc throws for like 125 yards no touchdowns and 4 interceptions, or if a kicker like Justin Tucker goes like 0/4 on field goals in a game. But weekly game updates violate that policy and also cause the article to be excessively long.--Rockchalk71709:44, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: Oh yeah. I agree that putting stats for every game is preposterous, although I would add one or two if they are like really good. @Frank Anchor: I'm sorry for reverting your previous edit on Justin Tucker. Like I said, I'm don't edit on here very often, so I didn't know. @Bagumba: and everyone here: Thank you. I know for next time what to do.ChessEric (talk·contribs) 17:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)
Is there a consensus in team season pages on it tiebreakers should be factored into the "division_place" parameter? For example, what caused me to post this is on the Raiders page it has them as 3rd place in the division, is the consensus, using that example, to have the Raiders at 3rd or to have say they are tied for first? If there's not a consensus, well, let's consider this an official request to come up with one.--Rockchalk71720:02, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd suggest including them. Late on in the season, if two teams are tied but Team A has swept Team B, it would seem strange to list them as tied when Team A has an unbreakable advantage. Earlier on in the season, of course, tiebreakers mean much less, but for consistency we might as well use them throughout.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:10, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
Sorry to be naive, but a bunch of IPs are all over the internet, including Wikipedia and simple:Shannon Sharpe and Wikidata (Shannon Sharpe (Q1378223)), promoting the idea that Shannon Sharpe has "Goad" as a middle name. Is that a plausible claim (and is there a source), or is "Goad" a joke that is way over my head? I semi-protected the article due to the current edit war and lack of source, but some knowledge would be helpful. Johnuniq (talk) 06:43, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems to be a meme a Reddit user started and is likely nonsense. Many of their posts have been deleted or removed from Broncos and Fox Sports 1-related sub-Reddits. I cannot find any proper/reliable sources for this middle name. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 14:51, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
@Johnuniq: I don't think he even has a middle name. Typically the website Pro Football Reference will list their middle name if they have one, along with if they are junior II III etc, especially for well known player like him (See Tom Brady, Peyton Manning or even a player of the same position Tony Gonzalez), and his does not. What makes me think he doesn't have one is his brother Sterling doesn't have a middle name provided on on his either], which it may be a family thing through their generation at least to not have a middle name.--Rockchalk71722:03, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Team season pages - references for information in weekly game summaries
I honestly don't see the point. It's trivial at best and we should be describing the game itself and not its television broadcast. ~ Dissident93(talk)18:37, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
If they are listed, they ideally should be sourced. However, I agree that they are trivial, and would support the outright removal of such content.—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Team season pages - NFL.com recaps in schedule tables
From the EL article. With rare exceptions, external links should not be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an "External links" section at the end of the article, and in the appropriate location within an infobox, if applicable.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:36, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: That's a pretty good point. I've experienced that link rot on old season pages. Every few years the NFL seems to change up links then all of sudden a bunch links on old pages don't work. I've noticed on most random former NFL players with low view counts for example, they still have the NFL.com link style in their infobox.--Rockchalk71704:53, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Hey everyone, I'm not sure if any of you remember this discussion but a while back it was discussed putting different positions a coach held under a team under a single bullet point (see Matt Nagy). We agreed we didn't want to do this. Apparently another editor saw Sean McVay's page never got changed or got changed back and has decided to go through and edit several active coaches. I began to revert and saw how many changes they made and gave up when I saw that. Just keep an eye out for it in your edits or if you have time to revert them please do it.--Rockchalk71714:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Including number changes for notable athletes
Hello everyone, with Von Miller recently being traded to the Rams and changing his number, another Wikipedia contributor and myself were in a disagreement about if his number change (he will wear 40 with the Rams after wearing 58 for 11 years with the Broncos) should be included along with the details of his trade on his Wikipedia page (Von Miller). I believe that in cases such as Miller, where he is known as #58 to the NFL community due to his long and successful career in Denver, the number change SHOULD be included in a quick sentence, such as "Miller chose to change his number from #58 to #40, his number at Texas A&M."
This isn't a common issue, as usually number changes aren't notable enough to have to mention, but I think players like Miller are the exception. Denver will likely retire Miller's #58 at some point, making it even more notable that he's now playing under a different number for the remainder of his career. What do you all think? --Porterland (talk) 06:11, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Is Miller really so synonymous with the number 58 that it needs mentioning? For me he's better known by his name. – PeeJay09:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That's true, I was just thinking it wouldn't hurt to mention, especially since it's a return to his college number. Plus it appears there are a number of other athletes where a recent number change has been mentioned. See Julio Jones, Jalen Ramsey, Marquise Brown, Patrick Queen, Emmanuel Sanders as just a few examples. If there is no explicit reason as to why Miller's number change shouldn't be mentioned, I don't see why not to include a sentence about it, given he's more notable than any of the examples I previously mentioned. --Porterland (talk) 16:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
What PeeJay said is pretty much spot on. Players are so rarely known by their number in any sport, with a handful of exceptions (NFL: Peyton Manning, Tom Brady, NBA: Michael Jordan, Kobe). Von Miller is a great player, but his number isn't necessarily attached to his notability. Also, just because other articles mention it, doesn't necessarily mean it's right. And I do believe all those examples you provided where players that changed their number because of the new number rules that took effect this season. Linebackers have been able to wear numbers in the 40s for several years now, he just chose to stick with 58 with the Broncos because when players change their number, they have to buy all the remaining jerseys with the old number which can get expensive.--Rockchalk71716:23, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I see no issue with mentioning the number change in a short sentence. Porterland's change was just a minor note, which was not putting undue weight or anything. I don't see why Rockchalk717 is so opposed to it. Natg 19 (talk) 16:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I just explained it. It's rarely notable to mention a number change unless there's some special story behind it and the reasoning Porterland is using for inclusion makes it even less needed. When I think of Von Miller, his jersey number probably isn't even top 10 things that cross my mind about. And to go the other way, he's definitely not the first player on my mind when I think of the jersey number 58 either.--Rockchalk71716:46, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to it myself, I just wanted to check what the state of play was. How about this: "The number 58 jersey Miller had worn for 11 years with the Broncos was unavailable at the Rams, so he elected to take the vacant number 40 jersey, the same number he had worn in college." – PeeJay17:01, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
If it's verifiable, I see no reason why a short sentence shouldn't be added. Changing it to match his college jersey number is enough for me, and there's plenty of precedent in articles for short blurbs about why players pick certain numbers. There's also the added piece about the family of Elroy Hirsch giving their blessing to Miller's change since it was formerly Hirsch's retired number. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)17:00, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
That part I'm ok with. As long as it's focused on getting Crazy Legs Hirsch's family's blessing and that it was his college number, I'm fine with that. There's no need to mention 58 was unavailable or anything about that being his number with the Broncos because that aspect to this isn't what's notable. He could have bought the number like Eli Manning did with the punter's number or Chad Johnson did with Aaron Hernandez when he was traded to the Patriots. We need to avoid using "#" instead of the word number.--Rockchalk71717:19, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Glad we came to a consensus. Thank you Natg 19, PeeJay and Etzedek24 for your input. I'll work on adding a reworded sentence that focuses on Hirsch and his college number. --Porterland (talk) 17:25, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello all. There is a discussion at Talk:Magic Johnson#Championships as a minority owner that can impact NFL players despite it being Magic Johnson's talkpage. The topic can impact Aaron Rodgers and Russell Wilson's pages currently and potentially sometime in the future Patrick Mahomes. I'd appreciate the input especially since this is a topic that could start impacting more and more pages on multiple projects.--Rockchalk71722:44, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants game article feedback
I have just put an article up in the main space for the first time and am looking for feedback. A user has proposed it for deletion because of notability concerns, but I really feel that the game was important even if it was only played during Week 2 of the regular NFL season. As of right now, I would still love to add a game statistics table, some pictures, and fans' reactions to the outcome. However, I want to take the notability concerns seriously and would love to hear whether people agree that it should be deleted! Thank you:) Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants Game September 2021Pippalenderking (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Note There are responses on the talk page for about how the game is WP:ROUTINE. Based upon its current state, I would agree that there is nothing about that game that has any long lasting notability. I applaud @Pippalenderking: for showing enthusiasm and asking questions with (as far as I could tell) a cool-head and a willingness to learn the process. For what it is worth, any editor can remove a PROD tag for any reason. However, it in many cases, opens up the article for WP:AfD, which would likely have the same effect.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I have formally nominated this page for deletion as it doesn't to fit any notability guidelines since it is primarily routine coverage.--Rockchalk71704:54, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I will add that I do also applaud the enthusiasm from @Pippalenderking: this is a really good step to take for feedback on a new article. Unfortunately, it is really hard for regular season games in any sport to meet the notability guidelines for individual games/events/matches, I think the only exception is major events for combat sports (MMA, boxing, etc.) Just so you can get a feel for the kind of regular season games that meet notability, just look at the most recent regular season NFL game to have an article: 2018 Kansas City Chiefs–Los Angeles Rams game. It was a game with 105 combined points (3rd highest in NFL history), only game in NFL history where both teams scored 50+ points, there were 1,001 total yards, zero punts, and a back and forth game that saw both quarterbacks throw for 400+ yards, not to mention it won an ESPY for best game and is regularly called one of the best regular season games in NFL history.--Rockchalk71705:11, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Comment as an enthusiastic editor, I long for a sense of "completeness" to Wikipedia, but it will never be completed. We have "season" articles for NFL and NCAA FBS, and I think that's a good thing because of the sheer amount of coverage. We tend to not have season articles for FCS, Div II, Div III, and NAIA. A while back I took a stab at creating detaileed season conference articles (with game summaries) for NAIA but darn if it just wasn't too much work and I lost my enthusiasm for it. Sometimes I think it would be best to have a "game article" for every game that we could then link to from other articles (like season articles for both teams, or season articles for a confernece). I even did some game articles that went to AFD and some were kept, others not. All along I question what should be done... then I remember the workload and realize--this is an encyclopedia and not a sports almanac. I applaud the enthusiasm and I encourage a (slightly) different direction.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
"Players of note"
I've noticed most NFL teams articles have a section entitled "Players of note". To me, this is odd and uncommon phrasing. Most other articles for American sports teams use "Players", "Player information", or "Notable players". Is this odd wording something the NFL project really prefers, or should it be changed to something less awkward, such as "Notable players"? Thanks. BilCat (talk) 23:23, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
"Notable players" sounds the smoothest to me out of those options. I'd agree "Players of note" sounds a bit awkward. Porterland23:34, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
I think every team has some sort of ring of honor or team hall of fame. Six teams have zero retired numbers, but 3 of them are newer teams, Jaguars, Ravens (technically not a newer team but officially are one), and Texans, as well as the Cowboys, Raiders, and Falcons. There are a couple teams without very many retired numbers, the Bengals (who have 1), Saints (2), and Steelers (2).--Rockchalk71700:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, unfortunately their edits look like they might be vandalism. For example, in one of the most recent edits, they claim the 2021 New England Patriots are 9-0. I'd imagine a ban on their ability to edit should probably be given ASAP. Porterland03:20, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
I've posted another selection of stat pages (which appear when you search for "List of National Football League annual" in the link wizard) to highlight the consistency of the existing list names, I think it would be worth improving the consistency so it fits with the existing format. Considering no other page has "Stat Champion", I don't think this would be a very contentious page move. DiamondIIIXX (talk) 10:16, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2021 Tampa Bay Buccaneers–New England Patriots game until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article.
On first look, I had assumed that these were pre-NFL merger championships. However, these are just "conference" championship games, so it seems to me that these should be reviewed on a case-by-case basis as they are not automatically notable. Natg 19 (talk) 18:05, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
[Crossposted from BLPN] This article has been plagued by problems for a long time, including COI editing; I just reverted one of those edits. Like so many BLPs, the article is problematic precisely because it is poor quality, somewhat odd considering that, well, it's football. I would like to ask one of you sports editors to take this article and source it, improve it, etc., if only to establish a kind of baseline that we can revert to if further disruption takes place. Thanks. Oh, let me ping User:GPL93, who's been working on the article too. Drmies (talk) 16:58, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Question about the lead of an article
If a player is currently on a roster but has not yet played, shouldn't the lead mention that he is on the team? Because Onel5969 keeps reverting my edits on Myles Adams, claiming "until he plays, he's not on the team". BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:45, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
For him to be considered to have played for a team, he must have actually played for a team. If a player is put on the roster, never plays, and then is dropped from the roster, he was never in the league. Onel5969TT me00:18, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: I didn't say he played for the team, I said he is currently on the team. If you look at most of the other practice squad players (still part of the team, for if you look at each NFL team roster navbox, it always includes the players on the practice squad) with a page, you will see it say in the lead "...for the _ of the National Football League (NFL)" even if they have not yet played. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: As said above, the practice squad is still a part of the team. And if you read the lead of nearly every PS player with an article, it will still say "...for the _ of the National Football League (NFL)". BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:37, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Onel5969: With all due respect, you're talking out of your backside. It's perfectly normal to refer to a practise squad player as being part of the team. I've honestly never heard of such a ridiculous thing to say. – PeeJay10:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
They are a part of the team. This is why we have a roster parameter in the infobox to indicate their status. You can have notable people on practice squads. Team roster pages include their practice squad, who wear team uniforms. They get paid by the team. So, in short, yes, I believe it's appropriate to say they are part of a team in the lead. Etzedek24(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)19:49, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
From NBC -- "Practice squad players do not play in games or count towards the 53-man roster. They only practice with the team." (here's the link - it's the first bullet point). They only practice with the team, they are not part of the team. They are not eligible to play for the team until they are added to the 53 man roster. If you're not playing for the team, you're not on the team. Onel5969TT me11:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
They get paid by the team, and that team has special rights regarding the elevation of the player to the active roster. This is a ridiculous argument. – PeeJay11:17, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a bit of a roiling mess. The whole thing has no reliable sources, and instead is based entirely a website called "nflplayoffscenarios". Is there a subject-specific decision to regard this as an adequate source? Furthermore, the page presents a "simplified" version of it (ignoring possible tied upcoming games and SOV tiebreakers) -- original research, essentially. Even assuming the website is on the money with its pathways, there's a clear potential undue weight issue here. However, some of this is verifiable -- for example, the scenarios for Dallas clinching their division is covered by USA Today Sports. OTOH, the couple of dozen scenarios for the Bears' (statistically certain when^H^H^H^Hif they lose one more game) elimination don't appear to be. It's also a stylistic nightmare, as clearly this gets bodged in every week, with some erratic combination of bold, italics, caps, linebreaking, etc, and by the time it's tidied up a little, the whole cycle starts all over again.
Should this be trimmed back to what's verifiable with suitable secondary sources? Or should we just take the stoic view that it'll all be moot in four weeks anyway? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:41, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
The lists of "notable" undrafted players on draft pages are getting to be pretty long. Are there any set guidelines for what makes an undrafted player notable? I see players with 1 or two starts over two seasons, with a handful catches/rushes and maybe around 100 snaps. QBs who only got to play in garbage time or had a single start as a reliever for an injured player. It just seems like this particular section has become so watered down that it's completely pointless. Are there guidelines for it already? If not, can we get some guidelines that are a bit more strict, or at least enforce them better? KristofferAG (talk) 10:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps "notable" currently means undrafted players (with Wikipedia articles) who have played in the NFL. But I would agree that there should be guidelines for thesesections. Natg 19 (talk) 19:51, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
These types of list arguably fall under WP:CSC: Short, complete lists of every item that is verifiably a member of the group. These should only be created if a complete list is reasonably short (less than 32K) and could be useful (e.g., for navigation) or interesting to readers.—Bagumba (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
You see such players where? I'm looking at, let's say, 2011 NFL Draft#Notable undrafted players, and the length and contents both seem reasonable on the face of it. Are there draft-by-year articles that have much longer, or less bluelinked lists? If the players are notable by wikipedia standards -- i.e. they should and do have properly sourced articles -- I'm not sure how one would further distinguish between the notable-but-not-hugely and the somewhat moreso. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:09, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This entire article looks pretty ropy to me. It's very poorly sourced, distinctly OR-ish, and I suspect some parts of it fail WP:V and WP:UNDUE entirely, though undoubtedly other parts will be fine with a little effort to find suitable sources -- the sports pages are always yammering on about this sort of thing. But I very much doubt we'll find a reliable source that says that only Green Bay aren't currently experiencing a "playoff drought", and everyone else has one of at least a year (until in a week or so's time, they won't). Can anyone think of a suitable course of remedial action? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Article formats -> Create a format for coaches?
Something that has bugged me for a bit is the differences on some coach's pages, specifically in the info boxes. I'd like to discuss and come to a consensus regarding how to list a person's time with a team when they've changed positions on said team.
Steve Spagnuolo just had his article changed by a good faith edit, so I'm going to use him as an example.
Typical format I see listed (which the user edited Steve's page to);
Personally I find the 2nd format to be much easier to read. It's also shorter, and arguably better reflects how a person may have moved up within the organization over time in a more digestible way.
In short, I'd like to propose that we change how coach's teams and their positions with those teams are listed. Ideally there'd be a full coach page layout, which would include a what to leave in and what to leave out section akin to the highlights section of the Player page format. This is my first wikiproject I'm contributing on so I don't know who has final say or would be in charge of doing it, but if need be, I'm happy to create a Coaches pages format page based off the Players' one.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs)
Makes sense to me. (Though I'm not a regular at this Wikiproject, I just happened to stop by, so take that for what it's worth.) Nobody has "final say", that's the glory and the sheer hell of Wikipedia! Hopefully some sort of consensus will emerge in due course, though you may have to make do with working on the specifuc in the meantime, rather than going straight for a general solution. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
This proposal has suggested on other occasions and it didn't make it each time. I don't think it has any advantages and the current way shows a coach's progress through an organization better. Any pages that have the proposed method your suggestion needs to fixed until if/when your proposal gets accepted, which I honestly don't expect it to.--Rockchalk71706:24, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Several other articles were edited by that same editor doing the same thing. I reverted these edits.--Rockchalk71706:34, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I like the second format better as well. It avoids unnecessary repetition and overlinking of team names, and just seems to be better organized overall. Also, even if this change has been suggested before but the consensus was against implementing it, consensus can change. I don't disagree with Rockchalk717's reverts pending the results of this discussion, but I think the discussion itself is definitely worth having. --Zander251 (talk) 06:44, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd gently encourage both editors to WP:COOLTHEIRJETS a little -- which isn't actually a Wikipedia policy or guideline, but it works for me as a low-grade football team pun, at least. Let's neither do mass-changes nor mass-reverts if we can help it. Rockchalk717, did these previous discussions establish a clear consensus for the former style? Do you have a handy link about your person to such earlier suggestions? Could you expand how your preferred style "shows a coach's progress through an organization better"? The other seems to clearly do so: we have a "tree" where changes of team are much more apparent, and changes of role within that franchise "nest" inside that. Perhaps you could exemplify with a coach (actual or hypothetical) that you feel this format would work especially poorly on. Maybe it doesn't look so natural if an employee switches from team A to team B, then back to team A, say. Hey man im josh, would you feel motivated to work up your proposed Coaches Page Format -- or if you're feeling especially industrious, a couple or few different options, especially if there's notable existing variation and inconsistency and it's not 100% what the "standard" should be? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:08, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure, I've got some stuff planned for this weekend, so if nobody else feels like doing it before Monday then I'll start on a proposed Coaches Page Format. At the very least it will help establish and keep meaningful discussion on what aspects of a coach's profile should be included. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
@109.255.211.6: I'm not sure what policy you were trying to link there but if you're insinuating that I'm getting heated, I'm not even remotely close to being that way. I'm not even annoyed or frustrated. I'm not about to dig through the archives to find the link, I just know it's been discussed in the past and the format every coach is on. Before anybody jumps to edits, we need other editors extremely involved in this project like I am to comment as well. And @Zander251: regardless of if you agreed with the reverts or not, it is policy not to make mass changes without a consensus so I was within policy to revert.--Rockchalk71715:57, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know why you'd feel I was "insinuating" anything. I refer you to my comment that "which isn't actually a Wikipedia policy or guideline" in reference to what I was "trying" to link to, and the suggestion to both parties "Let's neither do mass-changes nor mass-reverts if we can help it." Does that require any particular further explication?
It's not straightforwardly "the format every coach is in" -- the change of Spags' article to that format was, as noted, very recent. Absent any concrete evidence of their being any clearly established consensus from any earlier discussion on this, much less an established formatting guideline -- which is after all precisely what Hey man im josh is suggesting is now developed, which seems to be to be an excellent idea, whichever one is actually adopted -- it seems quite the stretch to say that josh's edits violated any policy, or that policy gives you free rein to revert all such edits open-endedly. Hence my earlier suggestion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:50, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
That previous discussion seems to object to the coaching stints not being listed in chronological order. That does not appear to be an issue with this current proposal.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: While I respect your position, I don't agree with your statement that it doesn't make things more compact. When comparing the examples for Steve Spaguano, the 1st format has 22 lines (when posted) and 663 characters when editing vs the 2nd format, which has 18 lines when posted and 599 characters in editing. It would remove 1 line every time for consecutive entries for the same team, since the second consecutive line item with the team's name would be removed and placed under the first of the consecutive occurrences. Another possible example of this would be Stephen Belichick. His info box, though not very large, would definitely be shortened and more readable if the positions were all under the same team instead of repeatedly listing the team. I added Stephen Belichick into the example, and provided a line count and character count summary. While you can argue the format may not be appealing, I don't think you can argue that the proposed format isn't a space saver. Things would stay the same in instances where a coach's position on a team never changed, but it would indisputably shorten up some info boxes by a few lines. I added some crude summary tables to highlight the difference between the examples. As for readability, I often read the same team name over and over sometimes when going through an infobox seeing where a coach has been. It's easier to digest the information when I can read the team name once and see how they progressed, position wise, on that team and the years that it took to do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
A status quo isn't necessarily either a standard, much less a consensus. Hence the value of more explicitly and transparently establishing one (ideally, one of each). I don't think that either number of bytes in the the source or number of lines are relevant criteria, unless we were hitting some extreme of technical limitations that doesn't apply here. Question really is, which is clearer, presentationally neater, and easier to follow? And I think pretty clearly the tree-structured one that doesn't cognitively-numbingly repeat duplicated information. The Spags article is a great example: the list is too long and too unstructured to read at all well, as any CV doctor would tell you. Rockchalk717, thanks for the link to the previous discussion: ideally Bigmike2346, who while not precisely "involved" in that discussion, was essentially the topic of it, would also be 'pinged' -- that editor seems to be both active and talkpage-responsive. (I'd leave them a message myself, but I don't want it to look like WP:CANVASSing if they're approached differently from the others.) Only one of the participants in that earlier discussion mentions "chronological order" -- but the particular edit they were discussing doesn't depart from the chronology. So it seems either there was some misunderstanding here, or the user had made other changes of a different sort. I would certainly agree that it should stay in timeline order, and not (say) "consolidate" multiple periods at one club. The reasoning of the other editors commenting there isn't especially evident, so hopefully they will indeed expand on that here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:58, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Alternative suggestion How about not listing the specific positions in the infobox, and just noting non-head coach positions with (asst.) or similar on the same line. The details can be covered in prose (with citations). The infobox can get quite long for longtime coaches just listing each of their teams, let alone with another separate line for each respective positions. For reference, baseball bios don't enumerate the specific coaching roles in the infobox (e.g. Don Zimmer).—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally I really like to see what a person's position was on a team. Depending on who you worked for the in the NFL it's very telling. Matt Patricia for example was with the Patriots from 2004 to 2017, and then again starting from 2021 onwards. In that time, his wiki shows 6 different positions of different responsibility. * Offensive assistant (2004) - Mostly watching tape from what we hear * Assistant Offensive Line Coach (2005) - First stint coaching in NE * Linebackers coach (2006-2010) - Switched from offense to defense, coaching a unit himself now at this point for 5 seasons * Safeties coach (2011) - Coaching a different unit on defense * Defensive coordinator (2012-2017) - Control of all defensive units * Senior football advisor (2021-pres) - We don't really know, just that he's with the org and not coaching If it just listed the Patriots from 2004-2017 I think it wouldn't be as informative and useful as it is now. I don't follow baseball, but are positional changes as big of a deal as they are in the NFL? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:05, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
It'd be a lot clearer and easier to follow in some cases, but it's a bit of a stretch to lump everything from "intern" to "D/O coordinator" as "(asst.)" or "coaching staff", or the like. Also runs into OR issues, as we'd be describing people by something other than either their official title or how they're described in reliable secondary sources. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:06, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Also runs into OR issues, as we'd be describing people by something other than either their official title ...: Wikipedia is not obliged to follow the NFL nor its teams nor any "official titles". As for describing them as assistants, Bill Arnsparger held both position and coordinator roles and was called a "legendary NFL assistant"[23]Buddy Ryan was referred to as an assistant for his roles on various staffs.[24]—Bagumba (talk) 09:28, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
No, I wasn't suggesting official names should be preferred in and of themselves, but if we're referring to them by neither their most commonly used titles as it appears in secondary sources -- which is the policy -- nor even official titles by way of fallback, as is often winked at, then we're very much ploughing our own furrow. OTOH if this is just clearly a shorthand that's glossed elsewhere ("various coaching roles", "coaching staff", as it were), it might work. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Support – infobox readability should matter more than chronological order, as the actual article should be written that way without issue. I'd also support Bagumba's alternative suggestion as the infobox is not supposed to be all–encompassing. Again, a good article would include all the exact details in prose, meaning no information is removed from the article. ~ Dissident93(talk)20:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Prose, or it might also be done in the form of a bulletpointed section if the text isn't going to discuss every single promotion and transfer individually. This is true, if the information is presented in more detail, and especially if it's linked directly from the infobox itself, there might be scope for some simplification. OTOH this would have to be done in some way that strikes a balance between being standardised on the one hand, and not over-trimming some of the shorter resumés for the sake of the longer ones on the other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 10:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
... and especially if it's linked directly from the infobox itself ... We wouldn't link it from the infobox per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: "Avoid links to sections within the article; the table of contents provides that function."—Bagumba (talk) 11:30, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I still think we might. Verifiability overrides style guidance, and this seems a fairly minor and contingent part of the style guide. (Perhaps a minor bush skirmish in the great over/under-linking wars?) You don't want an infobox that presents information in its own idiosyncratic manner and which makes the basis that presentation's been arrived at opaque. You'd want to at the very least join the dots with a clickable footnote, and I think a section link might be more helpful. But as long as it joins the dots back to the sources in a clear manner, one way or another. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Support alternative suggestion to not listing specific assistant positions in the infobox, per above. Alternatively support orginal proposal to not repeat the team when serving multiple positions with the same team in a contiguous span. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.—Bagumba (talk) 07:54, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Historically, it was a statistic that was more significant. In the modern era, it has been appropriately supplanted by yards per punt as the more important stat for punters. Yards per punt is a much effective measure of a punter's efficacy, and the total punting yards stat tends to reward punters on teams with weak offenses who end up punting more often. Cbl62 (talk) 11:22, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that it's probably valid as to earlier years when it was the measure used to evaluate punters. Bear in mind that, in olden days when scoring was not so prolific, the punt was a more important part of the game, which was played largely for field position. The Michigan team at one point in the 1930s described its strategy as "punt and prayer", as teams would punt before fourth down, and a fumbled punt by the opposition was considered a scoring strategy. Different times. In those days, "punting yards" was a much more significant measure. Cbl62 (talk) 12:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you both that seems the more meaningful stat. It's if anything invidious to be "leading" the "total yards" stats, especially if it's down to being a bog-standard player in the Puntsalotsville Thirddownnonconverters. And the suggested alternative seems much more promising for being at least potentially sourceable: can't find anything at all in reliable sources for TY, AY are mentioned in some that might be usable. In fact I think the best fix is likely just to move the existing page to that new title, then to rewrite accordingly. If you were feeling mild-to-moderately bold you could do this without any explicit further process, but understandable you might want to cover yourself on that. If we can find a good source for it historically being a record, but more recently ignored, some sort of split might be indicated. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 09:23, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
In fact I think the best fix is likely just to move the existing page to that new title, then to rewrite accordingly. Moves should only be to rename titles, not to drastically change the content, effectively deleting the old content but bypassing AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 05:27, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
If I felt it was a "drastic" change, I wouldn't have described it as requiring at most moderately boldness. The existing page is problematic, the proposed one would address that by being more verifiable, but they're addressing fundamentally the same "leading punter" concept. Hence what's needed is a move (to preserve the page history for one thing), by whatever means. If you feel additional process is needed, then by all means list it at AfD (where I would and will argue for the same thing), or if you concur with the essence of my analysis, at WP:RM as a "potentially contentious" such. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:24, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Height and weight have multiple generally accepted units of measurements whereas an NFL field only really has 1 or 2 acceptable unit of measurement, yards and inches. A lot of the world measures height and weight differently than the US, so it's a useful conversion to include for a person's body. I'd argue there's no benefit to adding meters to measure distance on the field, there's no meter hashmarks, and it doesn't aid those who are unfamiliar with the sport in any way. If you said "he ran the ball about 3 of those big white lines" to someone unfamiliar with the game, in reference to the 30.2 yards per return as a kickoff returner average, it gives better context to the game than telling someone a returner averaged 27.6 meters since you can't tell how far that is on a field without measuring or knowing the yards to meter conversion already. "Peyton Manning threw for 65.78 kilometers in the regular season during his career" vs "Peyton Manning threw for 71,940 yards in the regular season during his career". Throwing for 65.78 kilometers is a lot, but what does that tell me in reference to the game of football? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I have to disagree. For the casual reader from a metric country (almost all), yards and inches are pretty much meaningless. Giving the conversions, even if irrelevant to the game itself, is just being helpful to readers. There are several situations on Wikipedia where Imperial/Customary units are not allowed, such as space-related articles, and as an American, it's disconcerting not to have the conversions there. Of course I could do the conversions myself, or even use a conversion app or website. However, that takes away reading experience, and who wants to do Math while reading an encyclopedia article? I certainly don't, and I don't think we should make our readers do so in American football articles either. BilCat (talk) 17:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
And I disagree back. Yards and inches may be "meaningless" to people who are mostly familiar with the metric system, but it makes no sense to convert yards to metres when dealing with measurements on a football field. When a player gains a yard, they're not necessarily actually gaining 0.914 metres, and any conversion implies a level of accuracy that is not merited. To all intents and purposes, a yard is approximately equal to a metre, and the understanding of an NFL article is not improved by the conversion. – PeeJay18:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's more helpful to think of yards in the NFL as a unit of progress instead of a literal distance, despite correlating to an external unit of measure. Gridiron football uses yards to quantify changes in a team's field position from play to play rather than any concrete measurement of distance traveled. A 7-yard rush doesn't mean the runner physically traveled a distance of exactly 7 yards during that play, it means they advanced their team's position on the field by 7 in-game units. Think of it this way - there's 90ft (27.43m) between each base of a baseball diamond, but if a baseball player steals 20 bases in a season, converting that to 1800ft or 548.64m when talking about statistics would be largely irrelevant to what is being conveyed. Granted, in an article describing the rules of a sport, yes, giving the distances between the features of the playing field provides useful context to the reader, and I believe conversion to metric is warranted in those cases. Jedibob5 (talk) 17:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
My sense is that the length of a yard doesn't really matter in the Imperial/metric context. No attempt to explain yards to NFL viewers in England, for instance. SportingFlyerT·C18:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Are there other columns that would be particularly helpful? E.g., college team, dates of birth/death, whether the game was a start (Y or N).
Would the rapidly-growing list be more accessible if it was subdivided into sublists by year?
I thought about listing the date of the one-game appearances, but gathering such information would be an enormous undertaking.
Help is welcome if anyone wants to jump in. Cbl62 (talk)
I think college team and whether or not it was a start may be helpful; I don't think dates of birth/death are necessary. It could be divided into sublists by year (from what I'm seeing, there would be 266 entries for the decade according to PFR, but I'll note I've seen some one-gamers on Pro Football Archives without a PFR page. I've also seen players with, e.g. one game played per pro-football-reference and two according to Pro Football Archives). If you want, I could help get the dates for the appearances of one-gamers. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree on subdividing by year. How did you come up with the total of 266? Is there a link you could share? If you're willing to work on specific dates, we could change the Year column to "Date" and leave it at "1920" until we fill in the specific date (formatted 1920-10-03 for sorting purposes). Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Cbl62, do you mind explaining why you think this list passes WP:LISTN and WP:NOTSTATS? In all honesty, this screams WP:NOTSTATS to me, as this is merely a database query on Pro Football Reference. This is currently reflected by the fact that the only sourcing is from Pro Football Reference. I don't see any independent, reliable sources that discuss this topic as a group. Also, as an aside, this article should be draftified until it is substantially complete. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Sure. Many (perhaps most) one-game NFL players from the 1920s do not pass GNG. This was recently shown via the Pete Vainowski AfD that resulted (albeit controversially) in a "Delete" close. A list of such one-game players is useful as a redirect repository for those one-game players who do not pass GNG. It allows us to have full coverage of NFL players without creating sub-stubs sourced solely to databases like Pro-Football-Reference. Also, one-game players do get coverage as such. See, e.g., this. As for draftifying, I expect the list to be largely complete later tonight. Cbl62 (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: The current lists of "players by team" (e.g., List of New York Giants players) are very low-quality lists that provide nothing more than names. The new "one-gamers" list provides a much richer array of content on these players. It is highly unlikely IMO that most of the one-gamers from the 1920s would pass GNG. Currently, about half of these one-gamers have no articles at all. Of the group that do have stand-alone articles, most are low quality sub-stubs (sourced only to a database) that would likely be deleted if challenged. A richly-detailed list of these players allows us to have more complete coverage of the early NFL players (including those who do not have stand-alone articles and others that are likely to be deleted if challenged). Also, as noted by Tavix below, consensus was nearly unanimous in favor of keeping the analogous list of List of players who played only one game in the NHL. Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll trust that there's more sources like the NYT one. My Newspapers.com acct is on a delayed renewal cycle (holidays), so I'm unable to do a thorough WP:BEFORE anyways. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I will not create a redirect for Vainowski until we see how the deletion review turns out. However if the current close is upheld, a redirect will allow readers to at least be directed to a details-rich list that includes core information and provides links to PFR and PFA. Cbl62 (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Cbl62, I appreciate what you are doing, but this list is just a database query without any sources discussing this group (people who played in one NFL game) as a notable topic. Right now, this article is solely sourced by Pro Football Reference, which is just a sports database. It is not a source that defines notability. This is purely WP:NOTSTATS and fails WP:LISTN. There also are no sources that establish this topic as generally notable. This is similar to the NHL list, which reading through those discussions, is almost shocking that no one brought this up. I will be nominating at WP:AFD. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Are there any tools or guidelines out there for creating Wikitables for player statistics? I added one for Wil Lutz this morning just inputting it by hand, using the table on Sebastian Janikowski's page for reference (first kicker that came to mind). I figure there should probably be a better way to do it, though I haven't really found anything especially useful. It looks like Pro Football Reference has a function for exporting stat tables to Wikitable format, but the formatting is quite a bit different compared to existing tables on Wikipedia, nor does it add the internal links to the team/NFL season pages (and weirdly enough, at least for kickers, it doesn't seem to have a column for total points scored). Is there an existing way to automate or at least streamline this process? Jedibob5 (talk) 18:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Probably not the most efficient but I made an Excel sheet that automatically concatenates values and sets things up for me to copy and paste tables how I want them (paste in 20 lines, copy and paste 200 lines for a table then). Not ideal, but short of an automated tool I found this to my fastest way. -Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I see... Kinda tempted to try and write a bit of code myself for it. Is there an established standard for how to display stats by position out there, or should I just work off of existing examples on player pages? Jedibob5 (talk) 00:46, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Unless the existing examples show the telltale signs of having been barfed up by a {{subst}}'d template (my eyes!) or some other such automated process, I'd assume that just copying them is the way to go. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
