Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format

Significance of the pro bowl in the infobox

The Pro Bowl is currently listed third in priority in the infobox. When taking into account that Pro Bowl voting is done by fans (which leads to some questionable roster comps) and the fact that viewership is down, and has way less significance than say, an NBA All-Star game selection, I am proposing that League MVP, All-Pro selections and other NFL honors be hoisted above the Pro Bowl’s priority in NFL infoboxes. Being named first or second team All-Pro, winning MVP, or even being named OPOY/DPOY/OROY/DROY/WPMOTY is a far more prestigious distinction (not to mention much harder to achieve) than a Pro Bowl berth. You don’t even have to necessarily be voted in, some players get in as reservemen. Comments appreciated. CatcherStorm ^talk 22:35, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pro Bowl is voted on by fans, players, and coaches per Pro Bowl#Player selection. I don't see how Pro Bowl selections have "way less significance than [...] an NBA All-Star game selection", both are voted on by fans and players but NBA has a media vote instead of a coaches vote. NBA players also drop out due to injury or not wanting to play, and IMO has the same weight as a Pro Bowl bid. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read the rest of my statement? CatcherStorm ^talk 23:43, 3 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did, but the meat of your argument is that a Pro Bowl selection is arbitrary, and I disagree with that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:17, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said that it is not nearly as significant as an All-Pro selection or an NFL season award, which is why it should be moved under them. CatcherStorm ^talk 02:45, 7 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree 100%. Being named All-Pro has more weight than making the Pro Bowl, so I'll be bold and move it. I also moved League and other MVP awards above All-Pro in the process, since there can only be one of each while All-Pro is a positional honor, thus having several other players named to it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High school honors

So we are to omit high school championships, but what about honors such as making the USA Today All-USA high school football team or being invited to the All-American Bowl? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eagles247: ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess it makes sense to include the All-USA high school football team in the infobox, but the All-American Bowl is equivalent to college All-Star games like the Senior Bowl, East-West Shrine Game, and NFLPA Bowl. I’m not very familiar with high school athletics though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, you're right about the player invitational bowls. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Highschool honors in infobox for underachieving pros

Citing WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT, Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) has been removing USA Today All-USA honors (and related high school awards) from infoboxes in recent days. Is this really necessary? I understand that we want to prevent the Awards lists of the Tom Bradys and Aaron Donalds of the world from cluttering, but many of the infoboxes Hey man im josh (talk · contribs) trimmed were HS stars with mediocre NFL careers for whom the HS awards where their only notable awards (Cameron Hunt, Michael Muñoz, etc). In those cases, how much harm is being done by including HS awards? @Spf121188: --bender235 (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bender235, this was discussed here, where there were really no objections made, and a consensus to remove this from infoboxes, which is why he was removing. something not "being harmful" isn't really a valid argument in this case IMO, it needs to remain consistent across the board, which is why the guidance exists. Spf121188 (talk) 20:57, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi bender235. Why do you believe that this edit may be doing harm? Citing WP:Infobox, infoboxes are meant to be a summary, and, should be;

Concise - The argument was made that high school awards and achievements add bloat and they often lead to fancruft. How much information are they telling someone about an NFL player?

Material relevant to the subject - How relevant are high school achievements to a player who made it into the NFL? I'd argue they're not.

Already cited elsewhere in the article - By removing achievements from the infobox nothing should be taken away from the article itself. If it's not already cited elsewhere in the article then that was someone else's mistake when they added it into the infobox and not elsewhere.

I understand that, in some cases, those were the only awards a player had in their infobox. However you have to consider how it applies to all of the players who use the WP:NFLINFOBOX. It sucks for a few player's pages but overall it helps to make players' infoboxes more readable. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lead writing

@Bluerules: check TheKinkdomMan talk 12:42, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"This subpage details recommended article format and structure for NFL player pages. It may not reflect the views of every member of the project, and is subject to change." Bluerules (talk) 13:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet hasn’t changed at all, until it does that’s when you can change the format TheKinkdomMan talk 13:23, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter if it's changed or not. What matters is this is a recommendation, not a rule. Recommendations do not dictate how articles must be written. Bluerules (talk) 13:31, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It does matter when it clearly hasn’t changed and the article already establishes the NFL, all articles have been written to this structure which identifies and establishes the player and NFL TheKinkdomMan talk 13:35, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When it clearly says recommendation, nothing you say can justify using it as a rule on how to write articles. It is a recommendation. Bluerules (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It’s justified by how every article is formatted 😂 and shows in the structure TheKinkdomMan talk 13:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

But it's not because that's an WP:OTHERSTUFF argument and that's an actual policy. Bluerules (talk) 14:11, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really cause I’ve checked that and at no point does it say it, however I also don’t see how I lied when I created this talk page so TheKinkdomMan talk 14:57, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's flat-out saying you can't base your edits off of other stuff. And you were supposed to have created a talk page on the disputed article, not on any other article. Bluerules (talk) 15:10, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can’t dispute when you trying to have the last word acting like a baby, it’s called coming up with a solution, and you can base an argument off of other articles cause none have changed TheKinkdomMan talk 16:22, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And yet, that's exactly what you're doing. You just won't acknowledge the simple fact that a recommendation is not a rule and the WP:OTHERSTUFF policy very clearly establishes you cannot "base an argument off other articles", no matter the circumstances. In order to come up with a solution, you need to acknowledge these simple things, but you do not. Bluerules (talk) 19:20, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So if we can get down to a solution that would be wonderful, but trying to have the last word isn’t going to work TheKinkdomMan talk |

You should be telling yourself that. A solution can't happen until you acknowledge a recommendation is not a rule and policy dictates that articles cannot be written based off other articles. Bluerules (talk) 19:21, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WT:NFL about removing (some) conference conference specific awards

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Proposal: Remove (some) conference awards from infoboxes for a discussion about removing some college conference specific awards from the infobox. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Professional football

It's good to see professional formally added to the lead sentence example. There was already consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 24 § Former American football players to have it for former players' lead sentence, so it seems common sense for active players too. —Bagumba (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now the pages are looking naked without it. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wish we could do the same for "is a free agent". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:56, 30 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Beats "is a free agent of the National Football League (NFL)". NBA editors mostly in the habit of using "who last played for the ..." —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The word 'currently' should at least be removed. I love it when 'last played for' is for a player who last played in 2015. Holding out hope? Bringingthewood (talk) 02:12, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

They might still be invited for workouts 😉 —Bagumba (talk) 02:36, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I got it. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:45, 31 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]