Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7→Archive 10

Started work about 15 minutes ago on getting National Football League stadiums to featured status, the main thing it needs is references. Merging in text from the outdoor/dome lists, and eventually the data from those pages. Probably will have to move it a page prefixed with "List of". -Phoenix 01:26, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft choices

I've created a list of the first-round draft choices made by the Browns since their merger into the NFL in 1950. It is currently up as a featured list candidate. Please feel free to leave your suggestions and support, and let me know what I can do to improve the article! Thanks! Wlmaltby3 00:19, 7 April 2007 (UTC)Chris Nelson 21:08, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Jim Thorpe FAR

Jim Thorpe has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Calvin Thomas

Hi, folks. I was cleaning up some misplaced links to Calvin Thomas, and noticed a couple that were looking for the Chicago Bears player, who doesn't currently have an article. I wouldn't know where to start, so I thought I'd let you good people do it. (The existing links point to Calvin Thomas (football), but if there's a better disambiguator it could be used instead, and the articles that currently link to Calvin Thomas (football) could be repointed accordingly. Once an article or stub is created, the disambiguation note at Calvin Thomas can be adjusted accordingly (I didn't think there was much point in using a disambiguation hatnote to point readers to a redlink). Thanks! —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 18:12, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It should be Calvin Thomas (American football).++aviper2k7++ 04:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

There are several NFL lists up for nomination at WP:FLC for status as featured list. Please go to the candidates page and comment on these nominations. The article are:

List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks
List of National Football League stadiums
Minnesota Vikings seasons

As a further note, the list Chicago Bears seasons is already featured, and Minnesota Vikings seasons looks like it will be as well. Using these as a model, we should be able to get all 32 teams season lists featured. Thanks for your attention to this.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 05:02, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota Vikings seasons achieved FL status! Thanks to all those who contributed their support and comments and to Happyman22 for setting the precedent for team seasons lists. RyguyMN 00:08, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoax?

I can't seem to find this guy on the internet Lucky Lou, is the page a hoax? -Ravedave 05:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Hoax, as verified by http://assets.buffalobills.com/uploads/mg_history.pdf Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:38, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Possible prototype Team Season articles

I have started individual season articles for the Patriots. Rather than just stub them, I tried to make them reasonably well rounded. Check out 1960 Boston Patriots season and 1961 Boston Patriots season. I think this format is a good start for team season articles. Make any changes or improvements as you see fit. Comments? Questions? Other ideas?--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

See 1996 Green Bay Packers season for a cleaner season results table.++aviper2k7++ 04:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I've also been working on all the Browns' past seasons, and thus far I've gotten 1946 and 1947 finished. Take a look and let me know what you all think before I rush off and make more. Wlmaltby3 23:41, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

NFL Europa

I've noticed that some players on team depth charts are currently playing in the NFL Europa. Should they be included on the team's depth chart even though they don't currently play for the team? Coincidentally, the NFL Europa season starts on Saturday. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  20:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

You can do little notations or bulbs next to their name to note they are from NFL Europe.++aviper2k7++ 22:54, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I think that players allocated to NFL Europa should be indicated on the rosters because they're listed as being a part of their team's roster on their team's official web site. Once they're finished with their season in NFL Europa, they're able to compete for a roster spot with their team here in the States. Wlmaltby3 23:52, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Team season categories

I noticed that the 2006 individual teams are being placed in Category:2006 National Football League season by team while the 2005 individual teams are being placed in Category:2005 National Football League season. Which way do we want to go with this? --Pinkkeith 12:47, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Individual Team Seasons

Is there a standard for summarizing team seasons? Looking at 2006 Chicago Bears season. That's rather bulky. Wondering if a season summary like 1985 Chicago Bears season would suffice. KyuuA4 08:01, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that, during the season, the games should be updated as they are. Then, prior to the next season, perhaps during the summer before, the articles should be summarized down like the '85 Bears article. Wlmaltby3 02:20, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

List of Team players

I have been working on List of Washington Redskins players and List of Dallas Cowboys players as examples of what I think we should do for all NFL teams. It would be a great research tool for any NFL fanatic. Jwalte04 20:22, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Update: Have also created List of New York Giants players, List of Carolina Panthers players, List of Philadelphia Eagles players, and List of Houston Texans players. Let me know what you think. Jwalte04 23:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a list of Cleveland Browns players, so you don't have to worry about that one. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:36, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Potential roster template

I've been working feverishly on coming up with some sort of viable template for how a team's roster should look, and I feel that I've struck gold with the Cleveland Browns roster template. It is clean, comprehensive and lists all players in their primary position on the team. Offensive teams are listed on the far left, lineman are listed in the middle on the left, the defensive secondary and backfield are listed in the middle on the right, and any additional roster information is listed on the far right. Any player who plays any other position other than his primary position can be noted next to the player's name. Let me know if you think this template can stand as a symbol of what other templates should look like. I should note that I would've went through and updated other teams' templates, but I'm not familiar with other teams to know what positions they play; so, for this to work, we'll need people dedicated to a team to work on the roster template so it can be as comprehensive and easy to read as the Browns template. Wlmaltby3 23:56, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

UGGHH the flags look awful! It's distracting and it's unfair to people who are colorblind or a slow connection. See WP:FLAGS.++aviper2k7++ 00:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I figured the flags would've posed a problem. I don't know how to create new templates, or I'd create a template similar to that one, but I'd remove the flags. I used it because it keeps everything relatively "lined up," so to speak. I'm sure by looking at the list that you know what I mean. Other than the flags, which are a minor problem and can be addressed, do you think that it could be used as a prototype roster, given the various position designations? Wlmaltby3 00:39, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
I like how each group is split up, but the offensive line might have a problem with multiple positions. I don't think the Europe players should be listed separate from their positions, they're still on the team. A little bulb or notation can denote the player plays in Europe.++aviper2k7++ 00:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
Pertaining to the Europa mention, I put a superscript E E after their name to indicate they play in NFL Europa. Also, I thought fullback was a type of running back, with its RB counterpart being the half back. Perhaps we could use those divisions? ;) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  01:23, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • I like the idea of putting a bulb or a superscript E next to the player's name. The reason they're separate right now is because they're on the European teams' rosters, and they won't be on the Browns' roster until the NFL Europa season is over. But when the NFLE season is over, they'd be put back into the Browns' roster as actually being on the Browns' roster. But we'll go with the superscript E for now. Wlmaltby3 01:41, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Alright, well, I've removed that template, and set up the numbers using a span tag and the Courier New font for lining-up-ness (I have no idea what word I'm going for). I denoted NFL Europa allocations with a superscript E. I also denoted Halfbacks rather than Running backs (I didn't realize I'd made that mistake to begin with). As for the offensive line: I follow the Browns closely, so I know who starts in which positions and which positions players primarily play. That's why I suggested having other dedicated fans of teams working on their team's rosters. Now do you think it'd be a good candidate as a prototype? Wlmaltby3 02:00, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
It works, but there might be some problems with player who play or backup multiple positions. For example, Russ Hochstein on the Patriots backups both center and guards, and can be considered equally one of either. Therefore, on the Patriots' template (which I have also used to cleanup the other AFC East, sans the Dolphins, which I think user:chrisjnelson has nailed down), use simply offensive/defensive line categories with a notation for the players' position(s). Pats1 15:17, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I think in that case it would be left up to whatever looks the best or makes the most sense when it comes to placing players into the templates. Wlmaltby3 22:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I've updated the {{Cleveland Browns roster}} and I feel that, as it stands, it is a good start for where we should go with rosters. It is pleasing to the eye; it can follow color schemes implemented amongst other templates (namely, team templates); it is easily-edited. I think that the only problem may be that it is centered, though a quick edit can fix that. As for how players are actually listed on the roster, I feel that that should be left up to good judgment. Wlmaltby3 07:36, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Looks good. The only thing I'd suggest is changing "Rookie" to "2007 Rookie," while still linking to 2007 NFL Draft. This would make the distinction between a rookie (2007 draft) and a first year player (who could have been drafted in 1995 but hasn't accrued a season yet). I'd also suggest "UDR" or "UDFA" notation be added to add another distinction for Undrafted free agents (linked to that article too). Finally, as reserve lists go, I'd limit "currently vacant" to just the reserve/injured list, and then add reserve/PUP, preseason/PUP, reserve/NF injury/illness, reserve/NFL Europe injury, reserve/suspended, reserve/retired, comm's exemption, reserve/did not report, and reserve/left camp if such situations arise. Pats1 13:09, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
I've made a few changes to the Browns roster, most notably to the notations (added UFA/RFA, changed NFLE, R, UDR). I also added a few more links at the end. Pats1 00:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
The only thing I'm curious about is why you added the free agents. They're not on the roster anymore so they shouldn't technically be listed. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 05:15, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Since UFAs are still being signed (latest were Sauerbrun, Raonall Smith), I think they should be kept on the roster, at least until June 1st (tender deadline). The RFA tender deadline was yesterday, but there are still some outstanding offers out there (Jason David, Colts/Saints). Pats1 13:14, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Oh. I understand now. I don't understand all of that free agent stuff. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 18:05, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I completely disagree with leaving UFAs on a team's roster once free agency begins. They are not under contract and are no more part of a team than any other free agent. RFAs and ERFAs should be because their options are limited, but UFAs should not remain on a team's roster, because that's basically a lie. Also, can't say I like the way this template is with grouping positions. I liked the way I had the Dolphins roster much better.Chris Nelson 23:44, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

As noted above, it may be difficult for some to keep track of which players play what positions on certain teams, especially if they play more than one position frequently (such as a player playing equal time at center and guard). It would be extremely superfluous to list a player under both categories or a completely separate "offensive lineman" category. For the purposes of simplicity, listing all the players under "offensive lineman" and noting their positions makes the most sense aesthetically, and the same would go for all the other positions. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 01:50, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm still undecided on how to treat UFAs, so I have taken them off the Pats and Browns' rosters for the time being, at least to coincide with Chris' edits. Speaking of those, I think the way Chris has/will note IR/other reserve players is also a good method (notations instead of a separate category). We'll have to think about those too. The only complication I can think of is if a team (a la the 2006 Colts) has players on all sorts of reserve lists, in which case the notations list could be pretty lengthy. I do agree with Wlmaltby3 as far as position categories go. Pats1 01:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm at a loss for how to treat free agents, restricted or unrestricted. As far as I'm concerned, I don't think they should be listed, if not for the simple fact that they're no longer on that team's roster. UFAs can sign with any team in the league, and while RFAs have limited options they're still not a member of the team's roster. I don't think they should be listed at all. If any, only RFAs since they have limited options, but not UFAs. I think it'll be left up for debate. Besides, I think it's primarily an off-season-only problem. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:16, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
I've helped standardize the templates for the rosters in the Baseball WikiProject using a similar aesthetic style to the one I presented here. Are we all agreed that the template I provided should become standard? I think we should initiate a straw poll to see what everyone thinks. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 05:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Guys, I've been updating NFL rosters and I think I've reached a good standard, using Wlmaltby3's template. I have done the AFC East, North plus the Bears, Colts and Texans so far. What do you guys think?Chris Nelson 03:17, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think that they look fine. However, I think that you should have waited until we had reached a consensus about how to list the players under their various positions. As it was stated before, separating the players the way that you have done will not work for every player, which is why some of us agreed that we should have listed all the players under simple headings instead of really accurate headings. I think we should probably induce a straw poll to find out what we should do. Thoughts? Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:53, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I really think it should be this way. This is just a roster, a list of players on the team. I see no harm in separating them, because for guys that back up multiple positions that info will be found on the team's depth chart, which is right below the roster template on the team page.Chris Nelson 21:34, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps. But it seems really inaccurate to list a player as playing as a guard when he plays equal time at guard and tackle. See what I'm saying? Doesn't matter if they're listed that way on the depth chart or not. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:01, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
Right. And as of now, I've only been listing players once on the depth chart (at one position only). Obviously, when rosters are cut down, it will be easier to do multiple positions. Pats1 02:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not a depth chart. I wouldn't list Marcus Vick as WR/QB/KR/PR even though he backed up every one of those positions. There's nothing wrong with just having him listed as a wideout on the roster, and have him accurately reflected on the depth chart. I think the way you want it looks more cluttered and less organized.Chris Nelson 06:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I want to point out that no one's arguing with you here, we're merely trying to find a standard for the rosters. I think that it's going to have to come down to a straw poll, otherwise we're just going to continue this debate until Wikipedia explodes in a fiery ball of... explosions. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 06:23, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's the perfect example. Quinton Mikell is listed as "S" on the Eagles official website roster. He's also listed on their depth chart as the primary backup at both FS & SS. Who is a random wikipedia user to assign him a FS or SS over the official site? Clearly this guy should be listed as just a saftey on the wiki-roster. Bjewiki 18:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Poll

How should players be represented on a team's roster? Voting ends May 5, 2007

Single heading Players should be represented as ambiguously as possible (i.e. offensive linemen under "Offensive lineman" heading; linebackers under "Linebackers" heading); no specificity as to positions noted anywhere other than next to a player's name (i.e. Andra Davis ILB).

  1. Support Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 06:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. Bjewiki 18:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Team sites should be the "official" source for what position a player playes...If a team site lists a player as only "S" or "OL", there is currently no way to list them correctly using this proposed/new template.
  3. Support reinstated per Bjewiki; your example is exactly why I want players listed under simple headings. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
For clarity sake, here's the example Wlmaltby3 was referring to:

"Here's the perfect example. Quinton Mikell is listed as 'S' on the Eagles official website roster. He's also listed on their depth chart as the primary backup at both FS & SS. Who is a random wikipedia user to assign him a FS or SS over the official site? Clearly this guy should be listed as just a saftey on the wiki-roster."

Bjewiki 22:48, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Multiple headings Players should be represented as accurately as possible (i.e. Centers under "Centers" heading; inside linebackers under "Inside linebackers" heading); maximum specificity with secondary positions noted next to a player's name (i.e. Hank Fraley G — represented under "Centers" heading).

  1. Chris Nelson 07:17, 28 April 2007 (UTC)
  2. ShadowJester07 02:33, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
  3. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:40, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Please add your vote with four tildes and mark your support.


  • I think that drafted players should be listed under a new Drafted heading simply because they haven't signed contracts and are therefore not part of the team's official roster as of this point. There could be holdouts (Braylon Edwards, anyone?) or there could be trades; I think it would be easier to keep drafted players under Drafted and move them to the roster when they sign their contracts. Agree? Disagree? Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 08:48, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
Nevermind! Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:09, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

But see, I think it looks prettier my way.Chris Nelson 03:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay so I think the positions to the right of players names when coupled with notations looks a little cluttered. Anyone have any ideas of how to solve this?Chris Nelson 13:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, a good question is, do we need the notation? Bjewiki 16:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I suppose there could be other ways, but I do like them and think they work well. Any ideas?Chris Nelson 17:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

As it was before, players allocated to NFL Europa were noted under a separate heading, which I think is how it should be right now, at least until those players end up on the active roster once again. As for rookies and undrafted rookies, they can just be listed in italics; whether they were drafted or not is on their article. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:20, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay so I did the Dolphins roster like I think you guys want? Any questions, comments or suggestions?

Miami Dolphins roster
Quarterbacks (QB)

Running backs (RB)

Wide receivers (WR)

Tight ends (TE)

Offensive linemen (OL)

Defensive linemen (DL)

Linebackers (LB)

Defensive backs (DB)

Special teams

Practice squad

Reserve


As of November 9, 2024. Rookies in italics.

53 active, 15 reserve, 16 practice squad (+1 exempt)

One thing you might notice is that running backs have no position next to their name. I think it's better to avoid the whole halfback and tailback stuff, simply because you don't really see that language much anymore. If you notice like on draft day, guys were either FB or RB. On official team rosters and depth charts, it only says RB and RB. "Running back" has typically come to mean a tailback or halfback. Also, I kept separate the wide receivers and tight ends, because there is basically no one that plays both positions and it's more organized and easier to look at this way. Chris Nelson 21:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I like it, though Rookies in italics may be better off listed in the fourth column under the date of last update. Not many people are going to look above "Quarterbacks" to see what the italics mean; they'll look where all the extra information is. Other than that, wonderful. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 22:12, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
I like it a lot, that's exactly what i had in mind. I agree that Rookies in italics should be at the end of the 4th column. I'm not sure "NFL Europa" needs to be it's own category though. I totally agree with the way you did running backs, only full backs need to be singled out. What does "DR" stand for in the DL category??? Bjewiki 23:54, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading the other comments closer, I guess i'm okay with the Europa category...once the season starts, I assume that would go away anyway. Bjewiki 23:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it'll be removed completely once the NFL Europa season is over. It goes away from team sites at that time. No need for that info in the roster.Chris Nelson 00:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, what is "DR"? Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 01:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm guessing that was a "DT" typo. Bjewiki 02:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Yep, typo. My bad.Chris Nelson 02:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Infobox NFL season

The {{Infobox NFL season}} needs to be changed. It won't recognize when a team moves from one location to another or when the team suspends operations one or more season. --Pinkkeith 22:14, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not the greatest with template making, but I can see if I can fix it.++aviper2k7++ 02:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I tried messing around with it before, but couldn't do it. The best thing I can think is to have the user put in the next and previous season manually rather then having the automatic coding as it is right now. For example see {{Infobox Television episode}}. --Pinkkeith 21:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Seeing that no one spoke up about this, I changed the previous and next season sections of the infobox. --Pinkkeith 11:16, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NFL template: size and stuff

I like templates. Actually, there's little I love more than a well-done footer, which regularly prompts me to twiddle with those I come across in order to improve them. I've been editing some fromthis project ({{Cleveland Browns}} and {{Minnesota Vikings}} so far) to try and reduce the size, and improve looks (e.g. centering text on {{football box start}}), and I would appreciate feedback, especially on the use of {{hidden}} over the horrid previous inside boxes.

Specifically, though, I am not very happy with hiding "seasons," and sometimes leaving a near-emptry section in "League Championships" (whose position in the revised Cleveland template is not exactly perfect either, but still better than lengthening it IMHO). What do you think of hiding both "League championships" and "seasons" under a single "results" or "performance" heading? Circeus 14:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

On hiding seasons by default: I've been using the hidden template mostly because the list of seasons is already linked in the first section of these templates. I do not believe it absolutely necessary to link (visibly, that is) every single season article from every article in which the main template is used. It takes too much screenspace. One might even want to question the necessity of including every season at all (since there is already a link to the list): after all, the seasons have independent footer templates. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Circeus (talk • contribs) 14:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC).
However, I don't believe all teams have season pages yet. The Dolphins are one, off the top of my head. Pats1 14:48, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
THen the redlinks
Unlike some of the other annoying long templates, I think the seasons don't really take up enough space to warrant hiding them. I've been going through the AFC East templates (so far) and standardizing them, along with the depth charts (most haven't even been touched) and the rosters (which are all over the place). So if you'd like to improve the team templates, that's great. What I'd like to see is just a standardized system that utilizes most or all of the elements in the updated AFC East templates. As with the depth charts, the Browns project looks to be the cutting edge. I've added starting QB and first round pick templates like the Browns project to the Patriots project.
Also, I want to go through all of the coach templates, as most of them don't even have a navbar, making it difficult for them to edit. Unlike the Browns and now Pats projects, most teams don't have seasons templates either, so I'll put that on my list. Pats1 14:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I definitely think a footer template that takes more than half the screen in height is either too broad, or poorly conceived. Almost all of the NFL teams template exceeds that. Just look at The Browns one before I touched it up: [1].
I suspect the best option is to have the "seasons" footer not include head coaches, seasons or quarterbacks at all whenever separate templates exists.
This follows from a very simple rule of thumb I apply to template trimming: If the template is not actually sued in the article, it's probably not relevant enough to the whole of the topic covered by that template to be in it. Does that make more sense in explaining why I hide these season listings? Circeus 15:31, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I like the changes you made to the Browns template. It looks nice, I think. I'm actually working on combining quite a few Browns articles together so they're not just a bunch of tiny articles (for example, the Culture), so the template will get smaller still. We'll see where things take us, and maybe we can standardize something. Wlmaltby3 17:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
My concern is not so much with the elements in the "Main" part of the template as much as with the "sections" of it that already benefit from separate templates and thus, are probably superfluous. Circeus 17:57, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
True, but wouldn't removing those just require adding, say, the seasons template to a said page? The size would be the same. Pats1 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree with you, though the reason they're included is so that there aren't 47 templates at the bottom of each team page. If someone wants to navigate to a season page, they'd click [Show] and show the list of seasons; then, when they reached the season page they were looking for, the only template at the bottom of that page would be the seasons template, and not the entire team template. The team template merely combines them all for convenience, and then each section has its own template used on its corresponding pages. Wlmaltby3 20:06, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
"the reason they're included is so that there aren't 47 templates at the bottom of each team page."
This is irrelevant. There is no real need to have all seasons, all coaches, all championships and all starting quarterbacks (!) in footers at the bottom of the main article to begin with. Especially as they're likely to be treated in the article (e.g. the head coaches have a section in Miami Dolphins)! Templates other than the Football one take much more room! Circeus 16:40, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
Your argument was well-received by mine eyes. Therefore, I took the time to completely re-do the Browns template: {{Cleveland Browns}} How does that look? Coaches and quarterbacks would be noted on other pages, and seasons are noted under... well, Seasons. Is this fair enough? I feel we can standardize something with this. Wlmaltby3 06:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
Certainly feels more balanced for a footer ^__^ I added the team template to the seasons page. Circeus 15:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Just for the records, I'm done going through the templates and tweaking them. I suspect further twiddling of the original collapsing format (such as deleting the table inside) might lead to the exact opposite of {{hidden}}, but since that's not what *I* was after, I'm leaving that to the adventurous ones.Circeus 03:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Blank template for team templates

Template:Wikipedia Wikipedians

I've made this template to serve as a "blank" template for team templates. The concept is simple. Colors should be alternated: darker background/lighter font for the main header, then the opposite for the Championships header. I feel that the first line (Franchise, History, Players, Seasons and Statistics) should be the same THROUGHOUT ALL THE TEMPLATES. The rest would all correspond to the team itself.

  • Stadiums: self-explanatory. List any relevant stadiums the team has played in OFFICIALLY here.
  • Culture: anything pertaining to the team's fandom. For example, under the Browns, there's the Browns Backers, the team's fan club, and the Legends Program, a special team legends program (...). Basically anything that can be mentioned in the main article but would need a whole new article to explain in full (as it doesn't directly deal with the team).
  • Lore: any NFL lore pertaining to the team should be here.
  • Championships: list the team's championships so they're easily accessible to someone who doesn't want to go through the whole article to find the championship the team played in (link accordingly).

Individual season pages are listed on Seasons (that's why it's a list). Coaches are mentioned in the article. Quarterbacks are noted on the Players page. Etc. Etc. Etc. Feel free to make suggestions!!! Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 06:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

BTW, re: colors. I think a solution needs to be found for those few templates where one color is white and the other a shade of blue or dark green: Template:Indianapolis Colts, Template:Carolina Panthers, and Template:New York Jets. In these cases, The white background doesn't work very well (though a pale shade of the other color might work), but the blue link is invisible on the dark color.Circeus 14:20, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
With the template {{Tnavbar-header}} you can force a color for the links so that's not a problem. The only problem we've got is coming up with "official" colors for all the teams. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
Whoops, had to edit and fix my code. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 18:00, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
I'm referring to the [hide] link of {{hidden}}, not the edit links. I had noticed that parameter before, but in {{tnavbar}}. I didn't know about {{tnavbar-header}} before I saw it in the Browns template, but then I adjusted all the others. Circeus 18:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)
How about listing the Championships as so:

AFL: 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, etc...
NFL: 1971, 1973, 1989, 1999, etc...
instead of the continuous list you have now, but to instead separate the two leagues. --Happyman22 22:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

As another tangent: How about rivalries? My gut feeling is that if a rivalry has an article, it's fine for it to be linked, but that rival teams have no reason to be in the footer. Circeus 02:58, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me how the championships are listed. I think we should go with whatever format looks the best. As for rivalries, I think they should only be listed if there's an article. Listing the teams that are rivals is pointless because it's a template about the current team, not the other teams. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 01:45, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
As a matter of fact, and if it's at all possible, I think that a team's rivalries should be compiled into one article (and split into other, longer articles if absolutely necessary) and listed under "Culture." Keep in mind, though, that the articles are going to have to have LOTS of sources, since it's largely a POV thing. Just because it's recognized by fans doesn't mean you can say it without sourcing it. At least, that's how I feel about it. So, if anyone knows any good sources for obscure things like that, they should post them so people can have a gander. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:59, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
If there are seperate, cited articles like Cowboys-Redskins rivalry, then I do not mind adding them to these template. However, if there are no cited sources, then such lists are POV. See a similar discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 1#"Main rivals" list. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:41, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
That's fine. All of those arguments are presented rather well. I agree with all of them. I think that we should limit the rivalries to traditional/historic rivalries: for example, the Browns-Steelers rivalry. No one can contest that rivalry. The only thing I'd have a problem with would be finding sources. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 19:31, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that we need unity on team templates. I am seeing two different versions circulated out there. Here is the version I think that should be used. --Happyman22 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Tell me what you think. --Happyman22 03:08, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

It is fine now make 31 more.The Tramp 10:43, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Potential FLCs

There are still several articles that remain on WP:FLC.

As it stands, List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks needs only one more vote to become featured (pending a withdrawal of a support vote); List of National Football League stadiums only has one support vote (go to the article's FLC page and add to the discussion; see if you can't help make it featured); New England Patriots seasons has eight (if I counted correctly) support votes; St. Louis Rams seasons needs only one more vote to become featured (pending a withdrawal of a support vote); Cleveland Browns seasons has five support votes.

Please help these articles become featured by adding your input on their FLC pages. Thanks. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 05:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleveland Browns seasons has officially been upgraded to a featured list. Thanks for your votes. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 03:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating players

There have been several player articles that have been jostled between several redirects, having either "(American football)" or "(football player)" affixed to the end of the name of the article. We have to come to a consensus as to how we should treat players that need to be disambiguated.

Players should be disambiguated using "(American football)" or possibly "(American football player)" — though I did notice that that may seem to be a little too specific, though disambiguating them with "(football player)" is misleading since football is a completely different sport in other countries. Perhaps "(gridiron football)" would be a better way to go, as Canadian players could be disambiguated the same way.

Thoughts? Comments? Suggestions? Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 05:51, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Also discussed here and here. No consensus reached, but (American football) came closest. —Wrathchild (talk) 14:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
The only reason I brought it up again is because it seems someone's going through and moving every disambig'd player they find to "(football player)" Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 01:45, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
These changes show a lack of foresight. What happens with multiple players with the same name? Steve Smith and Michael Haynes come to mind. Only gets worse when Steve Smith (college football) become a pro. Mulitple players with the same name at the same position in the NFL. And there are players in differnt countries with the same name, too--Michael Robinson, and Michael Robinson (football player). Pepperjack 18:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Usually with that, positions are used instead (John Doe (quarterback) or John Doe (American football quarterback vs. John Doe (fullback) or John Doe (American football fullback). In the cases of the Smiths, you'd have to go deeper, maybe use a team name or a middle initial or something like that. Pats1 19:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. I think that we should try to standardize something, because it can be very confusing for people from England when they see that someone is a "football player" only to find out that they don't play real football at all. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:57, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Honor Positioning

Non-editor friend of mine has been bugging me about the positioning of the Hall of Fame mention on the player's stat boxes. She feels quite strongly that, as it's pretty much as high an honor as a player can achieve, that it should have greater prominence; she pointed out a couple of cases where the stat box is sufficiently long, particularly when a photo is involved, that the HOF mention is not visible when you first look at the page, requiring a bit of scrolling (although, as I pointed out to her, with little success, there is usually a HOF mention in the opening text to the article). I can kinda see her point, though - the HOF is, obviously, a big deal, so it seems that it should have a degree of greater prominence that being right at the bottom. The vast majority of players have a "Career Highlights" section - at the top of that would seem like a logical alternative; granted, the HOF only comes after retirement, but other post-retirement honors are mentioned in that section as well.

Obviously it would be a little time-consuming to make the switch, but I'm quite happy to get it as much of it done as I can (not a lot of calls on my time right now), but obviously I didn't want to just go ahead and do it without consulting the pack - kinda rude. So, what do people think? --Tailkinker 16:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota Vikings

I'm currently working on the Minnesota Vikings team article and hoping to bring it to GA status. It still needs quite a bit of work with citations and copyedits. Anyone who wishes to partake in the cleanup or leave feedback would be appreciated! Thanks. RyguyMN 00:57, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Team Template Colors

I've just about done updating team colors for all team, coach, roster, QB, and FirstPick templates. Obviously, individual player pages will have to be altered accordingly some time down the road. Generally, teams fell into the following categories:

  • Color X, white (Colts, Jets)
  • Color X, Color Y, white
  • Color X, Color Y, Color Z, white (Patriots, Seahawks, Titans)

I used the same system as old for the team templates, and used color Z for more clarity. All colors were eyedropped from the team's page logo.

There still are some issues with readability, though. White could be used instead for the text, but that would also leave only one team color for most templates. Pats1 23:46, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to try to be a pain but where did you get those colors for the Browns? Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:51, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

He got them from the team's official logo.Chris Nelson 06:10, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not really care if only some has only one team color. What is more important is readibility. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I am not having Dolphins pages aqua and orange because it's too difficult on the eyes. Screw that. Aqua and white is sufficient. The official Bills colors also look bad.Chris Nelson 23:00, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I've already changed it to blue and white. They better not be red and blue again. blue and white or red and white will work. Soxrock 14:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair catch kick

Looking for comments on splitting the list of NFL fair catch kicks off of the fair catch kick article. Please leave comments on the article talk page.—Twigboy 15:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I propose that the years in players infoboxes be links. Anyone against that. Thanks Soxrock 14:13, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think they should be there because there is no links to the years in between, for example like if a player played from 2001-2003 there is no link to 2002, so it is kind of pointless--Yankees10 21:51, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I was thinking the same thing. Pats1 23:56, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
Personally, I like it. I'd say go ahead with it. TheUSCTrojan 00:27, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm against it. I agree with the reasoning above, and I figure they will all be linked in the articles themselves.Chris Nelson 00:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm, against it I like linking of the Pro Bowls but not the years. Quadzilla99 00:49, 4 May 2007 (UTC)m
There's no need to link the years, per Yankees10's reason. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 02:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a need in my mind. It makes it friendlier to users, and because I'm a friend of Soxrock, but I like it anyway. Put them in. TheUltimateImageUploader 11:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

There is a need for them, per TheUltimateImageUploader's reason. NBAonNBC 11:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I figure that links in infoboxes would provide a more user-friendly experience. It would be easier to get to a certain year (if you were interested) than if you had to find the year which may not even be linked. I say put them in. FoxSportsRadio 11:28, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Wow, I am contemplating retirement, and I see this. I say YES, and you'd be dumb to say that there should be no links in it. PUT LINKS IN! Sarah Goldberg 11:38, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

It shouldnt be there, for the same reasons that Yankees 10 and Pats1 have — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.22.125 (talk • contribs)

---

Soxrock you should know 6 to 5 (as you stated in your edit summary) is not consensus. Quadzilla99 11:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm also more than sure those are just random accounts he made to vote in his own favor, which is why he is the one who closed the poll before any consensus was reached. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 18:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, the image guy is a friend of mine, and the others already had their own edits. I closed it because I only had it open for 24 hours.

You can't claim you only had a poll open for 24 hours when you never even said that to begin with. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not Soxrock. I am only an occasional editor. I was messaged to this page by a non-editing friend of mine. FoxSportsRadio 21:05, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

You were messaged to this page to vote in his favor. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Why don't we just make it policy to do everything the opposite of what soxrock says?Chris Nelson 21:09, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Really. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Forget it, it couldn't hurt, but I'll decide if and when to add links. I'm TRYING TO HELP THIS PLACE THOUGH! ENOUGH! Soxrock 21:33, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

That's fine and well, but come on, you went about it all wrong. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

You cant just decide to close the poll, and plus there really wasn't even a poll--Yankees10 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

Indeed. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't really have an opinion but it looks like at least NBAonNBC and imageuploader should be ignored. I'm not going to bother to say why they should be ignored. Trevor GH5 05:13, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Trevor GH5 Bjewiki 15:19, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
The links to dates shouldn't be added per WP:MOS and please see WP:POLL.++aviper2k7++ 22:00, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I nominated the draft as a featured list. If anyone wants to make some minor edits on or it vote on it, it would be helpful. Gman124 21:34, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

NFL draft

Hey guys I have a question--is there a really good source for older drafts? I've ben using this one:[2] but it doesn't list positions. It takes forever to look up each player and find their positions. Trevor GH5 08:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like NFL.com only goes back to 1982. The Pro Football Hall of Fame, CNNSI, and this list go back further, and have positions, but only cover the first round. Hickoksports.com has all the rounds. I hope these help. ×Meegs 08:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks I was looking for some like that too. Quadzilla99 08:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
The HoF lists should make a good sources, for the first rounds at least. They're the only ones that list transactions, and the links should have a long lifetime. ×Meegs 09:05, 7 May 2007 (UTC)
  • profootballhof.com has all the draft picks by each team for all rounds from 1936 to present. You just have to go here, then pick the right decade, then click on the right year of the draft, then at the bottom of the page click on the link "NFL Draft by Team" link to view all the draft choices by each team for all the rounds. and it should be a really realiable source since it's a official NFL page. Gman124 23:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

NFL Draft

I have a question about NFL Draft. Are we supposed to link college, position, and team names in NFL Drafts the first time they appear or every time? Gman124 10:45, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Only the first time.++aviper2k7++ 18:08, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
almost all the drafts prior to 2001 draft has wikilinks that link to every time a position, team, or college name appear, so what should be done with them. Should they be left alone or reverted because reverting them will be very time consuming? I think there should be a rule about it, because once everything is linked, it's takes even longer to revert because you can't really revert to the last good page, since it will remove other stuff that has been added. Gman124 02:13, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
It has been my understanding or interpretation (possibly misinterpretation) that if the article is considered an article First time only if its considered a list (specifically within a table format) link all data Slysplace | talk 02:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
Basically first time only for each link. Every single one was linked originally in pretty much every draft, but there's really no reason for that. The other 60-odd drafts are gonna have to have that fixed.--Wizardman 02:44, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

NYG subproject

I started a Giants subproject similar to the ones the Pats and other teams have. All users are welcome; whether casual fans or only fans of a few players. It's right here. Quadzilla99 18:36, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Financial records

Arre there any good online sources for financial and statistics records for teams? Quadzilla99 12:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Forbes list/rankings of 32 teams in the NFL [3] based on their company value, revenue, and expenses. They have data for almost all major league sports teams. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  15:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks that helps some, still would like to get some detailed history. I'll probably have to buy a book for that though I guess. Quadzilla99 00:19, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

WP:MSH

Hey guys please don't link section headers in articles. It's okay to do it on talk pages but not in articles. I just had to through and tag every playoff article since 1968 because of this. Quadzilla99 22:01, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

In any game summary, include the two teams in the first sentence of the section and link them there. Quadzilla99 22:42, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

I have created the template {{NFL game}} to create a quick and easy link to the official NFL recaps and gamebooks. For example, to place a source link for Super Bowl XLI(Recap) • (Gamebook) you would have the following to generate the reference links: 

{{NFL game|2007|02|04|IND|CHI}}

I expect this to be subject to massive editing, so don't be shy. I just wanted to get the ball rolling to create a link to a very common reference in our Project. And I expect the NFL to change its URL structure as soon as we get this running :) Thoughts? —Twigboy 17:58, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the furthest that the NFL.com archives currently goes back is the 2002 season.[4]. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:38, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
You can also get all games from the second half or so of the 2001 season using This link. Pats1 20:29, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

State vs. USA flags in infoboxes

Has there ever been a decision on how to handle this, which way to go? What do you guys prefer? I've seen both in player articles.Chris Nelson 20:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that the US Flag is better, because you would have to go to all the players and change them, it would take a huge amount of time--Yankees10 22:25, 30 May 2007 (UTC)Yankees10

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_5&oldid=1161953378"