Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 17

Archive 10

←

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Mass TfD's of NFL draft navboxes

See here and elsewhere. Ejgreen77 (talk) 13:10, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

We really could use some more input here. For those not inclined to look too hard, probably the most important one of them is here, where someone has proposed deletion for the entire class of draft navboxes for the Colts franchise, including modern-day draft navboxes (i.e. Template:Colts2018DraftPicks, Template:Colts2017DraftPicks, etc.). It's not too hard to see this as a potential "test case" that could be used to justify mass TfD's for other team's draft navboxes as well, if it winds up being successful. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 16:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

One of the problems mentioned at that TfD is that of accessibility. The text in Template:Chicago Bears Draft template list becomes too small when transcluded into a navbox template (which already reduces text to 88%). I've commented at Template talk:Chicago Bears Draft template list with a request to remove the smaller style. The members of this wikiproject probably ought to consider how they may be using reduced font size in other team's templates as well. --RexxS (talk) 17:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

See my response here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

If there is any value in having Template:Chicago Bears Draft template list at all, then there's value in making sure it's readable. MOS:ACCESS applies to the 50 templates where it's transcluded just as much as it does to any other Wikipedia page. --RexxS (talk) 18:21, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm just an ordinary, simple editor, not an ACCESS crusader, so I'm not here to right great wrongs. However, as I noted here, I wouldn't have a problem with making it full size, or even removing it completely. The general public doesn't see it when it's used on a page, and, arguably, the category structure already provides any navigational function that would be necessary. If you (or anyone else) wanted to just go ahead and WP:BOLDly make the text full size, I doubt anyone would object, or even notice. Like I said, it's unarguably the least important part of this navbox, and I really don't care what's done with it, as long as the navbox itself is retained. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:47, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm also just an ordinary, simple editor, not a crusader, and I'm not here to right great wrongs, despite your rude imputation that I am. I'm just one of many millions of elderly readers who can't read stuff that's too bloody small. Why you have to make such a song and dance about a simple request like "make the text big enough for me and others like me to read" is a mystery to me. You are trying to stop your templates being deleted and one of the arguments raised at the TfD is "Also violates WP:ACCESS". I quite politely ask you to resolve the accessibility problem, and I even explain how to do it, which would remove one of the nominator's objections to the template and the 50 others like it, and I'm met with this sort of abuse. You're welcome. --RexxS (talk) 19:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

I meant no offense, and I actually think you've made a good point here, and, at this point, if someone were to come along and mass TfD the entire class of templates at Category:National Football League draft footer templates, I don't think I'd object to them being deleted. Unfortunately, my time on-Wiki is very short, and I've already wasted far too much of it dealing with all of this; most of which could have been avoided if the person who started all of this had dropped a simple note here before initiating 50+ TfD's simultaneously. If someone feels it's important to spend time WP:BOLDly resolving ACCESS issues, more power to them, unfortunately, due to time constraints that person cannot be me. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Template for deletion

The Hammond Pros Template is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 21. Please comment on the discussion.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:Jets AFL All-Time Team up for deletion

Template:Jets AFL All-Time Team is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 20#Template:Jets AFL All-Time Team please comment in the discussion.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:40, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Mass TfD's of NFL draft navboxes, again

Folks, we really could use some more people from this project chiming in here. Again, what we have here is someone proposing deletion for the entire class of yearly draft navboxes for the Colts franchise. This TfD could have sweeping consequences, if it is successful, it would call into question everything in Category:National Football League draft navigational boxes as a potential TfD subject. Thanks, Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:03, 24 March 2019 (UTC)

Saints-Vikings rivalry

A discussion has been started about the Saints–Vikings rivalry at Talk:New Orleans Saints#Vikings Rivalry. Opinions would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Requested move to Fail Mary

Please see Talk:2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy#Requested move 2 April 2019 for a requested move discussion I started for 2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy to be moved to Fail Mary. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:50, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

It would be really appreciated if anyone watching this page would take quick moment to take part in the discussion above. Thanks for any input you can provide. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:05, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Dick Egan - dab needed

What is WP:NFL's disambiguation naming convention? I stumbled upon one that would be needed, if/when the second player's article gets created.

• Dick Egan (American football) – unknown DOB/DOD, played for the Chicago Cardinals (1920–1923) and Kenosha Maroons (1924)
• Dick Egan (American football, born 1904) – b. 1904, played for the Dayton Triangles (1924, source)

Also, is there any chance these might be the same guy? Unlikely I'm sure but the time frames and lack of details about both of them doesn't rule it out. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:56, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@SportsGuy789: They could be the same person, but they both attended different colleges and come from different places – Egan 1920–1924 (NFL, PFR) and Egan 1924 (NFL, PFR). And I doubt there are any books or databases that would help distinguishing both players. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

I'd recommend disambiguaiting them to Dick Egan (end) for the DePaul /Chicago Cardinals / Kenosha Maroons guy and Dick Egan (guard) for the Wilmington / Dayton Triangles guy. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:53, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers' colors

Does anyone know anything as to why the Carolina Panthers' primary color is showing a light "Carolina Blue" instead of black on their primary team article as well as all of their season articles? In the past, black has been the primary color and Carolina Blue has been the secondary color. Does anyone have a source indicating that the Panthers changed their primary jersey color from black to Carolina Blue? DPH1110 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)DPH1110

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

2018–19 NFC Championship Game

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2018–19 NFC Championship Game#Requested move 26 April 2019. AIRcorn (talk) 17:45, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

L.A. Chargers' color change for 2019

The Los Angeles Chargers recently announced that powder blue, which had been the team's alternate jersey color since their 2007 uniform overhaul, will become their primary uniform color beginning with the 2019 season. Only administrators can edit the Gridiron color templates, but the Chargers primary style and Alt primary styles need to be modified to reflect powder blue as the primary color. DPH1110 (talk) 19:06, 28 April 2019 (UTC)DPH1110

Request bump

Second or third time I'm going to request this, but can somebody with infobox coding access/skills automatically disable the |status= parameter from showing if |current_team= is set to free agent? It surely can not be that big of an hassle to do as this is already done for numbers. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:47, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done Also works for |cflstatus= as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:59, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Late response, but thanks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:38, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

NFL Top 100 in infobox

Should NFL Top 100 be added to the infobox of a player? I am asking, because WP:NFLINFOBOX does not say anything about it, and SpeedyAbdo (talk · contribs) has already added it to some infoboxes. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

• I think that NFL Top 100 should be added to the career highlights of a player because like the pro bowl it is voted on by other NFL Players (and the pro bowl is included). Also, if you go to people like Tom Brady and Cam Newton's Wikipedias you will find that they do have the NFL Top 100 listed. SpeedyAbdo (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
• I'm pretty sure we opposed this in prior talk page discussions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:35, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

See previous discussion here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:50, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your input. I removed it from the pages where I found it in the infobox. After further inspection, it appears that Jonas84886 (talk · contribs) was the initial user that added it to some infoboxes in March 2019 and I reverted his addition at Rodgers's page, which I did not remember doing so. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

Sean Bunting moved to Sean Murphy-Bunting

Hey all, I'm here to seek a review of a recent page move. OneBucPerson (talk · contribs) got in touch with me through WP:DISCORD looking for help with Murphy-Bunting's recent name change. Unfortunately, we could only find these sources, none of which are particularly strong: Twitter, title of a news article (no explicit mention of name change), and the Buccaneers roster. I decided to cite the player roster to try and verify the name change. I also encouraged OneBucPerson to move the page to the name he's going under now. I know it's not ideal, and that hopefully better sources will come out in the coming days. Please let us know if there's other thing that can be done here, or if we've done anything wrong. All the best, Airplaneman ✈ 19:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Minnesota Vikings championships

There is a disagreement over the Vikings' championships. The discussion regarding the matter can be found at Talk:Minnesota Vikings#or... – Sabbatino (talk) 07:26, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

2001 Jaguars-Browns officiating controversy

Hey, could someone from this project assess the article "2001 Jaguars-Browns officiating controversy." It would be greatly appreciated. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 16:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Assessed as start-class. Not far from c-class in my book. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:39, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Consensus on College conference championships, records, bowl awards, and NCAA leaders in the infobox

I've noticed that these have been included on some infoboxes but aren't explicitly ruled out by WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT. Personally, I lean heavily towards excluding them (ex: "Big Ten Champion", "Independence Bowl MVP", SEC single season passing touchdown record (44) (2017) & FBS passing touchdowns leader (2017)) because it looks like WP:CRUFT to me and its more appropriate to be mentioned in the player's "college career" section. If there is already a consensus on these topics, please let me know. If not Let's try to establish one and add to the Player pages format. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:39, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I support deleting all of the aforementioned.—Bagumba (talk) 09:10, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

MVP awards should always be kept, but I don't mind everything else being removed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:54, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

There doesnt seem to be prior consensus for that. For example, Rose Bowl MVP winners dont even consistently have it in their infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 22:00, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba. At the end of the day it’s closest equivalent to a weekly award, which are already listed as not to be included. I could see ‘’maybe’’ the BCS bowls, but certainly not the lower ones. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:31, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sometimes, we try too hard to adopt bright line rules, when the fact is that "career highlight" is a relative term and varies depending on whether we are talking about Tom Brady or a lesser player. I agree with excluding conference championships for all players. However, with records, bowl MVPs, and NCAA leaders, it depends on the player and on the record, bowl, and leadership category. For example, NCAA annual rushing leader is a legitimate highlight (indeed the "career highlight") in the case of someone like Art Luppino (2x NCAA rushing leader), but may result in too much infobox clutter in the case of someone like Barry Sanders. As another example, Rose Bowl MVP is a bona fide career highlight for someone like Leroy Hoard, but may result in too much clutter in the case of Ron Dayne. We need to use some common sense and discretion in determining what constitutes a "highlight" for particular players. Cbl62 (talk) 11:27, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Note I'm also going to throw in All-Academic teams while we're at it. My guess is that there is probably a consensus against it but just making sure. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:47, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• I'm pretty much in agreement with everything Cbl62 said above; it really depends on the individual player. For guys who didn't have much of an impact in the NFL, it's entirely appropriate that we include more college highlights, whereas for guys who have won multiple Super Bowls and are in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, those same college highlights are probably going to be overkill. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Team colors in schedule tables

There are some season articles in which the team colors are on display in the preseason and regular season schedule tables. For example, here is the 2019 New England Patriots' preseason schedule table (below). Is this a trend that would be worth starting for all 32 teams, or would this just be too much of an eyesore once the tables become colored with light green (for wins) and light red (for losses)?

Week	Date	Kickoff (EDT)	Opponent	Final score	Record	Game site	Channel	NFL.com recap
1	August 8	7:30 p.m.	at Detroit Lions			Ford Field
2	August 17	7:00 p.m.	at Tennessee Titans			Nissan Stadium
3	August 22	7:30 p.m.	Carolina Panthers			Gillette Stadium
4	August 29	7:30 p.m.	New York Giants			Gillette Stadium

DPH1110 (talk) 02:13, 22 May 2019 (UTC)DPH1110

• Can't we just use a single border for the entire thing? Each cell having its own border is not a good look. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:41, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• I vote no on this as unnecessary decoration. Definitely not something that should be copied elsewhere. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Based on what I saw when I tested it out with the table above (without saving it), it didn’t look that bad. I might wind up being the odd man out here, but I vote yes on this.--Rockchalk717 16:36, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

It doesn't look very nice at all to my eye. – PeeJay 07:05, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

"Frequent matchups" section at History of the NFL championship

There is an disagreement about the "Frequent matchups" at History of the National Football League championship. It was initially added by @Andiharve: before I removed it completely since, in my opinion, it is nothing more than WP:TRIVIA, but the other editor has a different opinion about it and cites List of World Series champions as the justification for such list. What are your thoughts regarding such lists? – Sabbatino (talk) 20:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I also cite List of Super Bowl Champions as another source. This also has been listed under NBA Finals. I personally don't see how this is trivial. I think it is interesting for people to know and do not see the harm in having this. - Andiharve (talk) 23:26, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Citing other Wikipedia articles isn't necessarily going to help your cause. Just because something exists in another article doesn't necessarily mean it should exist here too. – PeeJay 07:09, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Starting QB Lists - Consensus on Changes Needed

PatriotsFOREVER126 has made some large changes to the table formatting on all of the starting QB lists by team. As an example, see List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks here. PeeJay2K3 and myself have reverted a few instances of these changes based on the number of games started after each QB name not making sense anymore, but I think to preempt any disagreement, it would be good to get come consensus on these changes. You can see the edits here: Special:Contributions/PatriotsFOREVER126. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I think my position on this is obvious from my edit summary here, but to summarise, it doesn't make sense to combine these rows, even when the data is the same for both lines, since it would imply that the data covers the entire span, rather than applying to each individual year. – PeeJay 15:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Due to there not being a consensus in favour of these changes (and my dislike of them) I undid them at the List of Cleveland Browns starting quarterbacks page. 75.188.230.160 (talk) 03:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

NFL Team History and Lore Templates

Although well intentioned, I'm not sure I agree with the changes at {{NFL team history}} and the new template {{NFL lore}} from User Psantora. I believe the consensus at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/National Football League lore (2nd nomination) was that National Football League lore was not a cohesive enough topic to warrant an article. As such, it probably doesn't warrant a navigation template. And I believe that the expansion of {{NFL team history}} has made it somewhat bloated and unusable as a navigation aid (see WP:NAVBOX). Instead of engaging directly on the user's talk page or the template talk pages, I figured this page would gain consensus quicker and easier. What does everyone think? Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:38, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

{{NFL lore}} fails WP:NAVBOX #4: There should be a Wikipedia article on the subject of the template.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

I have nominated {{NFL lore}} for deletion. Anyone have any input on {{NFL team history}}? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

The article on the subject of the {{NFL lore}} template is NFL history, so I disagree that WP:NAVBOX#4 is not satisfied. These links were taken from the respective team navboxes (e.g. {{Buffalo Bills}}, {{New England Patriots}}, {{Chicago Bears}}, etc...), which each have culture/lore section(s). It makes sense to have a centralized listing for all of these links. I did this relatively quickly so I'm sure there are areas that need cleanup and additional targets that can be added; each grouping could be listed in chronological order for example. There is currently no centralized location that groups these links together and they are all related parts of NFL history, each notable enough to have a wikipedia article. That is why I created a navbox for it. As for whether it should be included in {{NFL team history}} or not, that can be debated separately. I obviously believe it fits there, but that would be a completely different discussion than whether or not the "lore" (I don't care what it is called) template is deleted. - Paul^T+/_C 18:58, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

I have reverted the changes at {{NFL team history}}. The more I looked at it, the more it was clear it doesn't meet any of our guidelines. Psantora, there has been decades of discussion on navboxes and the general consensus has always been to use them sparely and to keep the included articles concise and on-topic. To be frank, a navbox that is larger than my screen when fully expanded becomes almost unusable. There is also never a need to have a template inside of a template. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

You are mistaken about nesting templates. It happens all the time and is perfectly acceptable. See {{AT&T}} for one example. Just because you are not familliar with something doesn't mean that it isn't a thing that can happen. - Paul^T+/_C 19:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Haha well I would argue that {{AT&T}} is pretty ridiculous as well, so that's not a compelling argument for me. Just because other things exist, doesn't mean it is good practice. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

That isn't an argument. There are many other examples of this feature. {{French overseas empire}} is another. Regardless, there currently is no general {{NFL history}} template. I was attempting to create one by nesting a few related templates into {{NFL team history}}. If the group prefers to keep that specifically focused on franchise history, fine, but I would argue that {{NFL rivalries}} is a natural extension of that directly relating to the history of the franchises and would be completely in line with that purpose if it were included in {{NFL team history}}. Regarding {{NFL lore}}, I created that template using a distracting name and the main purpose of it has been missed. I think it would be best to move that template to {{NFL history}} and expand it to included the non "history of..." articles that were removed from the {{NFL team history}} template. This template would cover all non-franchise related history of the NFL, of which there are plenty of articles that could and should be grouped in a navbox. - Paul^T+/_C 20:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is scope creep. Why not include every single relevant article in {{NFL}}? Why not nest every single relevant template into {{NFL}}? The answer is because after a certain point the purpose of navboxes is lost. The scope of navboxes should be clear and concise. Again, {{French overseas empire}} is a template masquerading as a list or Outline article (see Outline of the United States). Again, WP:NAVBOX is very clear on this: "If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate." Loosely related articles don't need navboxes. And navboxes inside of navboxes further waters down the purpose of navboxes and the ability to navigate to closely related articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

I've read through WP:NAVBOX and a few things stick out to me. templates with a large number of links are not forbidden, but can appear overly busy and be hard to read and use. Good templates generally follow some of these guidelines: (emphasis on "some" added) and points 1, 3, and 5 in particular: All articles within a template relate to a single, coherent subject./The articles should refer to each other, to a reasonable extent./If not for the navigation template, an editor would be inclined to link many of these articles in the See also sections of the articles. all of which apply directly to these links (I argue that all five are met, but these three in particular are certainly not controversial). You mention If the collection of articles does not meet these tests, that indicates that the articles are loosely related, and a list or category may be more appropriate. and there is nothing there stating that all such tests must be met. Regardless, the template, while it could use some improvement, does generally meet these guidelines. I don't understand your concern about scope creep. I'm not talking about adding anything to {{NFL}}. There currently is nothing that groups these related articles together, how is having such a grouping not a benefit to the project? - Paul^T+/_C 18:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

I've reverted recent changes at Template:NFL team history to have multiple links per team. It's seems like those extra minor topics should be in the respective team history articles already (or added if it is not); it clutters things if we try to make a flat directory where all topics, minor ones included, are listed.—Bagumba (talk) 12:07, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

The whole point of navivigation templates is to keep related pages together so that it is easy to navigate between them. These additional pages were specifically requested on the talk page of the template in question so it isn't like I'm the only one that sees value to this. - Paul^T+/_C 18:36, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

So this is what I see so far:

• History of the National Football League is supported by {{NFL team history}}: the article History of the National Football League provides an overview of the development of the league and important institutional events. Similarly, the articles within the {{NFL team history}} template provide an overview of each team's history (i.e. History of the Green Bay Packers). It is important to note that History of the National Football League does not mention all (or even a few) of the items found in {{NFL lore}}.
• National Football League lore would be supported by {{NFL lore}}: the article National Football League lore (before it was deleted) provided a list of notable games/plays/trades/events (collectively known as "lore") for all NFL teams. The template {{NFL lore}} mirrors this. It provides a list of notable events that have occurred across all NFL teams and not a complete history of the NFL. However, based on this deletion discussion, it was deemed that a listing of "lore"-type articles did not meet our inclusion guidelines. Thus, a navbox (or any other template) that lists "lore"-type articles together does not meet our guidelines.
• National Football League is supported by {{NFL}}: this template mirrors the National Football League, which provides an overview of the NFL as an organization.

I think the point that is that the only logical connection for everything currently in the {{NFL lore}} template is that it occurred in the NFL in the past. But unfortunately this scope is just too broad for a navbox. As an example, there is no concise connection between Lambeau Leap and Dirty Dozen (American football), which are both in the template, other than they are NFL lore (which was deleted because it didn't meet our guidelines). I think the best bet at this part is to let the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 June 11#Template:NFL lore finish up. That should give us some consensus on how to move forward. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:37, 13 June 2019 (UTC)

Template:NFL season roster

A change was just made (two days ago) to Template:NFL season roster (here), which added a section "Practice/Taxi squad". Is that a well understood term in the NFL? I'd never heard it before, and it jumped out at me as unlikely. Tarl N. (discuss) 01:21, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've never seen it referred as a taxi squad in the NFL. Practice squad is the common usage. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Since the edit is only two days old, I'll remove the "taxi" part of it. I'm unsure whether we really want to have a "practice squad" part at all, since this is mostly used for historic rosters, but I'll leave that for another discussion. Tarl N. (discuss) 03:39, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Just as an FYI, "taxi squad" is what practice squads were formerly called. Some coaches still call them taxi squads but for official purposes they're "practice" squads now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:04, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, digging into it, that seems to be a derogatory term for the practice squad. I don't think we need that in the roster template. Tarl N. (discuss) 17:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Portal:National Football League

This portal is being considered for deletion in accordance with Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:National Football League.--Moxy 🍁 11:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Bart Starr Award

Is Bart Starr Award notable enough to be included in the player's infobox? BL.o-shay (talk · contribs) added the award to many infoboxes, and Bagumba (talk · contribs) reverted the addition at Aaron Rodgers citing the WP:NFLINFOBOX criteria. However, I cannot find anything there that would be against the award's inclusion and wanted to consult here before removing them. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:16, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Since it's not listed there, it means there is no consensus to have it (which is slightly weaker than saying that there was consensus to exclude it). My first impression is that it's a minor, non-defining award that shouldn't clutter the infobox even further.—Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, it's a valid award so why shouldn't it go into the infobox? If your only argument is due to anti-bloat, then maybe we shouldn't have an awards parameter in the first place and instead keep all of that in the article body. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:27, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Simply, it's the policy WP:ONUS: While information must be verifiable in order to be included in an article, this does not mean that all verifiable information must be included in an article. Just because decisions aren't always unanimous is not a reason to resort to "all or nothing".—Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba, the Bart Starr Award appears to be minor and should most likely be listed with the "Other awards and honors section of Rodgers' article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

Football vs. "American football"

I get that plain "football" can have many different meanings depending on where you are from, and that's how the use of "American football" came about. However, it seems like most soccer articles are invoking WP:TIES in BLP and team related article to just call it " football" while piping to Association football. See FA Manchester United F.C., GA Juventus F.C., and GA Lionel Messi as examples.

In fact, there was a 2018 Village Pump discussion on whether the specific code of football needed to be explicit, to which there was no consensus. Back in 2009, I saw that Trovatore wrote, ... the American football articles say American football on first reference. There needs to be reciprocity. If there isn't, then the American football articles could also just call it football on first reference, which probably wouldn't really confuse anyone either ...

I suggest we start doing the same if it's obvious the subject is American. So NFL bios should follow the standard of every other bio and write is an American football player ..., i.e. don't link person's American nationality. Team articles should say ... are a professional football team based in Kansas City, Missouri, US. We should stop calling it "American football" if it is apparent the subject is American. Some articles, like Wes Chandler, have had this for a while.—Bagumba (talk) 08:24, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

What about American soccer teams that have football in their name? For example: New York City Football Club or Atlantic United Football Club. These are something to consider as to why American football may have been kept. Mjs32193 (talk) 19:43, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

The opening sentence of both New York City FC and Atlantic City FC refer to them as a "soccer" team. There seems to be a trend in US soccer teams to put "FC" in their names, and it makes sense to market themselves as a "real football" team. Still, "football" in America is generally the non-soccer type.—Bagumba (talk) 03:29, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

I've changed a few articles (Patrick Mahomes, Aaron Donald, Rob Gronkowski, O. J. Simpson, and Tom Brady) to see if there is any feedback.—Bagumba (talk) 12:54, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

Oppose - It takes more work to make this a piped link than it does to just leave it alone, creating an WP:EASTEREGG type situation, not to mention WP:NATDIS. The football examples listed in the OP get away with this because it works better on a global scale, and the fact that basically nobody calls football/soccer "association football" beyond being super technical when comparing the different football codes. I don't even see a benefit or even purpose to doing this beyond change for change's sake. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:44, 14 July 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: One benefit is succinctly listing a player's nationality instead of piggybacking on "American", which just happens to be in the sport. One side effect is regarding non-American NFL players, where writers have also avoided listing their nationality to be "consistent". See Jack Crawford (American football), and the awkward lead of ... is an English-born American football defensive tackle for the ... Just state that he's English. Because we don't do it for current players, we also don't do it for former players. See Dieter Brock: ... is a former Canadian Football League and National Football League player ... So is he Canadian or American? Just clearly state the nationality of American/Canadian football players, period.—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

While that is true, you could also make the counter-argument that because the vast majority of American football players are American, that it should just be assumed that they are. The is an American football player ... proposal does nothing more than create a piped easteregg link, while the ... English-born American football player ... examples are rare enough that I don't think we should use this as the main argument to support this. I'm not against improving this in another way, but I just feel like your proposal violates a guideline or two without actually improving anything. I'd like to hear what other WP:NFL members think. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:11, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

I also do not support the proposed change Bagumba, per Dissident93 above. The guideline you are quoting (MOS:OPENPARABIO) doesn't require "nationality" as you listed in your edit summaries (see your recent change on Vince Lombardi, for example), it requires "context", which can be "location or nationality". As such, American football provides the necessary context. If nationality is notable for some reason, we can address those on a case-by-case basis. I agree with Dissident93 above that all you are doing is adding Easter egg links that aren't really providing helpful information. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:50, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Thanks for the input. Generally, bios on Wikipedia list nationality. American football players are one of the glaring exceptions. Saving writers from typing from having to pipe "American football" is an impact, I suppose, but that does not seem to benefit readers. I think MOS:EGG is being misapplied. The reader gets the article they would expect reading "football" in an article written in American English (MOS:TIES). What do readers gain from writers deviating from general Wikipedia bio formats, and even from association football (soocer) bio conventions? Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 16:21, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

Again, the importance for the reader is understanding "context", not just nationality per se. American football provides that context. It is important to note that all you are changing is the linking, the text is staying the same. Thus, "American football player" and "American football player" are fundamentally the same English sentence. All you are doing is using linking to specify what the adjective "American" is modifying, i.e. "this person is a football player who was born in American" vs "this is a player of American football". Using linking to clarify the meaning of a sentence isn't ideal to say the least. I believe the status quo is sufficient, whereas nationality in the opening sentence is implied as American unless specifically stated as otherwise. It is also perfectly acceptable to have a slightly different format for American football bios than general Wikipedia bios. Honestly, I think your proposed solution doesn't addressed your perceived problem.

Let's take Aaron Rodgers as an example

• Current opening sentence: Aaron Charles Rodgers (born December 2, 1983) is an American football quarterback for the Green Bay Packers of the National Football League (NFL).
• Your proposal solution: Aaron Charles Rodgers (born December 2, 1983) is an American football quarterback for the Green Bay Packers of the National Football League (NFL).
• Actually stating nationality: Aaron Charles Rodgers (born December 2, 1983) is an American professional football quarterback for the Green Bay Packers of the National Football League (NFL).

Note how I added "professional" between "American" and "football". This clarifies what "American" means without using piped links. I got this sentence structure from Gareth Bale. I'm not saying I necessarily support this change, but just trying to give you an example of why your proposed solution doesn't really solve what you view as the problem, i.e. clarifying a player's nationality in the opening sentence. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

I look at it from the perspective of the average reader of American English who knows nothing about Wikipedia's inner workings. In American English, it's just simply called "football". There's no need to call it "American football" if we know the subject is American, and Wikipedia bios generally follow the format "is/was a(n) <nationality> <occupation>, so understanding nationality wouldn't be an issue with "is an American football ..." Former personnel e.g. "is an American former football ..." are inherently free from your concern with "former" being in between. I'm neutral on needing "professional" because I just assume all bios (non-sports as well) are about professionals unless stated otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

My main concern is you are trying to use linking to solve the problem (thus my example of Rodgers). Ideally, the language should be clear regardless of linking. If we are looking at this from the "average reader" POV, then I would argue that in bio pages for American football, nationality isn't essential in understanding the context of who this person is and what they have done to become notable for the average reader. This is opposed to association football, where nationality cannot be assumed for almost any major league/team/player, and thus there is a strong case to include it in the opening sentence. Thus, changing American football to American football so that "American" can remain unlinked and thus possibly be more readily understood as the person's nationality and not the type of football is a pointless exercise in solving a problem that doesn't exist. Even if it was a real problem, the solution you are proposing doesn't make things any clearer (again, back to my example of Rodgers above). And just to reiterate, just because other bios do it, does not mean it has to be done here. This is a unique case where a term that is also a nationality is included in the official name of a sport. Lastly, as this change would affect thousands upon thousands of articles, I think you need a pretty strong consensus to implement, which in my opinion is lacking at this point. Sure you can be bold and make the change on a few pages, but since you now brought it up here and at least 2 other editors oppose it, I would think you should revert and discuss further before continuing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:43, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

... nationality isn't essential in understanding the context of who this person ...: That is contrary to the community MOS, which states at MOS:CONTEXTBIO: The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases this will be the country of which the person is a citizen ... An exception would need to go beyond a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Without evidence of this wider consensus, I think maybe we just randomly inherited this format, perhaps by early edits like this one from 2005 to John Elway that plopped in a link to "American football" when neither "American" nor "football" was in the lead until then. I had mentioned Wes Chandler earlier, which shows American nationality and pipes "American football" to "football", and that practice is in other articles like Kevin Carter (American football). There's other varying formats like James Brooks (American football) (... is a retired NFL football running back) or Stanley Morgan (... is a former NFL wide receiver), that dont provide any context, even the low bar you suggest of just "American football". Therefore, I don't see where there is an existing "football consensus" for which you suggested for me to volunteer my time and conform to.—Bagumba (talk) 09:47, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

All-AFL Teams

For anyone looking for gnomish work, seems the following lists have references already, but there is no listing of the players yet in the articles:

• 1963 All-AFL Team
• 1964 All-AFL Team
• 1965 All-AFL Team
• 1966 All-AFL Team
• 1967 All-AFL Team

—Bagumba (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

AAF team season merger proposal discussion

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2019 Arizona Hotshots season#Merger proposals. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:59, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

One-day contracts

With the recent news that Steven Jackson was subjected to drug testing due to his signing a one-day contract to retire with the Rams, I'd like to open a discussion about how to proceed with this in the infoboxes. For a long time the consensus on this website has been to leave out these "ceremonial" contracts from the infobox but recently it is becoming clearer that these contracts are in fact official ones. According to this Deadspin article, teams have to clear a roster space to sign these players and actually fill out paperwork for the league office. It also says the media likes to call these contracts "ceremonial" but a Jaguars representative said they are not. This article from CBS states NaVorro Bowman was unable to sign his one-day contract on June 4 because the team didn't want to cut a player to sign him. He was later signed to the contract on July 22. I know it seems a little crufty to include it in the infoboxes, but if we include offseason-only teams shouldn't we do the same for one-day contracts? Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

If a player is contracted to a team and officially part of the roster, which the players you mentioned would appear to have been, that team should be listed in their infobox. – PeeJay 17:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A one-day contract entered into during the off-season, where the player does not even participate in any scrimmages or pre-season games? That sounds like something that should be left to a brief mention in the body rather than being elevated to the infobox. If the player is later signed to a real contract, that would be the time to put it in the infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

What makes it not a real contract? The team has to clear a roster spot to sign the player, who also has to receive a veteran minimum salary (I would guess this wouldn't be guaranteed and not affect the cap number, but still...) so I don't know what criteria you're using to say this isn't a "real" contract. – PeeJay 18:07, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A "real" contract is one that covers the football season, not one that covers a single 24-hour period falling outside the football season. A "real" contract is one that involves actual services as a football player (i.e., appearing in an actual football game, scrimmage, or at least training camp), not one that commits the parties for one day that does not involve participating in games, scrimmages, or even practice. This seems pretty basic. Cbl62 (talk) 05:04, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If I'm reading the articles correctly, it appears that the contracts are legitimate one-year contracts (usually for minimum salary or a ceremonial value) but teams place the players on reserve/retired immediately after. There is also no guarantee when a player signs with a team in the offseason that they will participate in at least one training camp practice before getting released or retiring. For example, L. J. Scott retired three days after signing with the Browns in May and I don't believe he took part in any mini-camp practices with them. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:12, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

If we include it in the infobox, I think a note needs to be included, similar to how we handle practice squad players in the infobox. See Tony Brown (defensive back, born 1995) for an example. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

A one-day contract is 100% ceremonial and should not be reflected in the infobox, even if it apparently takes up a roster spot for a day. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

@Dissident93: from the Deadspin article: "The media may refer to it as "ceremonial", but for all legal and labor purposes, it's an actual contract that is identical to the one given to anyone else on the roster. [Fred] Taylor has to sign it, or it will not be valid. A copy will have to be faxed to the league office in New York, or it will not be valid. The Jaguars had to have a free roster spot to use on Taylor." Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

This is tangental but pertinent to this case. Doesn't a general rule for inclusion as an NFL player be that they play in a game. Heck, just cutting it at being on an active 53 man roster might cut down on the proliferation of practice squad and the numerous AfDs that follow, and we all vote non-notable unless GNG passes. Bringing it back to this discussion, by using that idea we can say that one day contracts won't be included. For what its worth, Carmelo Anthony doesn't have the Atlanta Hawks or the Chicago Bulls in his infobox on account that while he was on their rosters, he never played a game for those franchises.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:41, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the other sports projects (MLB, NBA, NHL) don't list teams in the infobox unless the player actually played in regular season games for that particular team. The NFL project is an anomaly in that regard. Of course, those other leagues also have much longer seasons than the NFL, and they also have the issue of minor leagues to deal with (i.e. a player signs a 1 year deal with the MLB Pittsburgh Pirates, but then winds up playing the entire season with the Triple-A Indianapolis Indians without ever being called up or having games played with the Pirates at the MLB level. The baseball project won't list anything at all in the infobox for that particular season). Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

Bump so this discussion does not get archived before a consensus has been reached. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

Somebody vandalized 1989 NFL Season page

The playoff bracket is completely wrong: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1989_NFL_season#Playoffs — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:7669:2900:F40A:E4CE:AA34:526F (talk) 18:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Fixed now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Playoff appearances

Do y'all think it could be a better idea to add Wild card berths for NFL teams instead of having the years as playoff appearances? Because I think it's kind of confusing for other people to get how they made it. Because it's got the division title years but for the wild card years it's jammed into the division titles.

Like when a team makes the WC instead of putting it on the playoff appearances it can be on Wild card berth because that's what it is pretty much. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 01:16, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• I get the point kinda, but 3rd and 4th seeds both win the division and make a wild card berth, so I don't think this really helps avoiding confusion when compared to the rather matter of fact "playoff appearances". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:54, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, when 3rd and 4th seeds win the division I don't think it's on their Division titles. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 16:06, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• Well it should be, what team pages have this issue? Also, some seasons have special exceptions for playoffs, such as the strike-shortened 1982–83 NFL playoffs in which the top 8 teams from each conference made the playoffs independently of division. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

What about this one? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tennessee_Titans Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 17:43, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

• All of the playoff appearances seem to correlate with their division wins. Or am I misunderstanding? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it's right. Sports Fan 1997 (talk) 19:27, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove television-related text on templates

Per WP:NOT, I need these TV things to be removed on game summaries and standings. WP isn't a yellowpage directory. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 20:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

@2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07: Listing game channels is violating which specific part of WP:NOT? Every television program on Wikipedia has the channel listed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:50, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

User:Jack Skellington III is now going through season articles and removing times and TV channels as per his interpretation of WP:NOTTVGUIDE. I disagree with these changes and would like to open it up to WP:NFL for thoughts. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Or its DPH0110. 2600:1702:38D0:E70:FD25:732E:F177:1A07 (talk) 11:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Booth Lusteg

I came across this article via WP:THQ#Wrong info in "Booth Lusteg Wikipedia" article on Google and have been trying to clean it up and expand it a bit. I've been able to find a few sources, but have sort of run into a bit of a brick wall. So, I was wondering if someone from this WikiProject might be able to help out a bit or suggest further improvements. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:35, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi Marchjuly, I clipped some sources from Newspapers.com on Booth Lusteg for you: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. Hope that helps! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to find those Gonzo_fan2007. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:14, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

Definition of "headquarters"

What's the definition of "headquarters" for the teams? Is it where the administrative (Owner/CEO/GM/Coaches etc.) offices are? I'm speaking in reference to the Kansas City Chiefs. It says they're "played and headquartered in Arrowhead Stadium." If HQ means where their admin offices are, then it's wrong. Corky 01:55, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary defines as "the administrative center of an enterprise".—Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I just wasn’t sure what Wikipedia’s definition was! Corky 11:07, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Corkythehornetfan, I agree with Bagumba, HQ is the team's administrative office. Is there a specific source you could provide for what you added to Kansas City Chiefs though? From a brief Google search, it appears the University has partnered with the Chiefs for healthcare-related activities, but I didn't immediately notice anything about HQ. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: This website is the picture of where the admin/coaches offices, or headquarters", is located. It's called the "University of Kansas Health System Sports Medicine and Performance Center" (I got the name wrong the first time). This article has the old name. There are no offices in the stadium itself except for Chiefs Security, the contracted security, and Jackson County Sports Authority. Corky 07:24, 19 September 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football#Meaning of "field goal attempt"

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football#Meaning of "field goal attempt". -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:36, 23 September 2019 (UTC)

It has been closed without action.2605:E000:9149:8300:193B:3F53:BB51:A254 (talk) 01:06, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

It was closed because an administrator named Gonzo fan2007 felt there was no value to Wikipedia in further continuing the discussion and that no action (at least the action you were proposing) needed to be taken. Gonzo fan2007's close also included a warning for you to move on to other things. If you disagree with the close or the warning, then you should discuss your concerns with Gonzo fan2007 on their user talk page. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:25, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Order of the categories in an NFL bio

User :@Jweiss11: is changing the order of the categories defined in existing NFL biographies from chronological to alphabetical. To me, it makes it more difficult to read and analyze. Please advise if there is a standard to register them.Makers267 (talk) 17:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

There's not really a definitive way to organize categories per MOS:CATORDER. I prefer chronological but others prefer alphabetical. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:13, 29 September 2019 (UTC)

An NFL-specific standard, if there is indeed one, for ordering categories isn't much of a solution given large overlap between NFL biographies and other project areas. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

How about polling the issue at the NFL and College football project talk pages? Cbl62 (talk) 03:48, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

We could, but even an American football-specific standard runs into the same sort of problems that an NFL-specific standard would. A better place to discuss and/or poll might be Wikipedia:WikiProject Biography. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:54, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Win-Loss Records for Starting Quarterbacks

I think most of us can agree that Win-Loss records for starting quarterbacks are noteworthy statistics that are valuable to readers. The Win-Loss records as a starter (overall and by season) help to identify the successes of a quarterback in leading his team to victory. This is especially true in the case of Tom Brady who is the winningest quarterback in NFL history. Nevertheless, his Win-Loss records as a starter, which have existed as statistics on his page for years, were recently stripped. Help me to maintain this valuable statistic and preserve his legacy and records for posterity.

Mwatz122 (talk) 04:58, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

With this post is actually about, MWatz122 feels supports win/loss records should be included in a quarterback’s statistics on their page. We have had an edit dispute over this I have advised this editor that there is no consensus to include this and the overwhelming majority of quarterbacks do not have their record as a starter included in their stats section and only recently with the exception being Tom Brady, has this been added to pages. This editor has failed to understand that I have reverted them adding it back has nothing to do with my personal opinion on this issue, just that the majority of quarterback articles do not include this as a stat.

Now about my personal opinion, the record is not notable in the least bit since it is a team accomplishment not an individual one. Additionally, I do not feel the record is a stat. If a quarterback has an exceptional record, then mention in the opening or in a “legacy” section but not as a stat because it is not a stat. In fact I’d be willing to suggest a compromise be the record is removed from the statistics table and moved to somewhere within the body of the article, like the opening. The only articles that should list record are coach articles.--Rockchalk717 06:32, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Win-Loss record as a starter is not exactly a team statistic though. In 2016, the New England Patriots went 14-2 as a team but Tom Brady went 11-1 as a starter. That is an important distinction. Yes, the team plays a role in this statistic, but the team plays a role in every statistic. Do we exclude passing yards/passing touchdowns because a quarterback has an exceptional offensive line or talented receivers? Obviously not. Do you really believe that someone who is interested in learning about a quarterback would not be interested in knowing how many Wins/Losses they had as a starter? They would not be able to find that information by referencing the team's page.

And to your point, the pages of Aaron Rodgers, Patrick Mahomes, Andrew Luck, Nick Foles, Tony Romo, Matt Ryan, Dan Marino, Russell Wilson, Kurt Warner, Johnny Unitas, Peyton Manning, and Brett Favre all include Win-Loss records as a starter (or at least they did until you removed them), so you cannot truthfully say there is a consensus here to not include them on the player's page. Many players have them and have had them for years, and it is especially important when players have records in that category such as Tom Brady. It is not enough to simply say that he is the winningest quarterback in NFL history in his lede - readers should be able to see exactly how often he won and they should not need to reference the team's page which will incorrectly include numbers from 2000 and 2008 in that separate statistic.

Mwatz122 (talk) 13:55, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn’t say call him the winningest quarterback in the lead. I said put the record in the lead and do not include it with the stats because it’s not a stat. All those pages, with the exception of I think Peyton Manning, the w/l records were recently by inexperienced editors and/or IP addresses and they were most likely added because people saw them on Tom Brady’s page and added them. Once again my main point for why is because it’s not statistic and it’s a team accomplishment. Tom Brady isn’t playing defense, returning kicks, or kicking field goals and extra points, he’s just playing quarterback. It takes more than just a quarterback to win and lose games.--Rockchalk717 17:34, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Everyone knows that the quarterback doesn't solely contribute to whether or not his team wins on the field. It is a TEAM sport, after all. That doesn't mean that Win-Loss statistics don't matter for quarterbacks. High win percentage is a hallmark of all successful quarterbacks and is used often to judge a quarterback's place in the pantheon of the greatest to ever play the game. ESPN and other media outlets regularly use Win-Loss statistics for quarterbacks throughout their programming. Also, the coach never even steps foot onto the field for offense, defense, or special teams, yet you just admitted above that you think coach articles should list Win-Loss statistics.

Mwatz122 (talk) 23:10, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

The coach has a larger impact on the overall team success than the quarterback. A coach’s success is based solely on wins and losses. That’s why the 99% of coaches that get fired finished the season with a losing record. Just because a quarterback wins games doesn’t mean they were a successful quarterback. A quarterback can put up big numbers and lose as well as s quarterback put up garbage numbers and win (Troy Aikman, Terry Bradshaw). Let me put it this way to disprove the point you just attempted to make. A team goes 4-12 three straight seasons but the quarterback puts up decent numbers. Who’s gonna be more likely to lose their job, the coach or the quarterback? Additionally you just contradicted your argument, you acknowledged it’s a team sport and that the QB doesn’t solely contribute to wins and losses when earlier you said “Win-Loss record as a starter is not exactly a team statistic though” And if they aren’t solely responsible for wins and losses, then why should they be included with statistics the quarterback is solely responsible for?

Can someone please chime in on this. This has turned into a further debate and not a resolution for our edit dispute. It’s defeating the whole reason I had them post here. I’ve made my points the other editor has made their points, we just need someone else on this. Thank you!!--Rockchalk717 01:18, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

For what's it's worth, Pro-Football-Reference.com includes QB won-loss records in their passing statistics tables. See: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/B/BradTo00.htm. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I think that settles it. This entire site is built around providing football statistics, and obviously they consider it to be important enough to include on each quarterback's page (listed as QBrec for each season). That is as much validation as I need. Thanks!

Mwatz122 (talk) 05:31, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

One person chiming in doesn’t “settle it”. That’s not how this process works at all. @Jweiss11: what is your personal opinion on this. Saying they add doesn’t exactly settle much. It doesn’t provide your opinion.--Rockchalk717 02:11, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Rockchalk717 is correct that my chiming in doesn't settle the matter. However, given that Pro-Football-Reference.com, a standard-bearer for NFL stats, includes QB won-loss records in their passing statistics tables and given that we have List of National Football League career quarterback wins leaders, it's reasonable and appropriate to includes QB win-loss records in these stat tables. Nonetheless, this still doesn't "settle" the matter, as it would be best have a few more editors weight in. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:58, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

My issue here is that Rockchalk717 originally said this wasn't about personal opinion but now he is asking for personal opinions. His reasons for removing the QB Win-Loss statistics in the first place were because he said there is a consensus to not include them on the player's page and also because he doesn't believe they are real statistics. The first point is flat out wrong - I can easily find dozens of notable quarterbacks who have Win-Loss statistics on their page and have had them for years so if anything there is a consensus that they SHOULD be included on the player's page. The second point is also clearly wrong - how can you say it's not a real statistic when a reputed site such as Pro-Football-Reference.com includes QB Win-Loss statistics on player pages? None of the points Rockchalk717 originally made are holding any water so now he is just hoping for people to chime in with their personal opinions when he started this whole discussion on the basis that this ISN'T about personal opinions. He's changing his argument because his argument is not supported. Mwatz122 (talk) 17:02, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

This is indeed a question of editor opinion. The goal is to form a consensus opinion that's informed by relevant facts. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:06, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

I’m not changing my argument at all I don’t know how you’re getting that. I had you post here with the intent to get other opinions to solve our edit dispute and I asked for Jweiss’s opinion because you decided the issue was resolved when Jweiss said pro football reference included quarterbacks records.--Rockchalk717 15:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Counting of League Championships from 1966-69

There has been a dispute on the Minnesota Vikings article talk page about whether to count the Vikings as having won 1 league championship (the 1969 NFL title) or 0 league championships. My personal opinion is that it should be 0, since that is consistent with other NFL team articles, such as the Kansas City Chiefs, Indianapolis Colts, and Oakland Raiders. Most people (and most sources) would not count the Vikings as having won a championship in that year, since they lost the Super Bowl to the Chiefs. This has been an ongoing back-and-forth debate/edit war on the Vikings article for over a decade, and I want to establish a consensus once and for all. I have come to this page to establish a consensus on how NFL titles are counted on Wikipedia- should titles be counted if the NFL/AFL championship was won but the Super Bowl was lost? If not, the Vikings page should be changed. If they are counted, the Chiefs, Colts, and Raiders pages need to be changed. Vavent (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

For the information of other contributors, this was discussed at length back in April at Talk:Minnesota_Vikings#or... – PeeJay 11:17, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:Booth Lusteg#Researching Booth Lusteg

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Booth Lusteg#Researching Booth Lusteg. -- Marchjuly (talk) 01:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

AfD discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bruce Alford Jr.

An editor has nominated an article for deletion asserting that despite playing in 27 regular season NFL/AFL games this player does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:GNG, WP:SPORTSBASIC, WP:V, WP:BASIC, or WP:ANYBIO. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:05, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

The discussion has been closed as a speedy keep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:03, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Columns for conference standing templates

I noticed that the more recent conference standings, for example Template:2019 NFC standings, the are columns for SOS and SOV. But older conference standings templates instead have PF, PA, and PD. I'm going to go through the older ones and standardize them to look like the newer ones. The SOS and SOV columns are, presumably, the more relevant columns to have because: 1) they're the ones listed on espn.com's playoff standings pages; and 2) the PF and PA are already displayed in the division standings. Please let me know if there is disagreement on this so we can have both consensus and standardization. Useight (talk) 20:18, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

(ec) Pausing for now, as there may be a concern. Waiting for input from User:Sabbatino. Useight (talk) 20:40, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

@Useight: Before you proceed with the change, you should wait for editors of this project to respond and say why that format is used. You can also search the archives to see if there was a discussion about it. I have reverted your changes to the 2014 season standings so just stay put and see if there is any opposition to it. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Noting that Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Regular_season_pages_format does not include a template for the conference standings, so I'm operating under the assumption that it has not been standardized in the past and the columns have been arbitrary. It can be seen here that the 2015 template originally mimicked the 2014 template in columns, but then was changed to SOS and SOV and that was the standardization from that point on. Useight (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

I looked through the archives of this talk page and did not find any discussion about the current format. I suppose it is best to ask the editor that made the initial change. Pinging Jdavi333 so that he would explain why the change was made and if there was a discussion about it. – Sabbatino (talk) 09:25, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

I made the change because SOS & SOV are the more commonly used playoff tiebreakers, especially in the middle part for the season. I simply did not have the time or patience to change every season forever, and didn’t see the urgent necessity for it as it’s water under the bridge anyways. If someone wants to change them all feel free. Jdavi333 (talk) 14:18, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Great. I'm going back to making the change in older templates. Useight (talk) 17:24, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

List of career achievements by Brett Favre and List of career achievements by Peyton Manning

List of career achievements by Brett Favre and List of career achievements by Peyton Manning seem to be the only List of career achievements... articles in WP:NFL (outside of the redirect List of career achievements by Vince Young). Full disclosure, I created the first one of these (the Brett Favre one) 11 years ago. However, in my opinion these articles, especially Favre's, are a mess (743 refs may be the most I have ever seen). Most of the "achievements" in this article are trivia and are so specific that they really aren't notable (i.e. records that have been surpassed, records by stadium, "Personal bests", etc). These article's really suffer from recentism, especially when they were playing and breaking new records. If you were to create a similar type article for Don Hutson (or any other historic player), 90% of these so-called "records" wouldn't be included as either non-notable or purely trivia. I was thinking of AFDing them. But my track record isn't great (I lean deletionist I guess), so I figured a discussion here would be best before AFD. All that said, if these articles are still worthy of inclusion, I think WP:NFL needs to define clear criteria for inclusion (i.e. who is notable enough to have a List of career achievements...) and what records are notable enough to be included. The way the Brett Favre article is set-up, maintenance, verifiability, and accuracy are very difficult. In my opinion, Brett Favre accurately captures most, if not all of, his major achievements that are truly notable and relevant (MVPs, Super Bowls, 1st place records, well-known records broke, etc). These achievement articles just become a sports trivia page and should be discouraged and/or deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:21, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Adding List of career achievements by Drew Brees to this list. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Eagles247, didn't notice that one! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:23, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

First thing that jumps out is WP:NOTSTATS, especially ones based on stats site queries, which is essentially WP:OR on primary sources (e.g. stats databases).—Bagumba (talk) 10:55, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Bagumba and Eagles247, would you support an AFD on these articles? I think we can all agree that they need to be cleaned up if they are retained (especially the Favre article), but I am trying to gauge whether they are needed in the first place. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:00, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

Without looking into it further, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP is my initial concern. You'll need to argue why it's not notable per WP:LISTN, not that a lot of content needs to be cut. There could be WP:OTHERSTUFF people you need to convince. I'm not decided yet that it should stay, but those are some arguments that will need to be countered.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 8 October 2019 (UTC)

If List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice was deleted, these other articles are in the same boat. Useight (talk) 02:54, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings

This is a thing? A list of pairings? Aren't we in Wikia territory here? Drmies (talk) 14:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Drmies, if you were to nominate to AFD, I would vote delete for a multitude of reasons. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

I may just do that, though my main reason is really "Wut?" Perhaps you can thrown in some acronyms. Drmies (talk) 15:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on brain damage

There is an RfC currently underway about where a section on brain damage should appear in a biography of Arron Hernandez. Your contribution would be welcome. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:08, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Additional eyes needed

Can editors here please take a look at John Matuszak? We have an IP repeatedly adding unsourced information and now essentially daring me to revert them, claiming they'll accuse me of violating 3RR, and while I suspect I'd be okay I'd just as soon have other editors involved. Thank you. DonIago (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

You suspect wrong. 3RR has VERY specific exceptions, and this ain't one. And asking others to join your side in an edit war doesn't look great, either. Sorry you didn't get your way. I suggest you take your own advice and spend a few minutes finding sources to add, rather than reverting me just because I'm editing anonymously. 173.3.61.190 (talk) 02:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@DonIago: They have since posted sources at User talk:173.3.61.190.—Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm aware; thank you. DonIago (talk) 05:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No further assistance needed on this. Thanks all. DonIago (talk) 15:30, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I don't like any of this. Two hotheads arguing over technicalities and escalating the situation when either one could just run a quick Google search and find the appropriate references and end it. The IP, being a former administrator as they claim, should know that if someone challenges unsourced information the burden switches to them to find citations supporting the information. Doniago should also know that transaction-related content is easily verifiable and should try to preserve the information instead of removing it completely. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

More input needed- Talk:Jermaine Whitehead

Just trying to build consensus around his recent social media incident/release. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Timing for scoring plays

I've only this season started doing edits to NFL-related articles on Wikipedia, and I'm wondering if there's a consensus on timing for scoring plays in game capsules for the teams' season pages. I've been basing my edits for these on the NFL Game books, using the timings on the first page, mostly because I saw someone else do that earlier (this, for instance), so I did the same going forward. Found out today that the "wrong" timings that I've been changed reflect the time of the snap on scoring plays, while the times I've been using reflect the time of the actual score. I'd argue that the timing of the score should be used rather than the timing of the snap, but I'm wondering which timing is considered more "correct". KristofferAG (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

It should always be the timing of the score, i.e. when the clock stops after the play is declared over. – PeeJay 09:50, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

I see, thanks! KristofferAG (talk) 21:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Arena Football League folded

Among the many tasks that will have to be completed now that the Arena Football League today has announced the league has ceased entirely is updating player pages. I have created a tracking category of players that have an AFL team as their current team in the NFL biography infobox here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Template:Pro-football-reference

I have nominated Template:Pro-football-reference for merging with Template:Footballstats. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 21:52, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Colts–Texans rivalry

@WuTang94:

There is a new rivalry article at Colts–Texans rivalry. Current citations seem to focus on game results, but notability does not seem to be established to WP:GNG. FYI to the project. UW Dawgs (talk) 21:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems like it would probably fail an WP:AFD. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:05, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

List of broadcasters for Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee

I have nominated List of broadcasters for Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee for deletion here. Please feel free to take part in the discussion. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

The same editor has added about 80,000 bytes of text to the NFL on CBS article in the past month, almost entirely unsourced and likely original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:58, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Most of the content from that page now appears at the newly-created Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yeah this is a mess. I removed the content from their new article that was copied from the previous iteration. The new article is a mess, just a copy/paste job from other articles on Wikipedia. I may need some assistance keeping an eye on things. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 13:32, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

My first diplomatic reaction was "Interesting". Perhaps we need a discussion on whether Green_Bay_Packers#Stadium_history is sufficient. I don't mind spinning off if there ends up being a lot WP:NOTDIARY material. I don't believe it needs to get into much detail about specific games, or trends of games and opponents there.—Bagumba (talk) 14:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

I've just removed over 60,000 bytes of original research and commentator fancruft from NFL on CBS that was clearly from the commentator pairings article that got deleted via AFD, as well as lists of nationally-televised games plopped in MLB on [network] articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:51, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

The following articles were created by the same user recently, mostly containing content copied from other articles, original research, and fancruft: NFL on television in the 1950s, NFL on television in the 1960s, NFL on television in the 1970s, NFL on television in the 1980s, NFL on television in the 1990s, NFL on television in the 2000s, and NFL on television in the 2010s. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Yep, like I said: a mess. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:40, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee

I have nominated Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee for deletion. Please feel free to take part in the discussion here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

HTML color codes

WHO keeps messing with the Denver Broncos' HTML color codes? Their current NFLPrimaryStyle should be orange background and white text and navy frame. Someone keeps changing it back and forth between their 97thru11 NFLPrimaryStyle and an orange background with navy text. The navy text within an orange background is tough on the eyes. DPH1110 (talk) 17:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

There are a couple threads about these changes at User talk:Ahecht#Color modules and User talk:Corkythehornetfan#Black text in NFL team templates, and I'd like to get feedback here from Ahecht, Corkythehornetfan, Charlesaaronthompson, and Jrooster49, who have participated in the discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:36, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

@DPH1110: I am the editor who has updated the Denver Broncos' HTML color codes. I did so because white-colored text on an orange-colored background is difficult for color blind readers to read. Yes, I am aware that the Broncos' primary club colors are orange first and navy blue second. I am also aware that the Broncos switched primary jersey colors from navy blue to orange in 2012, which coincided with the league's switch to Nike as its on-field uniform manufacturer. However, from a branding perspective, I based the Broncos' colors on its logo history, and Denver's current logo dates back to 1997, per this article from DenverBroncos.com. I also changed the primary color for NFLPrimaryStyle to navy blue in order to meet WP:CONTRAST guidelines. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:59, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

MOS:CONTRAST is a guideline that should be followed so readers can more readily see the text. Color is cosmetic only. Branding is a lower priority if it conflicts with accessibility.—Bagumba (talk) 06:49, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Accessibility is exactly what I had in mind when I changed the color codes for the Denver Broncos. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:29, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

However, I have now reverted back the color codes for the Denver Broncos over at Module:Gridiron color/data. I changed it back so that orange is the current NFLPrimaryStyle. I did this because orange is the club's primary color, per DenverBroncos.com. My edit diff is here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: The current colors on the Broncos roster template have a contrast ratio of 3.37:1 and do not pass WCAG AA. If the text were changed from white to black, the ratio would significantly improve to 6.23:1 and pass WCAG AA. The Dolphins and Broncos roster templates are the only ones that do not currently pass WCAG AA. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:21, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK, I have changed the text colors for the teams involved, per this edit diff. I hope this helps. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: These now pass WCAG AA. I prefer the Broncos colors to be white text on blue background, and while I realize blue is not their primary color, it is much more legible than the orange. The Dolphins colors meet WP:CONTRAST now but they're still hard to read. I prefer black on orange here, even though it's ugly and not consistent with their uniform style. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

I find black on orange hard to read with my (presumably ok) vision. However, I support the purpose of WP:CONTRAST, and don't doubt that black on orange works for the vision impaired.—Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

So I reverted back the historical HTML color codes for the Denver Broncos. While orange is the club's primary color, it really is difficult to use for NFLPrimaryStyle, since it requires a contrasting non-white text color. This is why I changed the colors so that navy blue is the primary color over at Module:Gridiron color/data. My edit diff is here. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

This works for me, @DPH1110: are you okay with these changes? Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@Eagles247: The Broncos' color scheme was fine up until all these changes were made last week. Not just the Broncos, but also the Chargers, Bengals, Dolphins, Panthers, Bears and Titans, who either have light blue or orange in their color scheme. Like orange, black text inside a blue background is also an EYESORE. It's just better to keep consistent with the color codes of all other NFL teams to have white text inside a colored background for the NFLPrimaryStyle. DPH1110 (talk) 18:45, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@DPH1110: Are all of those team colors currently an issue? Right now the Panthers have white text on black background, Bears have white on dark blue, etc. The Broncos colors have been changed to white text on dark blue background because of WP:CONTRAST issues with white on orange. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:57, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Another thing I would like to add is, when you watch Broncos' games on Fox or CBS, the score bug will display "DEN" or "Broncos" in an orange background (with white text), unless the opposing team has a conflicting color background, which was the case with this past weekend's Broncos vs. Chiefs game. Navy was used for the Broncos, because the networks could determine that orange and red clash with each other. HELL, even a yellow background (with white text) has been used, and yellow is lighter than orange. If the Steelers were playing someone like the Raiders or the Saints, something would have to give. One of those teams would be forced to have a light-colored background on the score bug — gray, yellow or copper. DPH1110 (talk) 19:03, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

@DPH1110: I understand orange is their primary color, but Wikipedia needs to be accessible to everyone and that includes people who have sight issues like color blindness, and those users would not be able to read white text on that specific orange background. Please see WP:CONTRAST. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:34, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Test table For those who maintain colors, perhaps getting a test table like Module:Sports_color/basketball/doc#Test_table has would make it easier to test new colors and maintain contrast ratios.—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Broadcaster Lists in NFL pages

Bringing this here for common discussion separate from individual deletion discussions that are going on. BornonJune8 has a passion for broadcaster information. In some cases, this information is relevant and notable to the topic at hand. However, in most cases, in my opinion, listing out the broadcasters for various games falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It isn't intrusive when added to an existing table, such as Bills Toronto Series. However, it's addition to articles like Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee (see this version before I reverted its addition) is definitely inappropriate, especially when we are talking about hundreds of entries for normal regular season games. I ask that there be some consensus here on the appropriateness of broadcaster information in NFL articles, as well as some assistance in enforcing whatever is decided here. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In my mind, an article on a team's season has information about it's performance on the field and as a business. Broadcasters, aside from those employed by the team, are tangential and should be excluded. Since we're already discussing this, I'll raise the bar and say that "isn't intrusive" must not be mistaken for useful. Most of the time, the broadcaster info is not even sourced. Even assuming that it's at least verifiable, WP:ONUS says: ... all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted ... As far as standalone broadcast team lists, an argument might be made that each networks historical #1 team might meet WP:LISTN, but I can't imagine that a network's entire roster of play-by-play/color pairings meets the guideline. But a general all-time list of a network's notable personnel is probably ok.—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Bagumba, well said and agree with you fully. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ed Neal

• Ed Neal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A new editor is trying to add height and weight, and some flowery language. The infobox is currently showing an error for the height because they entered the units instead of just the numbers. Would someone understanding this topic please do a quick cleanup or a revert if bad sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of test edits, I've reverted their changes and updated the infobox with other changes. Thanks for the notice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Category for discussion notification

Hello, there is a category for discussion started for Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks that you may be interested in here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

PFF All-Rookie/Pro Teams

CatcherStorm (talk · contribs) has been adding Pro Football Focus All-Rookie honors to player's infoboxes, but I don't think this should not count for a proper award per WP:NFLINFOBOX. It's just a formatted list of their top rated players disguised as some real honor; we wouldn't add "PFF Top Rated Quarterback" to infoboxes, right? I just thought I'd start a discussion here in case my thinking is entirely wrong. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the de facto standard has been to list PFWA All-Rookie Team. It seems reasonable, as the PFWA seems to get more mainstream, independent coverage.15:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

I know. PFWA is actually a curated list by a notable organization with notable members. PFF's list is just their proprietary ranking system re-formatted to look like a real All-Pro list. Putting the fact that a player was the top rated one at their position in the infobox (as an award/honor) would be the exact same thing, and yet that would get removed on sight. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cleveland Browns staff

Hello, there is a discussion at Template talk:Cleveland Browns staff about which positions on the staff should be included in the template, and you are invited to participate. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Number of Pro Bowls as a means for importance assessment

Currently, this is how the number of Pro Bowls corresponds with importance assessment:

0-1: At least Low

2: At least Mid

3-6: At least High

7+: At least Top

PFR gives the following distribution of players:

0-1: 24680

2: 523

3-6: 815

7+: 193

Note that less people are in the "at least Mid" category than in the "at least High" category. In order to balance this out, I propose moving 1-time pro bowlers to mid-importance. This would result in the following distribution:

0: 23,570

1-2: 1633

3-6: 815

7+: 193

Further balance could be achieved by shifting 3s to mid-importance and 7s to high-importance. This would result in the following distribution:

0: 23,570

1-3: 2116

4-7: 546

8+: 130

Thoughts? 400spartans (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

• We should avoid having any system that automatically qualifies an article for higher importance just based on stats alone, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 11:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  I dont see a problem using number of honors as a guideline. WP:IAR can always be used for exceptions. At any rate, it's just a rough grouping for a rating which probably doesnt have much widespread ramifications.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  I generally agree, but it shouldn't be automatic. Other factors, such as the article's overall quality overall, should be in consideration too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

  Dissident93, importance shouldn't be based on the quality of the article (that's why we have a separate quality rating). If an article is a stub, that doesn't change it's importance to a project. The first version of the article National Football League was probably a start-class quality rating, but that wouldn't change it's top-importance rating for WP:NFL.

All that said, I would be opposed to any large scale editing to talk pages to change importance levels. If the proposal is just to change the criteria itself, allowing for editors to naturally update the importance as articles are improved, I would think tenure would be a better indicator of importance, as Pro Bowls are so subjective and a poor litmus test for a player's importance. Don Hutson had only one more pro bowl than Fred Carr, however their importance to this WikiProject is significantly different. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

That's true, but generally one should expect a high importance stub article to not remain one for lengthy period of time. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Volunteers will write about what they want. Just look at the "importance" range among FA and GAs.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of the entire point of assessing article importance? It's to make it easier to find important articles that need improvement, in other words to ensure that high importance articles do not remain stubs. Surachit (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Edge rusher

I came across this redirect recently. With the expansion of the EDGE position into a full-time position on the same scale as DL and DE, this seems like a good opportunity for an article. Just wanted to bring it up here to see if anyone would want to work on it. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I wish we could somehow use this as an official position for players, especially because of 3-4/4-3 roles misleading people. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Dissident93, it's already used as such, see Chase Young. That's one of the reasons I thought it would be good to separate this position out from its current redirect to defensive end. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • @Gonzo fan2007: I'm aware, but I meant for here on Wiki. It's not an official position, but it's being used more and more by sources to describe the pure pass rushing role regardless of defensive scheme. DE and OLB in 3-4 and 4-3 are two different things, and thus a reader who isn't already aware of this is likely to be confused or mislead. The only issue I have with this is how do we actually implement this? We can't just override official positions (I.E., Chase Young is an American football edge rusher/EDGE for the Ohio State Buckeyes), so where exactly would it go? I have zero opposition to it being its own article though. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Official announcement or no?

I wanna get a set in stone rule here because I feel like there’s might be some inconsistencies. When it comes to player signings, coach hirings, and trades, should we wait until the “official announcement, which is similar to what NBA pages do, or is it ok to go ahead and makes when multiple reliable sources are reporting the transactions. I’ve always handled it as when multiple reliable sources are reporting the transaction and I know others have done the same thing but then I’ve recently come across editors that don’t follow this, one editor in particular @TheBigMan720: that is insistent we always have waited until the official announcement. I’m of course talking about all transactions that aren’t ones that have wait until the new league year to be official, and specifically in-season transactions and coach hirings.--Rockchalk717 03:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally I feel like the arguments typically used in favor of waiting for an official announcement is due to one off scenarios that are very rare, like Josh McDaniels backing out of going to the Colts or Emmanuel Sanders being announced as agreeing to a contract with Chiefs but then singing with the Broncos.--Rockchalk717 04:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody is ever going to complain about an edit that cites an official announcement. Any other edit before that is likely premature per WP:RSBREAKING. Is your question because you want to edit that a report is a done deal, or you are asking what you should do with other people's "unofficial" edits?—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Well other editors do it on multiple Major League Baseball players and managers pages and admins usually end up protecting it before the official announcement. TheBigMan720 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

The official NFL website is reporting it [7]. That's good enough. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Apparently that's not good enough for our self-appointed arbiter of truth [8]. Who would have though it of someone who chooses the name 'TheBigMan'? Seriously, this is disruption and it needs to be stopped. Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Not disrupting anything here. That felt like a personal attack to me. I haven’t done anything wrong other than remove information that isn’t confirmed by the team themselves. Plus, the question is that is the announcement official from the team themselves like the Panthers announced officially from their social media pages that the hiring of Matt Rhule is official. Thats what nobody gets here in my opinion. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

My question is if we have multiple sources considered reliable (my go to is NFL.com and ESPN.com usually then I do a google search of the player or coach to see how many sources are reporting it) are reporting any transaction (excluding the ones that can’t be processed until the new league year) should we go ahead and edit. I get not waiting for the moment Ian Rapoport or Adam Schefter was reporting something to edit it, but once we see a consistency of the same information, editing the page.--Rockchalk717 05:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m with TheBigMan720 on that being a personal attack. That comment seems extremely unnecessary.--Rockchalk717 05:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

And I feel like it's a slap in the face to our community that the editor insists on reverting everyone who disagrees with him. It's extremely disrespectful to just revert, revert, revert and ignore what everyone else has to say. But in the interest of not letting the discussion get sidetracked, I'll strike the offending remark. Lepricavark (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I rely on the official team website or the social media pages. I already said this once and I'll say it again, but coaches can back out of a deal regardless is if its finalized by a team. I don't know why this is a big issue when I got away with this multiple times in the past with other coaches reports to a new team signing. This is getting ridiculous. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, just kind of a back story to what prompted this, I’ve had issues with TheBigMan720 regarding specifically Mike McCarthy to the Cowboys and Matt Judge to the Giants. I edited the pages as soon as I saw that multiple reliable sources were reporting the hiring, and then BigMan reverts the edits claiming waiting until an official announcement, which as far as I knew, waiting until the team announces any transaction has never been what we did.--Rockchalk717 05:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the backgrund. Was there any discussion back then? Or is this here the first?—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Again your argument against doing it is based off something that is actually extremely rare. Sometimes they even back out after the official announcement (Bill Belichick). Other than Josh McDaniels and Bill Belichick I am having trouble coming up with a single other instance of a coach backing out.--Rockchalk717 05:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe who knows. But look I'm being nice and cordial with you guys and I don't want to get mean with you as well but I revert for a good reason, I check the official website of the team and social media pages before stupid unregistered users starts messing with the page before the official announcement. One admin Muboshgu always waits for the official announcement on Major League Baseball players and coaches page and he protects it sometimes. Again I'm not here to slap anyone in the face but just to friendly edit here on wikipedia thats all. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I never had issues with other editors when I edited Ron Rivera to the Redskins until the official announcement has been made by the Redskins themselves. Now all the sudden it's a problem when I edit Mike McCarthy (Cowboys already announced the hiring earlier today) and Matt Judge pages. I clearly don't understand why some editors need to jump the gun to rely on some sources that aren't reliable? Help me understand here. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You don't think the NFL's website is a reliable source? Lepricavark (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I believe the NFL's website is a reliable source when it says "official" off their page of the coaches hiring. Now, I don't know if you guys have Instagram or Facebook but I seen the post by the NFL that say Official when Matt Rhule and Mike McCarthy is hired by their respective teams that's what I go by. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

This is unbelievable. Lepricavark (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@TheBigMan720: Consider that even in the best case, consensus can change.—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I am to. And if anything I’ve said has made you think otherwise I sincerely apologize. It was not my intent. My view point may have its flaws and it isn’t perfect, but yours has its flaws too. I haven’t mentioned it yet but another reason why I handle it the way I do is because i prevents the never ending cycle with IPs and inexperienced editors. Here’s a compromise, and @Bagumba: tell me what you think about this. What if we go ahead and edit, but use {{Current sports transaction}} tag on it? Doing this is similar to the “recent death” tag. It goes ahead and allows the article to be updated, but let’s readers know “hey this info may change at any moment”.--Rockchalk717 05:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I can agree with that and if that apology was towards me, I accept it Rockchalk. I don't blame you about the inexperience editors thing it annoys me too. I am sorry about going off about the Mike McCarthy thing earlier in the week. Now when the official announcement has been made I'm gone I never edit that page again I move on with other stuff in real life or checking other pages to see if their is any vandalism sometimes. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

It absolutely was directed at you.--Rockchalk717 05:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay and I'm sorry about the Mike McCarthy edits and Terrell Suggs edits in the past plus going off on you in the 2020 NFL season talk page. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(General cmt, and somewhat of a response to @Rockchalk717 ping) First of all, there is the essay WP:SPORTSTRANS. Have a look (or a reread). Regarding IP/new editors, the main problem is it's usually unsourced. If you don't think they've signed or it's unreliable, you can revert and warn them with {{uw-sportstrans}}. Ask for page protection at WP:RPP if it's widespread.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I sure did that Bagumba, I requested a page protection on 2020 New York Giants season and the editor who insulted my user name said (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection&diff=934742316&oldid=934742055 this) for no apparently reason. I haven't done anything wrong on Wikipedia to get me banned or something I just want to edit that's all. Some editors don't get the point. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I was providing context with regards to your conduct and the inaccuracy contained within your report. And yes, you have done something wrong. You have violated WP:3RR repeatedly. Also, nobody is trying to get you banned. Lepricavark (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of {{Current sports transaction}}: In NBA, I generally only see it added when reverting unofficial news, or unofficial news was already in article. I can't recall the same person changing the lead and inbox and also adding the tag. Basically, the tag says "other people might add unreliable stuff, or this article might be out of date", not "I've added stuff that's not 100%".—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay I seen you on the NBA pages you are a good editor. I will take your advice sir or ma'am. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: So just to be clear, in the instance Joe Judge for example, if we have multiple reliable sources reporting that (in this example) he will be the next head coach of the New York Giants, are we ok to make the page reflect this. Additionally, does the same apply to player signings (again, excluding those that can’t be completed until the new league year)?--Rockchalk717 06:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If you go to the Giants website, You can see as of right now, they say on the front page that "Giants interview Patriots' Joe Judge for head coach position". Nothing else says that he is hired by the Giants. Here is the proof if you want to see at https://www.giants.com/. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: See my cmts below.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I guess the page you referred to somewhat answers that. @TheBigMan720: The essay Bagumba has referred us to says “A transaction can be considered official if sources report it as completed and attribute it to a reputable league or team official.“ Don’t take this the wrong way, but the pretty much echos what I’ve been saying all along. Look at Ian Rapoport’s tweet regarding it, he says a league source had informed of it. Adam Schefter used similar wording in his tweet announcing it. Based on what that essay says, it is ok to update the article.--Rockchalk717 06:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

If Belichick talks him out of it like he did Josh McDaniels then we can change the article back.--Rockchalk717 06:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I get your point but personally, I don't trust Rapaport after he reported the Antonio Brown trade to the Bills a year ago and Brown never ended up on the Bills and I don't know why. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717: WP:RSBREAKING alludes that anonymous sources (not specifically named e.g. generic "league source", "person with knowledge") are less reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

You all can build your own local consensus within the project. My arguments are more what I see done in the NBA (and probably MLB). If you choose to be looser, however, it's a fair discussion if someone later comes in with a stricter view.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at sources from the two diffs above. First of all, I'm not that active on NFL and dont plan to edit regarding this news on Judge. In this NFL.com source on Judge, it says " Giants responded by agreeing to hire Patriots special teams coordinator and wide receivers coach Joe Judge" That doesn't say he's signed (past tense). I can agree to terms on buying a car, but it's different than saying I own the car yet. In this NJ.com source, the text says "The Giants are in the process of hiring ...", while the headline is click-baity "Giants hire Patriots’ Joe Judge as head coach". Generally, the text is more reliable than the headline. Jounalism standards are changing. Lot's of online sources want to draw viewers, use amateur contributors and not paid staff, and tend to be looses and write things as done deals. There are still sources that are careful to say "agree to terms", "according to league sources" etc. to hint that it's not a signed deal yet. Likely, legacy newspapers, ESPN, or the team itself.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Bagumba. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

So in the end, it appears the end result, if there are sources saying a contract is signed (Like with Mike McCarthy or Matt Rhule) that’s fine. But as with Judge, there is no report stating he’s signed or mentioning anything about a contract.--Rockchalk717 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Here's what I personally do. I don't add it unless I think the team (sometimes player) actually annouced it. I don't rely on SBNation, Bleacher Report and the like; if it's really a done deal, more reputable sources are out there. I delete/revert depending on my energy level.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I rely on the team's Twitter account most of the time because it has a blue check mark meaning its verified account. TheBigMan720 (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We all have personal opinions on it. I’ll be a little more careful as to what I take is reliable, instead of the first report, I’ll wait til I see contract info. If there’s contract info, it usually is legit. The only thing I ask of you BigMan going forward, when you see me doing this, don’t revert. Especially if it’s been sourced. That’s how this all began. I usually stay away from bleacher report and SB Nation as well. About the only time I use SB nation is under their Arrowhead Pride site (since I’m a Chiefs fan) if they’ve posted a practice squad transaction since those aren’t always announced by the team.--Rockchalk717 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No what started all this, Rockchalk that you decided intervene with my edits (which you have the right to, you didn't have too). I never contacted you (Except the Terrell Suggs situation) nor never revert your edits at anytime. TheBigMan720 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717 and TheBigMan720: This is the wrong site to be at if you don't want your edits changed by someone. It says it right there everytime we press edit: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited ... Maybe you really missed something, maybe the other person was misinformed. Assume good faith, discuss it, and reach an understanding. It's usually not a conduct issue. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like he’s the one taking greater offense to it then me. I reached out to you on the Terrell Suggs situation to explain my side and why I was doing what I was doing. That’s what you’re supposed to do. I wasn’t intervening. With the Mike McCarthy situation you kept saying wait for the official announcement. I provided a source to you stating he had already signed a contract, which based on this discussion is ok. If you personally want to wait for an official announcement from the team that’s all on you, but if another editor provides proof the player or coach has signed a contract, just leave it alone. I’m out of this discussion and I hope you understand how to handle this going forward.--Rockchalk717 17:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

• I won't try to fight Bagumba with regard to the article content (although I respectfully disagree), but I do consider it very unfortunate that an editor was allowed to essentially win a content dispute by simply reverting until everyone else stopped out of respect for the three-revert rule. That's not okay and it better not happen again. And remarks like this one, even if they were reverted, suggest that TheBigMan720 simply refuses to get it and is going to be very difficult for any editor to work with in the future. This is a collaborative project and you cannot just endlessly revert other editors and then dismiss them as liars. Moreover, I am bothered by TBM720's assumption that he, a relatively new editor, knows more about how Wikipedia works than a long-term veteran like Rockchalk. None of this bodes well for the future. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay well I owe Rockchalk and Lepricavark a sincere apology for my actions. I'm sorry this won't happen again. I know I'm a new editor but I'm just trying to help out Wikipedia the best I can. TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I accept your apology and extend my own apology for the personal attack that I made above. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

This was quite an interesting back and forth. It, however, is super simple (in my opinion, at least). If multiple, reliable sources are reporting something, than it should be added/updated on Wikipedia. Other than determining a source's reliability, Wikipedia editors aren't meant to decipher the underlying reality of a fact (i.e. when is a head coach actually a head coach). Even in the Josh McDaniels case, he was widely reported as the new coach of the Colts, but then backed out. It wasn't misleading and didn't hurt our readers for McDaniels' page to reflect the reported reality of the situation. It was then quickly reverted back once he backed out, again because reliable sources reported he had done so. That's how Wikipedia works! We are only as good as our reliable sources! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: If you missed it, take a look at analysis of some Judge sources at this diff. It boils down to the project agreeing on what sources are reliable, and avoiding WP:OR on those agreed upon sources. It would be more efficient if members here could come to a rough consensus on the general ground rules, instead of clashing and rehashing at every transaction. At no point is edit warring, incivility, or assuming bad faith acceptable. There also seems to be an unnecessary debate over who started it, or who was worse. It's more important to agree going forward than to harp on the blame game. —Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, thanks. I was mostly commenting on how a relatively simple situation got overly complicated. If NFL.com posts something, it will assuredly become widely reported by others sources. The idea that Joe Judge was hired by the Giants was clearly supported by numerous reliable sources. The dispute seemed to center on waiting for an "official" announcement from the team, with the claim that without this announcement (even in the face of reliable sources saying otherwise), the coach hadn't technically been hired. This isn't true. If, for example, Fox, NBC, and ESPN all report something independently of each other, we must take that at face value and make the necessary changes on Wikipedia, regardless of whether there has been an "official" announcement. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I don't get caught up in "official" so much as 1) being aware of WP:RSBREAKING 2) is source saying "signed"—past tense—as opposed to "agreed to terms", "will sign", "in the process of signing" etc., and 3) has a named source—not anonymous "team source", "person with knowledge", etc—spoken on the record. Most people might say "official" because it's concrete and not subjective re: which source is reliable, how many is enough, did we wait long enough, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

One thing to keep in mind with unconfirmed reporting based on anonymous sources: generally speaking, people don't leak to just one media outlet—they leak to all of them. So reports from multiple media sources might all trace back to one leak. Back in the day, the press would look for multiple sources before publishing, but in today's instant news world, they'll often run with just one source. Waiting for official reports or at least non-anonymous sources is a safer bet, particularly since English Wikipedia is not a place for breaking news. isaacl (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

And this is different than relying on anonymous sources on some issue in Congress, which may be accepted as truth over time. All transactions in the NFL will be announced, and there should be no rush here.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

@Lepricavark: You and I never fight. I'm not a regular NFL editor, esp w/ transactions, so it's more important that the active editors agree on how to handle this. Rockchalk asked for my opinion on his proposal, so I threw out an essay, guideline WP:RSBREAKING, and advice on how NBA (and probably MLB) do it, along with my own personal practices. It's up to the project to come to their own common understanding. But if a new person comes along and questions something that might not conform to general WP policies and guidelines, that local consensus needs to be discussed again. Reverts aren't how disputes should be solved; discuss and reach a consensus ((WP:DR). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of "present" in coach and executive navboxes

User:Dissident93 has recently made a series of edits to introduce the use of "present" in navboxes for NFL coaches and executives, e.g. Template:Pittsburgh Steelers coach navbox and Template:Pittsburgh Steelers general manager navbox. The standard that has prevailed for the past several years—not only for such NFL navboxes, but for over 1,000 such navboxes across pro and college sports in North America and beyond—is to omit such usage of "present" in the current title-holder's tenure. This formatting goes back to the origination of such navboxes with parenthetical years of tenure developed first for college football coaches, circa 2010 at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. On my talk page, Dissident93 has argued that this standard for sports navboxes contravenes such standards elsewhere across the encyclopedia, e.g. business and politics. However, I haven't found any analogous examples of navboxes displaying chronological series of office holders with parenthetical years, where "present" is used. Template:Boris Johnson and Template:Donald Trump do use "present", but are a bit of a different animal. Analogous navoxes for political office holders appear to omit years of tenure entirely, e.g. Template:Governors of New York, Template:Heads of state of France. Navboxes for university presidents do contain years, but omit "present" in line with the sports navboxes, e.g. Template:Harvard University presidents. For the sake of consistency, the NFL navboxes should align with other sports navboxes, whether "present" is used for all of them or not. With simplicity and required workload in mind, I recommend we remove "present" from the 60 or so NFL navboxes in question rather than convert the other 1,000+. I tried to do as much with the NFL coach navboxes last night, but was reverted by Dissident93. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DATETOPRES says: Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–... .—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with that point of style for articles. But does this apply to navboxes? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That MOS calls out tables and infoboxes as well. How are navboxes inherently different?—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

That MOS is generally aimed at "articles" of which tables and specific instances of an infobox are a constituent part. A navbox is a bit of different animal, in that is a separate structure that appears on many articles. That MOS often calls out tables and infoboxes to allow for space-saving exceptions to the general style used for prose. I believe that the main rationale for omitting "present" in these navboxes back when they were first developed was a concern about space/clutter. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

The MOS offers ... where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.).—Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I wasn't even aware of MOS:DATETOPRES, so now there's a MOS guideline for why we should be using this. And I don't even see how seven extra digits could really cause any more clutter. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Pro Bowlers in Template:Infobox NFL team season

Hi guys, is it worth adding notes to Pro Bowlers in {{Infobox NFL team season}} to indicate which ones made it as a starter/bench player/alternate? Based on his edits to 2019 Tennessee Titans season, User:DaveTheBrave seems to think not, but I think it's important to make the distinction between players who were named to the Pro Bowl's initial rosters and which ones were called up due to injury or another player being involved in the Super Bowl. – PeeJay 06:29, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Unless it's changed recently, I don't think long-term its been signifcant how you got into the Pro Bowl. It also is misleading in an infobox, as there are named Pro Bowl alternates that don't get added to the roster (at least that was the case years ago). It's better discussed in prose.—Bagumba (talk) 06:41, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Bagumba's reasoning on this one. It really doesn't matter how you got there, once you get added to the roster you're officially a Pro Bowler. Indicating whether or not they were alternates would be unnecessary. DaveTheBrave ❯❯❯ Talk 12:04, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

Surely you both recognise the fact that a Pro Bowler who goes because they received the most votes is more worthy of recognition than one who went as an afterthought? A player who goes to "make up the numbers" is not the same as one who made the roster at the first opportunity. – PeeJay 13:30, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

In reality, though, are there many sources that recall a player's career by breaking down Pro Bowl starts vs reserve vs replacemeent selections? At Pro-football-reference.com, a team's season page just marks with an asterisk any Pro Bowler, with no other distinction of "regular" or "replacement".[9]—Bagumba (talk) 15:48, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

I suppose. Maybe we can be better though. We have the information, it's not like it's original research to point out that the player was called up later. One of the biggest criticisms of the Pro Bowl is that players are considered Pro Bowlers regardless of how they ended up in the game. The 2020 Pro Bowl article does, after all, make the distinction. – PeeJay 16:13, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

It's not OR so much as WP:UNDUE. If sources don't generally make the distinction, Wikipedia shouldn't either. Having the details in the specific Pro Bowl article is fine.—Bagumba (talk) 16:22, 21 January 2020 (UTC)

“History of the” for past incarnations of NFL teams

I was curious, why does this wikiproject add "Hisory of the" in article titles for past incarnations of teams (for instance History of the Oakland Raiders, History of the St. Louis Rams, History of the Houston Oilers, etc.) when other projects don't have that title (Atlanta Thrashers, Seattle SuperSonics, Montreal Expos, etc.)? It's not very uniform with the rest in my opinion. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: I understand for the relocated franchises of the same name, but why for the Houston/Tennessee Oilers? Different branding in my opinion. DrewieStewie (talk) 20:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

There's a discussion on the History of the Houston Oilers talk page that might interest you: Talk:History of the Houston Oilers#Merge with History of Titans. IMO it still doesn't make sense to have Houston Oilers redirect to History of the Houston Oilers. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:07, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Super 'contest'

Is anyone was interested in editing the San Francisco 49ers and Kansas City Chiefs articles in a sort of 'contest' to see which article can look better by Super Bowl time? I will probably be solely editing the 49ers article, but can give barnstars to another 49ers article editor or Chiefs article editor, awarded around the time of the Super Bowl. I assume the articles will receive a lot of traffic and it would be great if we could show off some great improvements. It looks like the Chiefs article has a better start, but still has areas for improvement (like adding citations to The Patrick Mahomes Era). I could potentially make a list of improvements on the talk page of each article if anyone needs ideas on what to work on. I would also help out the Chiefs article if someone returns the favor on the 49ers article. Improvement is of course subjective and I may give out multiple awards depending on level of interest. In particular, if anyone has access to book sources for either team, their help would be greatly appreciated. I have access to Newspapers.com which can be useful for citing certain parts of the article.

On the same topic, is there a good NFL team article to use as a style template? I clicked through four or five NFL team articles and they had wildly different formats. There is some excessive detail that is in the 49ers article that does not exist in other NFL team articles, and was thinking of moving it to a separate page or deleting it entirely. Kees08 (Talk) 23:04, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Not saying it is perfect or anything, but I did draft an outline for Green Bay Packers a while back when I thought I would take a crack at trying to get to WP:GA (real life got in the way of that idea). Here's the outline: User:Gonzo fan2007/GNB. Chicago Bears also used to be an WP:FA, so you could take a look there as well. Good luck (being a Packer fan, I am more inclined to vandalize San Francisco 49ers... jk :). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:34, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I was actually using the current Packers page as a guideline since it looks pretty decent. I will keep your outline open and take elements from there as well. If I post ideas on the 49ers talk page and ping you do you think you would have time to give feedback? Some of the big changes I think are obvious but others have a couple of options. And I would vandalize the Packers article, but since I am a 49ers fan I doubt you would be able to defend it :P (jk). Kees08 (Talk) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

*BURN* ... too soon Kees08, just too soon lol ... yeah I'd be happy to look it over and give any feedback I have. My main goal with the GNB outline was to capture as many of the "sub-articles" as I could to keep the article length reasonable. I also liked the idea of grouping "Notable players and coaches" under one heading. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Danny Talbott

Could someone from this project check out this article? The article lists his NFL teams as the 49ers and Redskins, but I am pretty sure he never played in the NFL. But I know sometime preseason and practice squad players count. He doesn’t have the categories for the teams listed. It would be he,Paul if someone who knows the NFL consensus around this stuff could go take a look and make any adjustments. Thanks. Rikster2 (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

I've expanded the article a bit for his NFL career, he was drafted by the 49ers but never signed a contract with the team so they should not be included in the infobox. He was an offseason and practice squad member of the Redskins for three years so I've added the years and the offseason note to the infobox. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)

Pro Bowl rules

I've tagged Pro Bowl at Pro Bowl#Rule differences as being stale (cites are to 2011) and asked about specific rule differences at Talk:Pro Bowl#No PATs or FG attempts?. —[AlanM1(talk)]— 20:08, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Saquon Barkley's height

We need to decide what to do with Saquon Barkley's listed height. Editors (mostly IP) tend to change his height and I usually reverted it. However, I now checked it and see that the NY Giants] and NFL list different heights. Other websites (ESPN, PFR, FOX Sports, etc) are also inconsistent and list either 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) or 5 ft 11 in (1.80 m). So how do we handle this? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:36, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

He was listed as 6 ft 0 in by the NFL ahead of the draft (see here). Considering they actually take measurements at the Combine, I would go with that one. – PeeJay 13:34, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Just for clarification, I was talking about his height in the infobox. For example, the NY Giants list him at 5 ft 11 in and NFL list him at 6 ft 0 in. I usually would insert a hidden note, but I am not sure how this project handles these situations. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

I always go with the team's measurements. NFL.com (and other sites) are usually pretty slow with updates (jersey numbers, measurements, sometimes a new team for a lesser known player, etc). The team has direct access to the player, with them usually remeasuring/weighing the player every offseason, so I don't see why it would be inaccurate. In addition, teams/players sometimes round up to make the player seem bigger, so in cases where two measurements are listed, the lower one is almost always more accurate anyway (because they wouldn't make themselves seem shorter). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:28, 27 January 2020 (UTC)

Achievement articles AFD

I have nominated the following articles for deletion: List of career achievements by Brett Favre, List of career achievements by Peyton Manning, and List of career achievements by Drew Brees. Please feel free to take part in the discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:02, 30 January 2020 (UTC)

Request for input on a discussion

Hello all, hope everyone is ready for the Super Bowl, being a Chiefs fan, I sure am lol. Anyways, I’m in a discussion regarding what Infobox to use for Steve Spurrier on the talk page. I would like for some input on the discussion if anyone is able to! Talk:Steve Spurrier#Infobox format. I’ll be making a similar request on the College Football project talk page.--Rockchalk717 19:59, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Discussion about coaching trees list at WikiProject College football

I understand there's been consensuses in the past here at WikiProject National Football League about coaching tree list sections on coach bio articles. There's currently a discussion underway at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Tree littering about those lists. We're hoping build a new unified consensus about this sort of content that spans these two projects. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:39, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Adding captions to tables for accessibility

Please see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Adding captions to tables for accessibility as it affects this WikiProject as well. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 14:47, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Number of Kansas City Chiefs titles

There is a discussion at Talk:National Football League#No, this is not the Chiefs’ first NFL Championship regarding the number of Chiefs' titles. Input from the members of the project would be appreciated. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:32, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to revive the Tampa bay buccaneers subproject on nfl.

Who wants to join? New3400 (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Judging by status of subprojects published at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Individual_projects, these don't generally seem to draw much interest. I'd suggest just discussing things here.—Bagumba (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

So, work by myself, and if I need help, to here? New3400 (talk) 21:07, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New3400, there is a lot of work that goes into bringing a WikiProject back to life. As Bagumba said above, I would recommend just focusing on improving the articles you want to work on and not spend your time with administrative WikiProject tasks. That said, WP:PACKERS (which I set-up and keep active) has a pretty clear and easy to follow layout, if you really feel passionate about it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

« Gonzo fan2007, you run the packers one right? Can you give me some tips? New3400 (talk) 23:19, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

New3400, I keep it alive. At this point, I would recommend you edit for a while and learn the ropes. In takes a lot of effort to learn what it takes to edit on Wikipedia (both the policies, Manual of Style, the norms, and the technical side). I would recommend you choose 5 articles that interest you an start trying to improve them. That is the best way to learn how to edit! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:26, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

« Gonzo fan2007 okay, but what do you actually, do? Like talk and stuff? New3400 (talk) 23:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

If you insist on forming/restarting a specific group dedicated to the Bucs, I suggest making it a task force of WP:NFL rather than a full-blown subproject. I would hazard a guess that there aren't any articles that you would cover that aren't already covered by the NFL project as a whole, so really you'd just be focusing the attentions of WP:NFL members. I think subprojects are more for situations where two or more different WikiProjects have a significant overlap. – PeeJay 07:43, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Task force? What do you mean? New3400 (talk) 20:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)

New3400, see WP:TASKFORCE:

A task force is, essentially, a non-independent subgroup of a larger WikiProject that covers some defined part of the WikiProject's scope. For example, the United States military history task force of the Military history WikiProject deals with the military history of that specific country; and the Nintendo task force of the Video games WikiProject covers a particular game creator.

The distinction between a task force and a WikiProject is that the task force minimizes bureaucratic overhead: It relies on the parent project to provide much of the procedural and technical infrastructure. A task force, for example, uses the core project's peer-review and assessment processes rather than creating its own, thereby allowing it to focus on writing and editing. —pythoncoder (talk | contribs) 02:52, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, who wants to join the bucs taskforce? New3400 (talk) 03:36, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Question about possible copyright infringement

In 2015, in the Kevin Sweeney (American football) article, I wrote the following text: "After the players went on a strike on the third week of the 1987 season, those games were canceled (reducing the 16 game season to 15) and the NFL decided that the games would be played with replacement players. Sweeney was signed to be a part of the Dallas Cowboys replacement team, that was given the mock name "Rhinestone Cowboys" by the media.[6] He became the third ever rookie quarterback to start for the Cowboys, following Don Meredith (1960) and Roger Staubach (1969).[7] He was a popular player with the fans during those games; when Danny White took over the team for the third replacement team against the Washington Redskins, the crowd started chanting "We Want Sweeny, We Want Sweeny" when the team didn't performed well in the eventual 7-13 loss.[8] He was kept on the roster for the rest of the year."

Today I found out that the following book that was published much later (https://books.google.com.mx/books?id=mJuaDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA71&lpg=PA71&dq=%22Dallas+cowboys%22+%22rhinestone+Cowboys%22+1987&source=bl&ots=r4vCxGiJq-&sig=ACfU3U2XozkBiibN8hlQA78D7eGjoFG3jg&hl=es-419&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiR_qL-9sXnAhVLAp0JHZazCI8Q6AEwDnoECAwQAQ#v=onepage&q=sweeney&f=false), copied the text exactly the same. Should something be done about it ?. And I don't want to even check if the author did the same with some of the other articles where I contributed.Tecmo (talk) 02:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

This "book" is published by Lulu.com, which is a self-publishing website. There is no editorial overhead and very likely zero profit involved. I wouldn't worry too much about it, Wikipedia's copyright license allows direct republishing of text as long as there is attribution. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

@Tecmo: Consider using {{Backwards copy}} so someone doesnt mistakenly think the Wikipedia page is a copyvio.—Bagumba (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the recommendations.Tecmo (talk) 14:47, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Atlanta Falcons photos

I've recently uploaded a bunch of photos I took from a July 2016 Atlanta Falcons training camp onto the Wikimedia Commons. Would anyone be interested in helping me find coaches and players that don't have pictures on their Wikipedia pages in these photos? I've managed to find Matt LaFleur and Katie Sowers, but apparently Mike McDaniel and Mike LaFleur were also on the Falcons' coaching staff in 2016. Thomson200 (talk) 19:50, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's the Falcons roster at the time you attended the practice, and here's the staff. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:56, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to link to the archived Falcon's website, which has photos of the coaches/players in question? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:29, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, let me reword this. Is there was anyone in Wikiproject NFL/49er fan who is good at identifying people that can help me find coaches that lack pictures (e.g. Mike McDaniel and Mike LaFleur) on their Wikipedia pages in these photos I uploaded? Even with those coaches photos on the archived website, I still want someone to double check before I start extracting images, especially given how I don't really consider myself to be particularly good at recognizing faces. I thought it would be good to use to this page to let everyone know if we think we found Mike McDaniel, Phil Emery, Bobby Turner etc. in one of those photos I uploaded. Thomson200 (talk) 00:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

So I think Mike McDaniel is wearing a camo hat and a grey shirt in those photos I uploaded. That coach wearing the camo hat looks a lot like this photo of McDaniel from 2016. I've updated McDaniel's page accordingly. Thomson200 (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I also believe Mike McDaniel is the coach wearing sunglasses in this photo near Nick Williams. The hair, nose and beard look like McDaniel's and McDaniel used to be a wide receivers coach. Anyone disagree? Thomson200 (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As no one seems to disagree with my claim that the wide receivers coach wearing sunglasses at the 2015 camp is Mike McDaniel, I decided to update McDaniel's page, as I have better photos of him from the 2015 camp. Thomson200 (talk) 00:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I think Mike LaFleur is wearing a white cap backwards at the 2015 camp and a black cap backwards at the 2016 camp. I've updated LaFleur's page accordingly. Thomson200 (talk) 00:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Updated Uniforms: Steelers

Hello,

I've recently visited the Steelers homepage and have noticed their alternate Color Rush uniforms have not been added to the template on the right side. I am requesting that this be added to the page.

Pitt3484 (talk) 06:43, 23 February 2020 (UTC)Pitt3484 2/23/2020

AfD: Toro (mascot)

There is an open AfD that the members of this project may be interested in, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Toro (mascot). Thanks!!! Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:12, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Coaching history in infobox

A newer user (Bigmike2346 (talk · contribs)) is making widespread changes to coach article infoboxes, condensing their various titles into one bullet if it was with one team. Gary Kubiak example here. I have reverted a few of these earlier changes with explanations in my edit summaries, but it does not appear that this user is interested in discussing the changes. What does the subproject think about these changes in general? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:43, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I’ve seen that a couple times and reverted it myself. I don’t agree with it. I think it makes it clearer the current way it’s done.--Rockchalk717 20:44, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Also agree. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:54, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Bigmike2346's edits of this sort are not good. They should be reverted. A chronological history is much clearer and is consistent with similar infoboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:56, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

AFL-NFL Championships parameter

So I’d like to propose something. I know Super Bowls I II III and IV were officially “AFL-NFL Championships” when they were played, but since they are now retroactively called “Super Bowls” and there were only four anyway, I kinda feel like the “no_pre1970sb_champs” and “pre1970sb_champs” parameters should be removed and the information added to the “no_sb_champs” and “sb_champs“ parameters of the team Infobox. It seems kind of unnecessary to have separate parameters for these, especially since a grand total of 3 teams use it. It makes more sense to me for them including with other Super Bowl Championships for the Chiefs and Packers and move the Jets one into the unused super bowl champs parameter (promise that wasn’t meant to be trash talk lol). What does everyone think?--Rockchalk717 08:28, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

This is an excellent idea. Toa Nidhiki05 14:59, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Support. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 08:10, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Hey @Eagles247: Do you mind putting in your input on this? I wouldn’t mind having an admin chime in on this proposal.--Rockchalk717 20:36, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I guess it would be less confusing to group them all together as "Super Bowls" since that's what I, II, and III are now commonly referred as. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:41, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok cool. I’ll give it a couple days to see if anyone objects if they don’t I’ll get those changed.--Rockchalk717 00:00, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to agree that all Super Bowl wins should be grouped together in the same parameter, and all NFL titles prior to the merger should also be grouped together. User:Ebw343 is trying to claim that the Minnesota Vikings article shouldn't show them as having won the NFL title in 1969 as they didn't go on to win the Super Bowl, but they did indeed win the NFL title, as did the Colts the year before them. The Packers should also have the right to claim the NFL title on top of the Super Bowls they won in the 1966 and 1967 seasons, as should the Chiefs, Raiders and Jets be able to claim the AFL titles they won in the pre-merger Super Bowl era. Claiming teams didn't win those league championships just because they didn't go on to win the Super Bowl (or even if they did) is absolutely preposterous. – PeeJay 16:44, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with all the posters here, other than PeeJay. The question is this: every NFL team has a listing for "League Championships," and then under that separately "NFL Championships" or "AFL Championships." There is a consensus on how to count league championships on every NFL team's page with the glaring exception of the Vikings. The way that the Chiefs, Raiders, and Colts count "League Championships" is correct. In Super Bowls I, II, III, and IV, four teams lost the game: Chiefs, Raiders, Colts, and Vikings. The Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowl as a year in which they won a "League Championship." The only team that does that is the Vikings. It's a mistake. The AFL and NFL legally merged on June 8, 1966 (see AFL–NFL merger), before Super Bowl I in January 1967 -- that's why there was a common draft starting in March 1967 NFL/AFL Draft. Also, when the merger was announced in June 1966, the joint announcement stated: that there would be "a World Championship game this season" (i.e., in January 1967 -- Super Bowl I) Counting the Vikings' number of league championships as one (instead of zero) means that both the Chiefs and Vikings won the 1969 league championship, which of course is impossible. User PeeJay is wrong when he claims that I think the Vikings' page shouldn't show they won the NFL title in 1969. They did. But the Viking's lost SB IV, so they didn't win a "League Championship," as that term is used on every other NFL team's page. So there is one glaring exception - the Vikings, which should be fixed.Ebw343 (talk) 18:22, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

Except the Vikings did win a league championship in 1969. They won the NFL. How you can deny that is totally beyond me. If you're arguing that the Vikings shouldn't list that title just because those other teams don't, then you're already arguing from a losing position, since you can't provide any valid reason as to why those teams shouldn't also list their league championships. While the agreement was signed in 1966, the leagues did not merge until 1970, so your argument is moot. – PeeJay 18:55, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The pages of every NFL team (with the glaring exception of the Vikings) reflect this same definition of "League Championships." The merger was legally binding on June 8, 1966. That's why there was a common draft starting in March 1967 NFL/AFL Draft. Also, when the merger was consummated in June 1966, the joint announcement stated that there would be "a World Championship game this season" (i.e., in January 1967 -- Super Bowl I) The joint announcement on June 8, 1966 further clarified that "the plan will mean a true world champion of professional football." The joint announcement also makes clear that the only substantive change to occur in 1970 was that there would be a "single league schedule." This happened because the two leagues had prior TV contracts that prevented the "single league schedule" prior to the 1970 season. For all these reasons, the Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowls I, II, and III, respectively, as a year in which they won a "League Championship." (That makes sense, because the leagues legally merged in June 1966 and the Super Bowls I, II, III, and IV were the "World Championship games," as stated in the joint announcement made in June 1966.) The only team page that claims a "league championship" for a season in which they lost a Super Bowl is the Vikings. It's a mistake.

Moreover, if one were to accept PeeJay's suggestion, then for the 1966 season, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Green Bay Packers would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl I (then called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which Green Bay won. Of course, the Kansas City Chiefs' page does not make this mistake. Similarly, for the 1967 season, the Oakland Raiders and the Green Bay Packers would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl II (then called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which Green Bay won. Of course, the Oakland (now Las Vegas) Raiders' page does not make this mistake. Similarly, for the 1968 season, the Baltimore Colts and the New York Jets would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl III (by then no longer called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which the Jets won. Of course, the Baltimore (now Indianapolis) Colts' page does not make this mistake. In sum, counting the Vikings' number of league championships as one (instead of zero) means that both the Chiefs and Vikings won the 1969 league championship, which of course is impossible.

But the Packers and Chiefs did both win a league championship in 1966 - the Packers won the NFL and the Chiefs won the AFL. They weren't merged at that point, they'd just agreed to merge in 1970. Again, you seem to be claiming that because some pages do a certain thing, the Vikings page is wrong for doing the opposite, but have you considered that those other pages might be the ones that are wrong? There doesn't seem to be much consensus for your suggestion, tbh. – PeeJay 17:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

With all due respect, you're being intentionally dense. Yes, in the 1966 season the Packers won the NFL and the Chiefs won the AFL, but that's not the issue, as you know. The issue is how every NFL teams' pages, with the glaring exception of the Vikings, defines a "League Championship."

You claim that the merger didn't happen until 1970. That is demonstrably false. The merger was legally binding on June 8, 1966. In fact the U.S. Congress passed a law, signed by President Johnson, that created an antitrust exemption for the merger. Here's how the official NFL Hall of Fame website describes it: "Congress approved the AFL-NFL merger, passing legislation exempting the agreement itself from antitrust action, October 21, 1966." "1966 - Congress Approves the AFL-NFL merger". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Here's what an official NFL page says: "Merger talks intensified, although they often were held in secret. On June 8, 1966, the AFL and NFL announced a merger, with a common schedule to begin in 1970. A common draft would begin in 1967, and the AFL champions would play the NFL winners for the overall title beginning in January 1967." Rappoport, Ken (August 20, 2009). "The AFL-NFL merger was almost booted... by a kicker". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) That's why there was a common draft starting in March 1967 NFL/AFL Draft.

Also, when the merger was consummated in June 1966, the joint announcement stated that there would be "a World Championship game this season" (i.e., in January 1967 -- Super Bowl I) The joint announcement on June 8, 1966 further clarified that "the plan will mean a true world champion of professional football." So at the end of the 1966 season, the Packers and Chiefs played the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game," which the Packers won. If your claim is accepted, then both the Packers and Chiefs would be credited on their pages for a "League Championship," which is impossible. You have completely failed to address this basic point.

Finally, you claim there doesn't seem to be much of a consensus for "my suggestion." First, it isn't "my suggestion." Every NFL teams' pages, with the glaring exception of the Vikings, uses "my suggestion." Second, every poster in this talk page commenting on this subject, with the glaring exception of you, agrees with "my suggestion."

I have no hope that you will acknowledge any of these facts, so I'm asking for one or more senior editors to resolve this issue. Thanks.Ebw343 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

With all "due respect", it is you who is being intentionally dense. As you have acknowledged, the Packers won the National Football League in 1966, while the Chiefs won the American Football League, so of course they should both be credited with winning a league championship. Hardly "impossible", it is literally what happened. The existence of a "World Championship Game" to determine which of the two league champions in those four years called themselves "world champions" does nothing to negate the fact that those teams won their respective leagues. And again, you have done nothing to prove that the merger actually took place in 1966; the existence of the common draft is probably the strongest evidence, but the fact that it is called the 1967 NFL/AFL Draft suggests that the leagues were still considered separate, even up until 1970. – PeeJay 06:19, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You're simply denying the reality that every NFL teams' page, except for the Vikings, defines "League Championship" the way I'm describing. You also failed completely, as I knew you would, to respond to these facts:The merger was legally binding on June 8, 1966. In fact the U.S. Congress passed a law, signed by President Johnson, that created an antitrust exemption for the merger. Here's how the official NFL Hall of Fame website describes it: "Congress approved the AFL-NFL merger, passing legislation exempting the agreement itself from antitrust action, October 21, 1966." "1966 - Congress Approves the AFL-NFL merger". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Here's what an official NFL page says: "Merger talks intensified, although they often were held in secret. On June 8, 1966, the AFL and NFL announced a merger, with a common schedule to begin in 1970. A common draft would begin in 1967, and the AFL champions would play the NFL winners for the overall title beginning in January 1967." Rappoport, Ken (August 20, 2009). "The AFL-NFL merger was almost booted... by a kicker". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

You also continue to avoid dealing with the fact that under your proposal, then for the 1966 season, the Kansas City Chiefs and the Green Bay Packers would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl I (then called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which Green Bay won. Of course, the Kansas City Chiefs' page does not make this mistake. Similarly, for the 1967 season, the Oakland Raiders and the Green Bay Packers would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl II (then called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which Green Bay won. Of course, the Oakland (now Las Vegas) Raiders' page does not make this mistake. Similarly, for the 1968 season, the Baltimore Colts and the New York Jets would both have a "League Championship," which is impossible given that they played Super Bowl III (by then no longer called the "AFL–NFL World Championship Game"), which the Jets won. Of course, the Baltimore (now Indianapolis) Colts' page does not make this mistake. In sum, counting the Vikings' number of league championships as one (instead of zero) means that both the Chiefs and Vikings won the 1969 league championship, which of course is impossible.

You simply refuse to acknowledge the fact that 31 NFL teams' pages define "League Championship" differently than the Vikings. And you also refuse to acknowledge the fact that the two leagues merged in 1966. Again, we really need one or more senior editors to weigh in on these facts.Ebw343 (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm happy to give you more than enough rope to hang yourself on this issue. The fact that the two leagues continued to be referred to as the NFL and the AFL until 1970 should be evidence enough that they were separate leagues. If the merger happened as soon as it was announced in 1966, why keep up the pretence that they were separate entities for the next four seasons? Why is it so hard for you to accept that two teams could be considered champions of their respective leagues and still have a world championship game? By the way, you don't need to keep reiterating the same goddamn essay every time you respond. – PeeJay 22:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

You write: "The fact that the two leagues continued to be referred to as the NFL and the AFL until 1970 should be evidence enough that they were separate leagues." That's just embarrassing. The word "league" does not mean that the two entities were legally separate. They were not. The merger was legally binding on June 8, 1966. In fact the U.S. Congress passed a law, signed by President Johnson, that created an antitrust exemption for the merger. Here's how the official NFL Hall of Fame website describes it: "Congress approved the AFL-NFL merger, passing legislation exempting the agreement itself from antitrust action, October 21, 1966." "1966 - Congress Approves the AFL-NFL merger". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) Here's what an official NFL page says: "Merger talks intensified, although they often were held in secret. On June 8, 1966, the AFL and NFL announced a merger, with a common schedule to begin in 1970. A common draft would begin in 1967, and the AFL champions would play the NFL winners for the overall title beginning in January 1967." Rappoport, Ken (August 20, 2009). "The AFL-NFL merger was almost booted... by a kicker". {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help) You have never rebutted either of these two facts.

You write: "If the merger happened as soon as it was announced in 1966, why keep up the pretence that they were separate entities for the next four seasons?" I answered that question on the Vikings' talk page a while ago. The reason the "AFL" name was kept for the 1967-1970 seasons, even though legally the AFL didn't exist after June 8, 1966, was the fact that there could not be "regular season competition between clubs of the two leagues until after close of the 1969 season because of individual league [television] contract commitments."

Again, given the facts that (1) 31 NFL teams' pages define "League Championship" differently than the Vikings and (2) two leagues merged in 1966, we really need one or more senior editors to weigh in on these facts.Ebw343 (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As I said at Talk:National Football League#No, this is not the Chiefs’ first NFL Championship, I agree with PeeJay2K3. Seems like some of you are engaged in a bunch of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH to conflate the concept of League Championship with World Championship just to make some infobox parameter tidy. There are plenty of WP:RS verifying the Vikings as 1969 NFL Champions. Do you have sources contradicting that? Are you also proposing that 1969 NFL season, 1969 NFL Championship Game, and List of NFL champions (1920–1969) should be edited to remove the Vikings as NFL Champions? Yes, those four years are different from all the others. The infobox should reflect the nuanced reality of the situation, not be shoehorned into something that seems logical on it's face but is demonstrably false. As for the OP's question, I have no problem with the winners of those 4 year's Super Bowls using the sb_champs parameter, but the template instructions should be changed from league_champs [OPTIONAL] A comma-separated list of the seasons in which the team has won a league championships prior to the Super Bowl era to league_champs [OPTIONAL] A comma-separated list of the seasons in which the team has won a league championship prior to the 1970 AFL–NFL merger. Mojoworker (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the phrase "League Champions," as it's used on every NFL teams' pages, is confusing. But the situation now is that 31 NFL teams' pages define that term one way, and the Vikings' page defines it a different way. I'm all in favor of getting rid of the phrase "League Champions" if there's a better, unambiguous way to describe the facts.Ebw343 (talk) 22:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Hang on, if “ the situation now is that 31 NFL teams' pages define that term one way, and the Vikings' page defines it a different way“; then why does a cursory glance at the pages of the teams you previously cited as examples for difference (Colts, Chiefs, and Raiders) show that all of those teams currently list their pre-merger championships? I’m not sure exactly when the championships were added. It seems the Chiefs was recent and the other two at least several months or longer ago, but if the argument is consistency it would appear the pages are currently consistent. Ohgoshhi (talk) 11:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Here's the issue. Every NFL team's page lists, among other things, "NFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger," or "AFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger," and then "League Championships." (Note: the Cleveland Browns' page lists "AAFC Championships," because the Browns started in the "All-America Football Conference," which was a league from 1946-1949 that was separate from the NFL.) Every NFL team's page is consistent in how the number of "NFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger" and "AFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger" are counted. That brings us to how each NFL team's page counts "League Championships." Every NFL team, except the Vikings, counts the number of "League Championships" as the number of times the team won the highest or greatest championship game played at that time. For example, in the 1966 season, the highest or greatest championship game was the ""AFL–NFL World Championship Game," which is now commonly referred to as "Super Bowl I." The Packers beat the Chiefs. Thus, the Chiefs' page counts an "AFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger" for 1966. But the Chiefs' page does not count their loss in Super Bowl I as a "League Championship." Similarly, in the 1967 season, the highest or greatest championship game was the ""AFL–NFL World Championship Game," which is now commonly referred to as "Super Bowl II." The Packers beat the Raiders. Thus, the Raiders' page counts an "AFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger" for 1967. But the Raiders' page does not count their loss in Super Bowl II as a "League Championship." Similarly, in the 1968 season, the highest or greatest championship game was "Super Bowl III." The Jets beat the Colts. Thus, the Colts' page counts an "NFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger" for 1968. But the Colts' page does not count their loss in Super Bowl III as a "League Championship." Now we come to the 1969 season. In the 1969 season, the highest or greatest championship game was "Super Bowl IV." The Chiefs beat the Vikings. The Vikings' page correctly counts the 1969 season as an "NFL Championships, pre-1970 AFL-NFL merger." However, in contrast to the way that every other NFL team's page counts the number of "League Championships," the Vikings' page counts their loss in Super Bowl IV as a "League Championship." Of course, the Chiefs' page correctly counts their win in Super Bowl IV as a "League Championship." Thus, we now have a situation where every team but one -- the Vikings -- counts the number of "League Championships" the same way. And we also have the issue that two teams, i.e., the Chiefs and Vikings, count Super Bowl IV as a "League Championship."Ebw343 (talk) 04:48, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Got it, apologies, admittedly I glossed over much of the dispute and misinterpreted what you were saying. Agreed, it should be consistent with the rest. Ohgoshhi (talk) 06:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

But there are two ways of creating consistency: who says the majority isn't wrong in this case and it is them who should change? I'm all for consistency, but you're applying an argumentum ad populum. It is absolutely counterintuitive for the Vikings article to say "League championships (0)" and then have a league championship listed below. Even if the position of the other three teams were correct, which I'm not conceding it is, you're arguing from a position of knowledge that isn't necessarily the same of that of our readers. – PeeJay 07:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

And don't forget, while you may argue that the NFL title in 1966-1969 was effectively the same as a conference championship today, what then do you say about the conference championships that did exist at the time? – PeeJay 07:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay, there are two ways to make the Vikings’ page consistent with the other NFL teams' pages. The short-term fix is to count the number of "League Championships" on the Vikings page the same way that number is counted on all other NFL teams' pages. The possible longer-term way would be to change every NFL team’s page so that a different term than “League Championships” is used to designate the highest or greatest championship game played at that time. If some editors want to undertake that longer-term change, and can come up with clear language, I’ll support them. In the short-term, the Vikings’ page needs to count the number of "League Championships" the same way that number is counted on all other NFL teams' pages.Ebw343 (talk) 15:24, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, there are two ways of making the two sets of pages match, but just because one way is easier doesn't mean that way is right. – PeeJay 22:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, I agree with PeeJay. My suggestion is that in the short-term, we should agree to change the Vikings’ page so that it counts the number of "League Championships" the same way that number is counted on all other NFL teams' pages. In the longer-term, I would support an effort by other editors to change all 32 NFL teams’ pages so that a different term than “League Championships” is used to designate the highest or greatest championship game played at that time. If some editors want to undertake that longer-term change, and can come up with clear language, I’ll support them.Ebw343 (talk) 23:23, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the very first use of that parameter on the Vikings article (by the original author of the template} it's set to 1 and 1969 (NFL). As for the assertion that The Wikipedia pages for the Kansas City Chiefs, Oakland Raiders, and Indianapolis Colts do not list the year they lost the Super Bowl as a year in which they won a "League Championship." – they all originally did: 1966 included for the Chiefs, 1967 included for the Raiders, 1968 included for the Colts. Clearly that was the original intent of the template's author. And it sure looks like the no_pre1970sb_champs= parameter was added to explicitly not count the 1966-1969 Super Bowl wins on top of the number of League Championships. Mojoworker (talk) 23:29, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

As for a new pre-merger Super Bowl wins parameter maybe it could use verbiage such as "Pre NFL/AFL merger World Championships" or similar. Mojoworker (talk) 23:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, this is helpful. So over time changes were made to “League Championships” so that it now equals (on every NFL teams’ page other than the Vikings) the sum of (1) Super Bowl wins (starting with Super Bowl I) plus (2) league championships won before the 1966 season. In other words, the count on “League Championships” equals the number of times a team won the highest or greatest championship game they were eligible to play. So what we want is some term that equals the sum of (1) and (2). Then separately the number of NFL, AFL, and AAFC Championships would be counted.Ebw343 (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Since (as can be seen in this discussion) the issue seems to have enough disagreement and too great a degree of nuance to be neatly presented in an infobox, perhaps the easiest thing to do would be to delete the number after the League championships entirely (and remove the no_league_champs= parameter). Mojoworker (talk) 21:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I almost forgot to address the claim that 31 NFL teams' pages define "League Championship" differently than the Vikings which is patently false. In fact 29 NFL teams' pages currently define "League Championship" exactly the same as the Vikings page – and at one time, all 32 did. The Colts and Raiders pages employ the no_pre1970sb_champs= parameter which we are currently discussing here. Mojoworker (talk) 21:40, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so the Minnesota Vikings article has been fully locked in the incorrect state because some anonymous editor couldn't help themselves from fucking about with it. Can we please come to some sort of consensus here so the article can be unlocked? – PeeJay 11:06, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Anyone? Obviously this problem hasn't been solved yet. – PeeJay 18:05, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@PeeJay2K3: I'm good with the current version that includes the Vikings' 1969 NFL championship. Maybe include a {{note}} there explaining that the Vikings went on to lose Super Bowl IV, but the NFL officially recognizes both the Vikings and Chiefs as title-holders for that season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Miami Dolphins table colors to meet WP:CONTRAST

Per WP:CONTRAST, we need to have color schemes on Wikipedia to at least meet the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG) 2.0's AA level. This is to ensure that readers with color-blindness or other visual impairments are able to use the website. The Miami Dolphins color scheme is currently at a 3.95:1 ratio (white text on aqua background), and needs to be at a 4.5:1 ratio or higher. Here are the options for a new color scheme using combinations of the Dolphins' current colors:

Passes WP:CONTRAST

Fails CONTRAST

Please indicate below which your preferred color scheme example is with a reason. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

• Option 3 is the best one IMO, easiest to read and still retains the base colors. The three with black backgrounds don't really make sense for the Dolphins, option 2 would only have one of the Dolphins' main two colors, and option 1 is hard to read for me. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 - staring at all those colors made my brain hurt... « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:05, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 for me as well. I suppose option 1 would be more "right", but the third one is far more easy on the eyes. KristofferAG (talk) 20:06, 4 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2 causes the least strain for me.—Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 2, but with an orange border. The teal and black are too close together, I had to click 'edit' to see what color was being used for the border. Corky 18:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
• Option 3 looks like the best one to me, per what Eagles247 already said, above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:27, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Instead of changing the colours of the font and background, have you ever considered using coloured borders, as is done for National Hockey League articles? For example, see the infobox and tables at Montreal Canadiens. This avoids the issues of contrast and legibility. isaacl (talk) 04:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally wouldn't be in favor of those as I think they look ugly, but others might. Corky 18:42, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

I know some people don't like it; others think it has very clean look. It has the clear advantage of being very legible regardless of team colours. isaacl (talk) 22:53, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

• I had implemented the change per this discussion for option 3, and Charlesaaronthompson has reverted my edits. I had previously requested they discuss here when I originally opened this thread. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:43, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: I'm now engaging in this discussion. My opinion is this: let's leave the color codes for the Miami Dolphins at Module:Gridiron color/data alone. It's pretty obvious that the Dolphins' primary color is aqua, not orange. As long as we use black as the text color for the aqua color ( #008E97 ), then it should be left as-is. I vote in favor of Option 1. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 17:50, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I also think option 1 is the best compromise between passing contrast and still featuring the primary color. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:13, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Fair use images

I typically see jerseys categorized as a free file, like File:Vikings16 three.png. I saw File:NFCN-Uniform-MIN-2010.PNG marked as nonfree, but it says it is trademarked and nothing about copyright. Then I saw a bunch of deleted uniform images on the talk page of JohnnySeoul, who has since retired from Wikipedia. Has this been discussed before? I assume that all of the images like these are either free or non-free. I think they are free (unless copyrighted by the image creator), but was wondering if there were edge cases I am not considering.

If they are indeed free, I could help with undeletions and migrating to Commons, as well as correcting the licensing. If they are all non-free, I can help deal with that situation. And if I would just be getting in the way and everything is fine as it is, I can not do anything as well. Kees08 (Talk) 22:14, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure of the copyright status, but I doubt it would be held by the image creator; if anything, it would be held by the team and the league as owners of the intellectual property rights to the designs of each team's uniforms. If the league doesn't hold the copyright, then I guess it would be up to the image creator to make the images free, but I doubt that's the case. – PeeJay 12:22, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brady

Need more eyes on Tom Brady. An editor has changed his page to say he is a free agent, despite this being factually untrue until March 18, 2020, at 4PM EST. I am unable to revert due to someone claiming I've violated 3RR on the article on my talk page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:15, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Well, extended-confirmed protection isn't working that well. I really don't like when pages are fully protected but I'm not sure what else we can do. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:48, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Maybe we can do full protection, if we have to, but at least it's a problem that will solve itself tomorrow. Useight (talk) 00:48, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

It seems to have died down a little bit, we might be in the clear. Tomorrow can’t come soon enough. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:59, 18 March 2020 (UTC)

Career stats legend

I noticed that some of the career stats tables of players use color to indicate milestones like records, championship seasons etc. However, they dont also show a symbol, which does not comply with MOS:COLOR: Ensure that color is not the only method used to convey important information. Especially, do not use colored text or background unless its status is also indicated using another method such as an accessible symbol matched to a legend, or footnote labels.

I saw that Koavf tried to address this at Tom Brady with this edit to add symbols. However, the added symbols °, ≈, ×, and ± differ from *, †, ‡, §, | and ¶ that are listed at Note (typography) § Numbering and symbols, which are used in many non-NFL articles. Otto Graham, an FA, doesn't even use any symbols with its color. This project should come up with a convention. It seems Brady and Graham might also have too many "feats" they're trying to highlight, which causes clutter.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, Thanks for mentioning this. We have to have something other than color for these designations: which symbols we used exactly are neither here nor there to me but they should be consistent--ideally, across the encyclopedia, preferably across all sports articles but at a bare minimum across NFL biographies. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:56, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed.—Bagumba (talk) 09:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, Upon reflection and looking at your link, I think that the order: *, †, ‡, §, |, ¶, #, Δ, ◊, ↓, and ☞ is best. (God help us if we get all the way to <☞>.) Standardization is a good thing in instances like this, so I'm explicitly endorsing this and I'm posting to WT:MOS for this purpose. I'll ping you there. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)