Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

San Diego Chargers page

I am not good at editing, but I have noticed that the San Diego Chargers page is lacking things that other team pages have. Most notably the box that contained franchise information. It used to have it, and now it is gone. Could someone please fix this. thanks Seantpainter (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

• All fixed! --JustAGal (talk) 22:16, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Depth charts

Although I think that the depth charts are a great idea and will make for a good addition to current-season pages (as in the season that's currently taking place), I feel that there is a need for vast improvement. As they are now, depth charts need to be modified by hand, and if one makes a mistake, the depth chart comes out looking wonky, and may require several edits to fix. I think that there needs to be a standard template for the charts, whereby all one has to do is enter a player's name next to a designated position, i.e. QB = Tom Brady. I'd take this up myself, but I've got no idea where to even start to do something like that, so I think that we need someone who knows what they're doing to take this up. Suggestions? Comments? Ideas? Wlmaltby3 20:13, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on a (very unwieldy) template idea that I think will work out OK for the purposes of this project. Once the template is completed, I'm hoping someone can tighten up the code so that the code makes more sense to people. I'm really just looking for an easier way for people to edit depth charts so they don't have to muck around with tables. Wlmaltby3 21:34, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, well, I've constructed a template that I think can be used... take a look at it: {{User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart}} I've implemented it here: {{User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart/sandbox}} There are 5 entries for each position for now, such as QB = name and

QB2 = name and it's the same for each position. If there's any need for more slots, they can be added to the template. Any comments? Questions? Suggestions? Wlmaltby3 22:47, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks easy to use. Could you do a separate column for the numbers, for they're not bunched up with the players? For the code, just a QB = number or something could work. Pats1 23:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, be sure to add a link somewhere on the template to the NFL Depth Charts template (with all the teams') Pats1 23:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do. By the way, a fun fact is that this is the first real template I ever made. Haha. Wlmaltby3 02:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, OK. I've completed the template per the request to add numbers, and I've also added the coaches for each team. To see the template: {{User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart}} To see it in use: {{User:Wlmaltby3/Depth chart/sandbox}}
I would like to point out, however, that there's an unwanted pipe | in front of the numbers for each player after the starter, and I've got no idea how to make it go away. If someone can take a look at that before moving the template to {{Template:NFL depth chart}} that'd be appreciated. Wlmaltby3 06:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Are those extra |'s part of the template or just a typo? Pats1 12:42, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I have no idea, I can't figure out why they're there. Wlmaltby3 15:31, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, the syntax for the depth chart is on the template's main page. (If someone could "design" the template's page, that would be nice!) And I created a new list, List of current NFL team depth charts, in accordance with List of current NFL team rosters. Wlmaltby3 06:24, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I've found the error and subsequently moved the template to {{Template:NFL depth chart}} Discuss the template on its talk page. Wlmaltby3 04:39, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Make sure you fix the v-d-e links for the Browns' chart. They are currently linking to "List of NFL Depth Charts," not "Template:Cleveland Browns depth chart." Pats1 13:24, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem was in the template. When you use the template yourself, you can't wikilink the team name or it screws up the v-d-e links. So I made it so the template links the team name itself so you don't have to. Everything else has to be wikilinked though. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 17:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Would it be a hassle to flip the defensive positions? It just seems more logical if the DLs are up against the OLs on the chart. Pats1 20:44, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, what should we do in the case of a 3-4 defense? The three things I can think of right now are A) NT vs. DT position listing, B) RILB/LILB vs. MLB, and C) The Patriots usually carry more than 5 ILBs. Pats1 20:46, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I know exactly what you're talking about. I could potentially make two separate templates, one for a 4-3 defense and another for a 3-4 defense. And the DL is listed last because I listed BOTH lines last, with all the other positions first. But I can switch it if it would make everything look better. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 21:11, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've managed to create a second template {{NFL depth chart 4-3}} It's for teams with a base 4-3 defense. The original template will be for teams with base 3-4 templates. Update accordingly!!! Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 22:35, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I've moved NFL depth chart to Template:NFL depth chart 3-4. I've also renamed LLB to SLB and RLB to WLB in the 4-3 template, as that is standard in the NFL. Please update charts accordingly. Pats1 12:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Also, remember that when you're done converting all of the depth charts (whoever does it), that Template:NFL depth charts and Category:NFL depth charts need to be redirected to List of current NFL team depth charts or deleted. Pats1 13:06, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help. I thought I'd moved the template over to {{NFL depth chart 3-4}} but I guess I didn't. But that's why we're a project. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 18:08, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

With the draft going on, contracts not signed yet and not even to training camp yet, isn't it a little premature to add rookies to the depth chart? (I noticed the Cleveland Browns page already has Brady Quinn listed first. Mr mark taylor 22:12, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree. They should be on the roster, but not high on the depth chart.Chris Nelson 22:15, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

There are no depth charts right now. Depth charts are made after training camps.++aviper2k7++ 04:58, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Not officially, no.Chris Nelson 06:15, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Only official depth charts should be added (if at all). Adding players to the spot you think they'll be is original research. I don't think anyone is doing that, however.++aviper2k7++ 21:48, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I would love to see the depth charts junked. Not only does it look terrible, but the list is taken from an unoffical depth chart, at least it is for the Rams. I think the list of players by position is fine and there is no need for a depth chart. --Pinkkeith 19:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The depth charts are being updated to a new format gradually. I try to get to a few teams per week. Category:National Football League depth chart templates lists the completed charts. I don't necessarily disagree that they're original research at this point, but once teams start posting official/unofficial depth charts things will be better. I do think editors can get a good gauge of where players should be based on OTAs and other practices, among different news articles. Pats1 20:46, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Maybe we should be asking a different question, one that I know i've seen proposed before. Is there value in having the depth charts on here? Especially given their fluid nature? Might it be better just to post the link to the team's official depth chart/roster, and end all of the arguments? Just a point for discussion. Bjewiki 21:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't the same thing be said about roster templates? Pats1 21:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I agree...I actually thought people were using depth charts & roster template interchangably here, but maybe I was wrong about that. Both of those could possibly be presented as links to the pages on the team's offical website. I'm not sure i'm actually in favor of this, but it probably merits discussion. Bjewiki 21:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Well, you know what they say about the NFL, it stands for "Not For Long." Players are always coming and going and it is very difficult to stay on top of it. Yes, even the roster has lots of movements, but the depth charts doesn't just have the movement of people but also the movement of which string you are. I don't see any need for having a depth chart since we already have the roster and besides the information on the depth chart isn't official. Marshall Faulk is still listed on the Rams depth chart on the Rams official webpage. --Pinkkeith 15:08, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also don't know where the information for the depth chart is coming from. I know with the Rams they have three strings with the third string being everyone anyone who isn't first string or second string. Yet, the template is done out to the fifth string, which the Rams don't have. In fact, the Rams, as well as many of the other teams I am assuming, haven't got a depth chart mapped out yet. The roster at least has an off site link to show where this information came from, but the depth chart template is missing its reference source. --Pinkkeith 15:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the depth charts should be scrapped. It's giong to be chaos during the regular season. Basically, we're just going to end up with a bunch of unverifiable stuff that violates No Original Research. I think some sort of decision should be made on this, before too much work is done on the depth chart templates. Bjewiki 16:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

In the interest of saving me a boatload of time and effort maintaining the depth charts, I agree that they should be scrapped. Can we start a vote? Pats1 17:04, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Should Team Pages Include A Depth Chart?

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

• No - Depth charts change too often, and will lead to too much unverifiable original research. Bjewiki 17:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• No - In some ways violate WP:NOR, and will save me a ton of time. Let's stick with just rosters. Pats1 17:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• No. It's nice, but a link should suffice. Per Pats1's comment above, if this is taking away from his other editing chores just to "tread water," then it would be best served to have the depth charts as a link. —Twigboy 18:08, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

• No — Occasionally people might have to leave Wikipedia for information. I don't see the problem with this. There's a whole nother world out there people, go out and enjoy it. Quadzilla99 05:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• No - Its easier just to add a link. Maybe, in the future, when they look better and meet Wikipedia's attribution policy. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  06:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the links, keep in mind there's already one in every team's roster template. So we're in good shape in that regard. Pats1 13:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• No for all the reasons stated above. Anthony Hit me up... 15:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

• No despite there not even being an official depthchart at this time, editors insist on re-adding it. That just pisses me off.++aviper2k7++ 01:08, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like a consensus to me. All depth charts have been removed from team pages. All pages in Category:National Football League depth chart templates, the subcategories within it and their pages, and the categories themselves should now be deleted. Pats1 00:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So, does that mean someone needs to nominate them for deletion? Bjewiki 01:04, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I've nominated all 32 of the depth chart templates for deletion (only after doing so did I notice the mass-delete tag option - d'oh). The two categories (old and new) will go up for deletion once those pages are deleted. Finally, the original depth chart articles (i.e. New England Patriots Depth Chart) will go up for deletion as redirects to nonexistent pages once the templates are deleted. Pats1 01:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

• I vote YES for several reasons:

1. I can back up any depth chart changes I make with references to articles.

2. The Depth Charts on NFL.com, ESPN, and other major sports sites are often way out-dated.

3. Updated Depth Charts on other lesser sites are usually biased.

4. Links to these other sites will lead to poor info.

5. There may not be an official Depth Chart for each team but there are regular updates to support depth chart analysis. For example those players that primarily work with the first team during mini-camps are starters etc.

So Seven people say no to having Depth Charts on NFL team pages. That doesn't mean there isn't a place for a NFL Depth Charts page for those of us who are interested in how recent team changes will affect each depth chart. I think it's more of a question of fans committment on Wikipedia to support such an undertaking. I for one can fully back up a Vikings Depth Chart with references as stated above. Justvikings 22:02, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

This still leads to Original Research. There will be no way to easily verify everyone's position on the depth chart. Plus, there's not going to be a citable article for every player at every poisitoin on every team when someone passes someone else on the depth chart. For instance, for a lot of the season, it's nearly impossible to determine the difference between the #4 and #5 WR on a given team. And you're going to be hard pressed to find an article that spells out that Player A is #4 and Player B is #5. The best source for this information is the official depth chart on the team's website. In any case, this is kind of a moot point, because the requests for deletions already went in, and were approved. Bjewiki 22:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how it's OR...teams always post their depth charts on their websites, so we're just adding information already published by someone else. That said, I don't think they belong on team pages, but rather on the individual season pages--perhaps with a separate depth chart given for each week of the season. Kurt Weber 15:15, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Very few teams actually publish official depth charts. Many just have unofficial ones done by PR staff or writers. And even then, they constantly change. In fact, I would bet that many teams don't actually keep an official chart were Player C is behind Player B who is behind Player A. It's not clear-cut like that 99% of the time. Pats1 18:00, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

They change quite a bit during the offseason, certainly--and yes, there often a good deal of movement during the season itself, which is why I suggested posting the depth chart for each week of the season. Also, I fail to see how a depth chart published by a team's PR representative would be anything but "official". Kurt Weber 22:02, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no depth chart in the offseason and the depth charts from a teams page is unreliable and most of the time out of date.++aviper2k7++ 22:04, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

What is your basis for the assertion that they are often "unreliable and...out of date"?

How about this: over the course of this upcoming season we collect data to see just how often the online depth charts are updated. We can revisit this question after that. Also, let's not forget that there are other sources for depth chart information as well, such as game-day programs passed out at the stadium and the like. If nothing else, we can include week-by-week depth charts for teams for which they are available and accurate. Spotty coverage is better than no coverage. Kurt Weber 22:18, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

The NFL roster templates

It's hard to tell the difference between a rookie and a normal player. The italics just blend in with the rest. I thought we decided that NFL Europe players were to be denoted, and not listed in a separate section because they do play the position and they are on the team.++aviper2k7++ 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

I tried to go back to the way it was. I created a template system to use the notations very easily. I colored the notations, but they can be edited fairly easy. Tell me what you think. Template:Green Bay Packers roster++aviper2k7++ 22:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

It looks too cluttered with the rookie and NFL-E notations. Bjewiki 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

That is way too cluttered. Please see our discussions above. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The rookies in italics is impossible to distinguish. The notations can be made smaller. It's cluttered to begin with.++aviper2k7++ 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The rookies in italics is subtle, but still noticeable, as it should be. The crazy Rs and Es all over the page is just plain old distracting...check out Template:Philadelphia Eagles roster, it looks nice and clean. Bjewiki 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

The rookies in italics is perfectly easy to distinguish... There's no reason for it to stick out like a sore thumb. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand the need to want to show who are rookies and who are not. I think we should just leave it as a listing of who are on the team and which position they play. After all, that is what a rooster is meant for. --Pinkkeith 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Brady Quinn

I've completely revised and rewritten Brady Quinn's article. It now includes sources: I sourced what I felt needed to be sourced; if I've over-sourced, please correct my mistakes. I feel that the article can now qualify as a WP:GA but I'm not sure it's quite there yet. Please let me know what you think. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

This article is well cited and has a great layout, Wlmaltby3. The lead may need to be expanded further and there is one statement that needs to be cited. Overall, great job! RyguyMN 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Category:FA-Class National Football League articles

Is the Category:FA-Class National Football League articles just for featured articles or can featured lists also be added here because there isn't any category for featured lists? Gman124 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured lists are treated the same way as featured articles so they're just featured under the same category. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't they be under the category Category:FA-Class National Football League lists? Trevor GH5 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

San Francisco 49ers' colors

Hello, I have noticed that 49ers' colors are a bit off. For example, Arnaz Battle's player page template on the right, the color looks like the Redskins color not the niners. I suggest we change the color to the one on Frank Gore. That would mean we change the color from #92000a to #C41E3A. Giantsrule 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the color looks a little too dark. Useight 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

None of those colors looks like the 49ersTerry A. Chapman, B.S.W. 04:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)navychappy

Team Depth Charts

I was browsing through the {{Chicago Bears depth chart}} template, when I realized that to does not cite any of its information (See WP:A, WP:Cite, WP:NOR). As far as I know, the team has not updated their depth chart from 2006. Additionally, is there really a point to listing a depth chart on a team's main page? Why not just leave it on their season-by-season articles. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  05:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you on both points. I know the Rams depth chart is like that as well. In fact, the Rams really only have three strings of players. --Pinkkeith 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

• Support In case this is still a point of discussion, I think it's a great suggestion. Personally, I think you are often going to run into problems with depth charts. For example, What do you do when two qbs are used with a great deal of frequency? Also, many depth charts are somewhat "inaccurate" as I know a handful of teams don't use identical terminalogy. For example, I've seen many teams use Weak side C Gap – Weak side Defensive End, Weak side B Gap – WILL Linebacker, Weak side A Gap – Weak side Defensive Tackle, Strong side A Gap – MIKE Linebacker, etc... etc... Maybe not the most important of issues, but an issue nonetheless. Jmfangio 09:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

A class

We currently have zero A class articles I just wanted to inform everyone that they can actually rate an article A class if they read the assessment scale and feel the article meets the criteria. A class is above GA class so please note that an article should probably be a GA before it gets rated A class. Quadzilla99 10:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Please note that is the generic assessment scale, we don't currently have our own scale like many other projects do. Quadzilla99 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

A couple of days ago I went through the list of A articles and removed every one of them. None of them passed GA, or even would come close to passing GA.++aviper2k7++ 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah the ones you rated weren't even close to A class, I was thinking more of some of the GAs we have that are close to A class like Lawrence Taylor, Oakland Raiders, Brett Favre, Rex Grossman, and any of the History of the New York Giants articles. Quadzilla99 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Question

I'm working on the 1986 New York Giants season article and can't find the coaching staff info anywhere. I looked through all my old football history books and the The New York Times online archives to no avail. Does anyone knows a source for old team coaching staffs online? I'd like to get the whole staff, I know several of them off the top of my head but need a full source. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for a general source for this about a year ago, and haven't just now had any more luck looking specifically for info about the 86 Giants staff. It's probably the kind of thing you'll need to find in a book. Do you have any names besides Parcells, Belichick and Crennel? One or two more might help the online search, especially, say, the name of that little-known assistant offensive line coach who was with the team for just the one season. ×Meegs 12:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Was Ron Erhardt with the team that year (I believe so)? WAVY 10 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone else notice

Someone changed something that made it so that the "DatabaseFootball" links in player infoboxes say "ESPN" and send the user nowhere. I don't know how to fix it. Jwalte04 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

They are back to normal. Jwalte04 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

There was an edit to the template {{Infobox NFL player}} which caused the ESPN link to be live if the DatabaseFootball.com parameter had information. Fixed it fer ya. (No charge) —Twigboy 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Trade deadline

I've converted Trade deadline from a redirect page to an article stub. I was really, really surprised that there was no article about this significant sports terminology. (The term had redirected to a disambiguation page concerning its purely commercial/financial sense.) However, knowing next to nothing about NFL I'm hoping others can help in expanding the article as regards trade deadlines in NFL, and also correct any errors I may have made in the term's definition etc.. Cheers, A bit iffy 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Using logos with Template:Infobox NFL season

Based on the new version of criterion #8 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, there may be a problem with using certain logos on the {{Infobox NFL season}} infoboxes. Using Image:Logon.gif on 2007 Philadelphia Eagles season will probably be okay because it is the primary logo for that particular season. But using Image:PhiladelphiaEagles 100.gif on 2006 Philadelphia Eagles season may not be because it is the general team logo, and not really the logo of the primary subject of that article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point. My interpretation is that fair use can apply to the specific season articles if the logo from that particular season is used. It's clear for a one-time anniversary logo, as the logo pertains to that season only. Could that not be expanded that in 1986, the Giants used their 1976–99 logo? Using the current logo on the 1986 season article would be purely decorative, as it would not pertain to that article. It is stretching the rationale a bit, but to me it still seems plausible.—Twigboy 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

NFL Draft Pages

Alot of the NFL draft pages were over wikilinked, so need help with cleening up those pages, thanks. Gman124 19:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on the 1981 NFL Draft, once I have all the players added and their articles created I'll unlink the redundant links.

Talking about the drafts, anybody considered getting 2000 NFL Draft up for FLC s that the whole 2000-2007 can become a featured topic?Circeus 23:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm working on getting it to get it featured status and trying to find sources. Gman124 21:58, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'll also help out with removing redundant links. Useight 16:22, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

1936 thru 2000 should be wikilink clean to first instance links only, as well as free of redirects in Teams, Positions, and Colleges, and sortable. The majority of this work completed by myself and Gman124. I've cleaned up the white space as well and taken the time to remove abbreviations throughout. I've also spent much time on article format for consistency throughout the series. There is still much work to complete, Most of the pages have no opening statement, and the recent move of all articles to full name requires a minor redirect edit or two. Several of the larger draft pages may have missing college links, and obviously more than that need expansion beyond round 1 or 1 & 2. The player links across the series still need much verification and cleanup, not only of the red links but I've found about 100 bad blue player links too. Slysplace | ^talk 22:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Further elaborating on earlier mentioned page moves, I'm actually shocked that No one in the discussion either here or at WikiProject American football has chimed in on the MASS page moves by User:Koavf of almost every NFL, AFC, NFC article. The page moves have since all been over redirect: reverted as controversial page moves without consensus and cleaned up even further. Slysplace | ^talk 02:07, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Reserve/Retired Players on NFL Roster Templates

Previously, there was a lot of talk about how cluttered the roster templates were becoming. However, i think there's been a lot of good work put into making them look as good as they do now (see: List_of_current_NFL_team_rosters), especially by Chrisjnelson and Pats.

But, I wanted to bring up one addition that I think is unecessary on the current rosters, and that's the listing of the Reserve/Retired list (i.e. where players are "officially" put when they retire so a team maintains their rights). Is it really necessary for Antonio Freeman to be listed on the Template:Green_Bay_Packers_roster? Or Tiki Barber, who come this season will be working on the Today Show (or something) to be listed on the Template:New_York_Giants_roster? Or how about Chad Schroeder of the Chargers, who I believe was signed as an undrafted rookie free agent, retired before ever playing a snap in the NFL, and is now listed on the Template:San_Diego_Chargers_roster reserve/retired list? I'm really not sure there's any value added by having this list on the roster template.

My other concern is the Verifiability of these lists. Sure, we know that Barber is on the Giants' list and Mike Bartrum is on the eagles list, because they just retired. But, as far as I know, there's not a source that will easily let someone view the official Reserve/Retired lists of each team. Also, i'm guessing there will be no good way of determining when a player is off of the Reserve/Retired list. Do they stay there forever? I'm not sure how that works.

Just wanted to see what the community thought about removing this from the roster templates. Bjewiki 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I really don't care if it's there or not, but I will say that verifiability is not an issue. When a player retires under contract, there is only one possible outcome, and that is going to the Reserve/Retired list. Whether it's on an official website or not, you can be assured it's true because there are NO other possibilities.Chris Nelson 18:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As I stated in my original post, I acknowledge that's true. But right now, can you tell me exactly how many (and which) players are on the Eagles reserve/retired list? or the Bills? or the Vikings? I don't know any easy way to verify that. Bjewiki 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. Just because we may not know ALL of them doesn't mean we don't know some of them. The information is in fact right, doesn't matter if it's incomplete. I'm not saying we should keep them, I really don't care. I'm saying the verifiability argument is a weak one, if at all.Chris Nelson 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't want to get into a long conversation here between just the two of us, because I want to hear other people's input on my original question. But, the completeness of the list is an issue. Right now, looking at the eagles roster template, I would surmise that the only person on the Eagles reserve/retired list is Mike Bartrum. Now, I have no idea if that's correct in real life, and I have no way to verify it. That's like creating a list of the 500 Home run hitters in MLB and only putting Aaron, Ruth & Mays on it. Yes, the information on that list is technically correct, but if a person didn't know any better they might assume those are the only 3 people on the list. In any case, I think we should steer the conversation back towards if those lists are even necessary for the template in the first place. Bjewiki 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps verifiable was a poor choice of words, but at the very least, the roster templates have was could be considered incomplete or inaccurate Reserve/Retired lists, and I know of no way to verify what the correct list should be. Bjewiki 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

So if some undrafted free agent quarterback signed with Philly but it wasn't reported, we shouldn't put McNabb on the roster either because it might not be complete? It doesn't matter if it's complete if the information that is provided is accurate. Here is Mike Bartrum. He IS on the Reserve/Retired list. Just because there may be others doesn't mean it's bad to list Bartrum if it's a known fact. It's just not.Chris Nelson 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Again, this is not the direction I intended this topic to go in. There are plenty of resources to check the completeness Roster, and update it so that it complete. There are no resources (unless someone can find one) to check the completeness of the Reserve/Retired list. Unless we can somehow verify that the list is completely accurate, I think it should be removed. Then again, I think the list should be removed because it's uncessary, which was my original point. Bjewiki 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Fine, let's remove it. I don't care and I doubt anyone else has strong feelings about it staying either. So let's take it off. Just know that particular argument about completeness is illogical.Chris Nelson 19:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

NFL Europa

The NFL has just announced that NFL Europa has ceased o♠♠perations with immediate effect ( [1] ), meaning now in effect all the pages on the 6 teams and the World Bowl etc. need to be changed to reflect past tense. 89.240.181.152 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Pats1 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello world

I just joined this and WP:AMF. I suspect most of my time will be spent here though. I'll start fishing around and hope this is fun. Jmfangio 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion of stats sections, ELs, & repetative content

One of the major problems I find in sports related articles is with content duplication. For example, both Barry Sanders (this version) and Joe Montana (this version) suffer from this. I am inclined to either a) remove all the stat tables or b) shorten them to include just a career stats line. WP:EL speaks to this specifically and it recommends that stats are linked to externally. Additionally, it is very easy for vandals to adjust tables of information without notice. Relying on external sites for this is very good. The ELs in general on here are poorly integrated and in many cases (such as those mentioned), they need to be overhauled in a major way. I am in the process of creating some templates that will ease the process and I am open to some suggestions. Lastly, many people love to create succession boxes, info boxes, and a slew of other templates. I am a big fan of templates. That aside, many of them simply repeat text. Take a look at the bottom of the Michael Vick article. You can see how the succession boxes often repeat information. I think we need to establish some standards for acceptable ELs specific to the project and how we avoid information duplication in the future. Jmfangio 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone have a thought on this? If not, I'll start going through and making some WP:Bold edits. Jmfangio ► Talk 06:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Questions on notability standards

Should these be addressed on the project page? I know that the sport of baseball will have some serious notability issues, but what about the NFL? I am guessing that there should be some mention for players, coaches, and team owners (that they are all notable). But should we also make some note for things like "Super Fans" and or others. I don't know that an NFL waterboy should have an article simply because they existed. Jmfangio 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Main article content depth

It seems that their needs to be a clarification on depth or lack there of needs to be addressed. At this time we have a major disagreement and we need your help. ( any editor of a N.F.L. team)The discussion is going on at Talk:San Diego Chargers Please drop in take a read and be sure to look at the history of Talk:San Diego Chargers and the history of the Charger articule and then share your thoughts on what is and is not appropriate for the main articule. Hopefully we will form a consensus as to the best format to use so edit wars can in the future be avoided. It also may help to encourage more discussion on the WikiProject National Football League and a better understanding of how we can best contribute. RMANCIL 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Quick note - there's a typo in the section head. Which specific conversation needs to be looked at? There are several long discussions there and I'd rather not read ones that don't pertain to this problem. Jmfangio 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, follow the discussion under under " Epic in Miami -Freezer Bowl" RMANCIL 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying. Although I'm not going to get involved in a personal dispute between two editors, I think I have an example that will help you guys out. I would suggest one short and concise paragraph at the main article page on each of the games in question. Then you can supplement those paragraphs with a {{Main}} tag as is done with Ty Cobb#1910: the Chalmers Award controversy. Hope this helps. Jmfangio 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

It is a start thanks for responding.RMANCIL 15:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Template Help

Per this conversation, I thought it would be useful to create a separate template for former NFL players. I have started to create one at User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired. Please chime in here with thoughts and suggestions. Jmfangio ► Talk 22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Please discuss this here Jmfangio ► Talk 22:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

New Portal Page

I'm working on revamping the portal. I'm borrowing from several other projects and you can see the new page here. Much of it is ripped from WP:DOH, so that information is being phased out. Any help is welcomed. Jmfangio ► Talk 08:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I am hoping someone can create File:Barnstar-nfl.png for project use. Any volunteers? Jmfangio ► Talk 11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

And I just put up the new page. Hope you guys like it. I'm gonna keep working on some of it. If you want to see what's left to incorporate from the old page you can see it here. I'm not if anything will be left by the time someone reads it, but that's where you can view the history. Jmfangio ► Talk 11:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looks great, easy to navigate, definitely outshines the rest of the project pages for organization. Down sides would be the obvious that portal style pages are inherently harder to edit. Slysplace | ^talk 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliments. It's basically a reworking of some other project pages. I'm working on some templates that will make it easier to edit. You can see one of them in the mini-tasks section. I'm trying to see how to get the {{todo}} template inserted, but even when i dropped it in a fixed width box, it messed up the display. Jmfangio ► Talk 20:58, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

I have a question, I was browsing portals and I came across the Soccer portal page and they have a color coded table listing FA's, Featured Lists, Good Articles, but they also list articles that have failed to achieve one of those levels. I believe if you could add that to our portal, we good work better on those articles that are not yet featured/good article material. Just a suggestion, check it out. --Happyman22 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

What's a portal?►Chris Nelson 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

• Chris Check out Portal:American football. Happy - Are you talking about a portal or a project page? The new project page has sections for FA and such. Jmfangio ► Talk 00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant project page, but it would be nice to list the articles that were denied a certan status so we could all work on them. Still you did a great job on the new project page :). --Happyman22 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

• If you look in the upper right you'll see an AID article. It's not finished, but that's where that information would go. Jmfangio ► Talk 03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Which Stats site should we use?

I know there are a number of stat sites which are perfectly acceptable. I would like to incorporate one of them into the stats section of the Template:NFLretired template. Which one should I use? Jmfangio ► Talk 23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

ESPN is pretty good however the most used professional site is STATS[2]. I would have to think that you would need to make the decision based on ease of use for you with the Template. RMANCIL 10:33, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

• Problem with those is that they don't have retired players stats. I've inserted Pro-football-reference as the primary stats source, but a user can replace that with databasefootball.com Since this box is geared specifically toward retired players, i don't think the "mainstream" news outlets offer retired players. Jmfangio| ►Chat  10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The NFL has thier Hall of Fame Page, and that site has all the stats for retired players, it would make sense to use that pageTerry A. Chapman, B.S.W. 04:57, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

No colors for retired persons?

I notice a user has been deleting colors from templates and leaving the edit summary the "(No colors for retired players or coaches)". Has this been discussed somewhere - are there guidelines to use? Thanks. --Chancemichaels 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Please see User talk:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired. Pats1 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - that's just what I was looking for. --Chancemichaels 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

Fixing Article Titles

Per WP:NCA, i'm fixing a lot of the article titles. I just completed the "division" articles. These all seem rather straight forward and "uncontroversial", but if you have any thoughts, feel free to express them here. Jmfangio| ►Chat  12:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll on infobox award listing

Please see User talk:Jmfangio/Template:NFLactive#Poll to vote. Pats1 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• The poll is faulty and the discussion is not ready for a WP:STRAW. Substantial discussion from more than two editors needs to take place. Until that happens, the poll is useless. Jmfangio| ►Chat  18:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I hate to break it to you, but we may be the only 3-4 editors who care about the issue. That's why I went here to see if I could find a few others who would like to cast their vote. But honestly, back in April and May, there was a lot more activity for this project. Zzyzxx11 seems to have moved on to bigger and better things. One of our biggest contributors, Quadzilla99 has been on a Wikibreak for quite some time now. And Wlmaltby3 was on a tear with all these new templates and ideas, but has only made a handful of edits in the past few months. So it's really down to a few full-time members on this project. Pats1 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• If that's the case then why call for the poll? The discussion is not ready for one. That's the most important aspect of what i'm saying here. I've now read the other discussion where you and chris voiced your opinions on the "year" linking. No reference to wiki documentation was made, and no consensus was arrived at. Perhaps one of the reasons why people on wiki are so hesitant to get involved with sports projects is because of the overt use of biased point of view. When people sasy "i like this" - and "i like that" instead of saying - this is better because - then the system fails. I appreciate that you guys are passionate about this. But that doesn't mean that your feelings should trump reason and rationale. Jmfangio| ►Chat  18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

• re: "User:Zzyzx11 seems to have moved on to bigger and better things." Forgive me but my general vision of the NFL pages conflicts with the current consensus here, and with many non-WikiProject users when they edit excessively during the regular season. So instead of getting myself into edit wars, it is better to step back. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Right, which is my point. I'm not criticizing you here, just saying that I haven't seen your name mentioned around here in awhile. Pats1 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Consensus- cooperation- Direction- Discussion

I do not see more people becoming involved as it seems that this area (Pro Football) is rather hostile to new editors. I am about fed up with my treatment from Pats1 on every issue I edit on. It appears that a consensus needs to form on several topics and a much different less confrontational approach is needed if you guys in fact want more involvement from interested parties. Right now Pats1 and myself are having a major disagreement on the 2007 Charger season page however we have improved in that it is preceding a edit war on the page instead of following one which was the case on the main Charger page which remains locked even though 4 editors including myself have formed a consensus. Pats1 has refused to moderate his position on the subject and as I understand it the page will remained locked until he does. Zzyzx11 is tired of the not stop back and forth and frankly so am I.

I am editing far less as every project I get involved in becomes a argument with Pats1, some how that needs to stop. There must be a better way to promote harmony and to create direction and a consensus for the team pages and the related articles.

I think a different approach needs to take place on how new editors are approached and that a consensus needs to be formed that all interested parties can follow in regards to inviting new editors to the table. Leadership is needed along with education and a step by step format so that all teams share the same basic structure. In short encouragement instead of discouragement in participation and direction. RMANCIL 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I am sorry that you have been bitten. I have too and I am relatively new to this project. I am not fully familiar with the particular example you are referring to, i will read up on it. I do recall some mention earlier, but again, I did not really dive into it. Sports related SPs seem particularly prone to this, as it has happened at number of other projects. Fans seem very fervent, and POV leeks its' way into a lot of discussions. A few editors have been associated with this project for a long time and they have a hard time accepting input from others. I would love to enhance some of the documentation available through the project page. Jmfangio| ►Chat  10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Yep, when RMANCIL started editing San Diego Chargers, I immediately went to his talk page and showed him the proper way to format things, per WP:MOS. When he semi-ignored this, I showed him guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. that he was not following properly. In response, he goes to my talk page and uses other WP guidelines to show why I was "wrong." He then has gone to just about every talk page associated with this project and bitched to everyone about how I "never generate a consensus before making my edits." Pats1 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

That is not true Pats1 but enough of this BS stop already. The point is we all need to learn to cooperate and work together if this project has any chance to succeed other wise it will fail. People don't always agree that is inevitable however how we deal with one another and moderate our positions along with our tone should help facilitate harmony. I have stated that I will follow the consensus and I have agreed to moderate my edits to conform, I think that you should as well. RMANCIL 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I just took some time to look at rmancil's and pat's talk talk page starting with the first edit that you each made (here and here). There is no question that some aspects of article ownership were expressed, and rather quickly. I don't see any attempt to educate in the manner described. I see a lot of barking orders, and demonstrative statements from both sides. Who is more to blame? I don't think it matters here. What's important is that the project, or at least those who are most active in it, is representative of the greater good - the content. The call for cooperation and respect is spot on. You both have a passion for editing, just as I do, so instead of focusing on the person behind the edits, we should focus on the content and how do we get editors to a point where they are best able to contribute to the articles. I think that it's great to see a user who expresses a willingness and desire to better understand what makes "wiki run". Jmfangio| ►Chat  12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for cooperation. But I can't stand being harassed because I follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Pats1 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

• I understand completely, I'm simply saying that there might be a way to get everyone to act more civily. Both sides are at fault here to some degree. I will be happy to discuss this with you on your talk page if you would like, but for now, please just don't comment on what who did what to whom. I hope you understand. Jmfangio| ►Chat  07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Team Colors Revisited

So I was going to go in and get everything up to date at {{Infobox NFL player#Team colors}} based on the various team homepages and the logos. I noticed a problem: not all the teams have colors that are solid. In other words, if you take the SF 49ers logo, (here's one example) you will notice that their "gold" is not solid throughout. What do we do about this since we can only define one hex color? As much as I hate to say it, does this mean we should seriously consider abandoning team colors? I know people love them but if the NBA and NHL can accept this, maybe this project should too. For examples, you can view Martin Brodeur and Paul Pierce.Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:47, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

You use the solid-color logos from ChrisCreamer.com, all of which are uploaded on Wikipedia. Don't worry - I've already done this. No need to do it again... Pats1 02:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

• I'm aware of sportslogos.net, that doesn't resolve the problem. Jmfangio| ►Chat  02:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to mention all of the teams. Yet, I know that the St. Louis Rams colors are incorrect. Pats1 used the RGB that is listed there on the Rams templates. Just take a look at the template and the helmet and Rams head logo; it looks nothing a like. I'm not working on all of the NFL pages, but I can say that the color that I got for the Rams was taken by copying the helmet on to Paint Shop Pro and getting the correct RGB from the software. --Pinkkeith 18:49, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

For example look at the template as of this date and time: Template:St. Louis Rams Compared to the helmet logo: Image:St Louis Rams helmet rightface.png
Just looking at it you can tell that the gold color is not the same. --Pinkkeith 18:55, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Don't make any edits to the Rams templates in the next few minutes - I'm fixing them right now. Pats1 19:04, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguating players

I've come across several players who've been moved from having "(American football)" as their disambiguation to having "(football player)" as their disambiguation, even after they'd been moved from "(football player)" to "(American football)" to begin with. I think a consensus needs to be reached on how to disambiguate players, because claiming they're football players is only partially true. For example, Sean Jones of the Cleveland Browns is technically a football player, but to those outside of the United States and Canada, he's an American football player; he doesn't play football, which is what soccer is called in almost every other country of the world. Therefore, I'm fully supportive of the fact that players either need to be disambiguated with "(American football)" (or "(American football player)"), the team they're currently playing for, or their position. To call them "football players" is misleading. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 13:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I've been going through and fixing this myself for a few days. I have moved everyone that is listed as (American football player) or (football player) to (American football). The "football player" does not identify the person properly (as you pointed out). I have elected for the shorter form for two basic reasons. Per my reading of WP:NC and WP:D, adding player suggests over specification to me. Furthermore, a person will not always be a player. Perhaps they were a coach, or are now a retired player. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  13:11, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I'm glad someone's on the ball. I'd go through and move a lot of them myself, but I'm not sure I've got the patience to go through and attempt to move every single player that needs to be disambiguated. Also, for those instances where I need to have an administrators help in moving a page (because of double-redirects, I think), I'm slow to pull the trigger, and I don't want to have to go through Requests for Moves (or whatever), since I'm pretty lazy when it comes to that. But I'll help where I can. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 17:12, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

• I use texter so it makes the process pretty easy for me. As for WP:RM, it's a pretty uncontroversial change. Unlike the issue with college teams (for those that have followed that), this is a pretty cut and dry issue. You can use the uncontroversial section as i did for Larry Johnson (American football). Just cite WP:D. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

This disambiguation topic has come up at least three times before without much consensus, and these articles have been moved around quire a lot. As described on WP:D, there is no rule between disambiguating with the article subject's general class (football player) or with a context (football). I observe throughout the project, though, that the vast majority of biographies use the subject's profession for disambiguation. For example, we have many instances of David Thomas (profession) instead of David Thomas (professional field). As such, I suggest always including player. Using the general class also makes for easier reading, as it's constant with the way parentheses are used in normal prose. ×Meegs 16:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

The worst part about it is that there has often been individuals who do not realize that there are two different sports called "football" who come through and move all of the players' articles themselves without any consensus from anyone else, especially not those involved in this project. I've created player articles which ended up being moved to a completely different disambiguation within hours of my creating them, and I can't redirect them back because I don't know how. It's frustrating to move a player to "(American football)" only to have someone charge through and move it to "(football player)" or worse, "(NFL)" without consensus. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 08:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Related question

A number of players are differentiated by their "position". I cannot find anything in WP:D and WP:NC that either supports this, or shows that it is not the way to do things. So is this the best way? Should we not add (American football + position) for proper disambig? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I suggest using position only, when its sufficient. ×Meegs 16:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Another related question

I have run across a player name that is also in need of differentiation - Rodney Thomas. In my initial research has turned up the following four players with the same name:

• Rodney Thomas - linebacker for Clemson, no NFL, Clemson player profile page
• Rodney Thomas - running back for Harvard, no NFL, Sports Illistrated's college players page
• Rodney Thomas - running back for Texas A&M, played in the NFL, Sports Illustrated's NFL players page
• Rodney Thomas - cornerback for Brigham Young, played in the NFL, Stats from databasefootball.com

The origial article that was started about a college player from Texas A&M that went on to play in the NFL. Then an unregistered user added info about another player with the same name that played linebacker for Clemson but that did not go on to play professional ball. I was going to disambig them by position as others have done but that won't work in this case. My next thought was to do it by college but I don't recall ever seeing that. Any suggestions? --JustAGal 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm not so sure that my input with make complete sense since it's after four in the morning and I'm rather tired, but I'll try this out. Obviously, the four men played for four different... schools. Now, the two that didn't play in the NFL, they might just be able to be differentiated by adding "Clemson" or "Harvard" to the end of their names. The two that played in the NFL would have to be differentiated either by the last team they played for in the NFL, or, if they're retired or not in the league anymore, by the last team they played for OUTSIDE of the NFL, or by their school. That's actually really confusing... Really, in essence, you'd simply differentiate them with their position after, but two of them have the same position, so then you'd need to differentiate by some sort of team they played for, but then that leaves the other two as inconsistencies. But I think it'd be the way I first described: the team they last played for. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Wow, this is a great question. I'm not sure what to do. Do WP:D or WP:NAME mention anything about this? We might want to bring in some outside help for this as this problem might rear it's head in other areas. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Under People, there's something on Sports Teams, but not athletes. Nothing regarding two individuals with the same first/last name playing in the same sport. If necessary, I'd recommend the use of the middle name for such cases. KyuuA4 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Bot task for this move

After User:Jmfangio asking how to move pages to help with the disambiguation of badly disambiguated pages - ie Player Name (football), Player Name (American football player), Player Name (football player), which if under Category:National Football League players and subcategories, need disambiguating to (American football). I've made a list from the category, filtered it down for duplicates, and where the proposed target page exists, and have 607 potential moves. User:Reedy_Boy/American_footballers.

Before doing this, and getting approval for the task, there of course, needs to be some consensus. Most likely people to approve this, is you guys. Whats the general opinion? Thanks Reedy Boy 20:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• Without scanning every name on the list, I can see a potential problem if a player has played in the NFL and the CFL. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

• LOL Reedy - you beat me here! Great point chomles! Here's a question though - of the number of players who have played both American football and Canadian football - how many of them are involved in this? Could we run some sort of cross check against Category:Canadian_football_players?? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:53, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I can do a list of people from that category, then see if any duplicates pop up between the 2 lists. BRB Reedy Boy 21:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Duplicates

1. Aaron Hunt (football player)
2. Alex Webster (football player)
3. Bernard Williams (football player)
4. Bruce Clark (football player)
5. Dave Mann (football player)
6. David Green (football player)
7. Doug Brown (football player)
8. Eric Harris (football player)
9. James Scott (football player)
10. Jimmy Edwards (football player)
11. John Avery (football player)
12. John O'Quinn (football player)
13. Jonathan Brown (football player)
14. Ken Clark (football player)
15. Ken Rose (football player)
16. Kenneth Hall (football player)
17. Mike Pringle (football player)
18. Rob Murphy (football player)

Shall i exclude them aswell then? That is from a duplicate search between my list, and Category:Canadian_football_players

Reedy Boy 21:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like they should be excluded - but (football player) is still problematic, so we still need to do something with them. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:16, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove those in the morning. Surely, if the page is in Category:National Football League players or a subcategory, it should be ok to disambiguate - As if its categorised as such, it must meet that criteria?? Reedy Boy 23:50, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm a bit confused - what do you mean :-)? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Im meaning, if its listed under Category:National Football League players, it should be an american NFL related article, or at least, someone who has played for the NFL - the canadians being in both, and hence duplicates. Reedy Boy 11:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please do not proceed with any mass renaming. Until at least the time as we have a biography of a soccer player of the same name, adding American, Canadian to the title is not essential. Disambiguations should be minimal, and do not have to tell the whole story. More importantly, as I explained above, disambiguating by profession, not field, is nearly universal for biographical articles, so player should always be included in any disambiguation. ×Meegs 08:58, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:D. While minimal is certainly recommended, you have to at least meet the proper criteria. The word football does not provide proper context. It is not only misleading, but incorrectly applied. American football and Canadian football are professions that are entirely different from association football. Leaving these as football shows a clear bias and again - WP:D, WP:NCP, and a handful of brief discussions support this move. As long as we are not contributing to the "Canadian football" v "American football" problem; i see nothing to suggest that this move should be abandoned. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:05, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, as long as we're not resorting to American-Canadian, I'm flexible on the issue. I am not at all convinced that player should be removed from any of the disambiguations, however. In addition to the vast majority of articles, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) exclusively uses profession over field. ×Meegs 09:10, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Im happy to rework the lists, from scratch if needed, to remove/add certain disambiguations, so that they will be done how you want them to be done. Reedy Boy 11:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I still don't think its necessary, but I won't object any further to adding American and Canadian to the parentheses so long a player is retained. If you do this, here are my quick recommendations for which sport to use for the multi-sport players.

• Canadian football player: David Green (football player), Doug Brown (football player), Jimmy Edwards (football player), Mike Pringle (football player), Ken Clark (football player), Aaron Hunt (football player)
• American football player: Alex Webster (football player), Bruce Clark (football player), Bruce Clark (football player), Dave Mann (football player), Eric Harris (football player), James Scott (football player), John Avery (football player), John O'Quinn (football player), Kenneth Hall (football player), Ken Rose (football player), Jonathan Brown (football player)
• Could go either way. Use American football player, I guess: Bernard Williams (football player), Rob Murphy (football player)

If I've made a mistake or two, they can always be fixed by concerned editors later. All but two of these guys played American football in college, and most resorted to the CFL after a failed NFL career. Unless they had a far greater career with Canadian football, I've kept them in American. ×Meegs 20:59, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I think we are confusing the issues - there is no question that (football player) is not appropriate. These articles need to be moved away from that - may to (sportsperson), but I also think that American v Canadian is some how being confused. The sports are (in the greater sense of the community) "American football" and "Canadian football". The profession is "American football" or "Canadian football". There is no "field" in use. Football = Football. It's an entirely different sport. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:06, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's a thought - would it be appropriate to Disambiguate the Am-C players at (American-Canadian football). I think settling on American football is certainly appropriate; but since there seems to be some disagreement - we need to find soem common ground. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with (sportsperson), (athlete), the current (football player), or choosing between (American football player) and (Canadian football player). We do not use (actor-singer), and I do not see anything wrong with choosing one or the other. We don't need to summarize their whole career in the article title. I'm also fine with not standardizing these. What I am not ok with it (American football) or (Canadian football). Those are awkward, inconsistent with nearly all biographies throughout the rest of the project, and inconsistent with position disambiguations like (linebacker). ×Meegs 21:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I am not finding a great deal of support for your position. So what would you suggest we do? As the current setup is clearly fault - and many people have mentioned this "issue", i think the move to (American football) is fairly uncontroversial. I don't think anyone can argue with a person who is exclusively associated with Canadian football being disambiguated as such, but seeing as American football is the basis for Candian football, I do not feel we should "over complicate" the matter. As for the person/coach/player tacked on the end - i think that speaks specifically to the "field" issue. Jack Del Rio and Herman Edwards are perfect examples. Let's assume they did need to be disambiguated? Neither needs to be disambiguated but if they did - what do you do? It would be inconsistent to do Jack Del Rio (American football player) and Herman Edwards (American football coach). I'm just not anything in the wiki documentation that would suggest we need to make this any more complicated. People who are exclusively associated with Canadian football should be moved to (Canadian football), all others should be moved to (American football). People who have been disambiguated by position have been intentionally left out of this because that is an entirely seperate situation and there is a discussion to be had about that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:33, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you guys want to go ahead with this? Or shall I just leave it for now? Reedy Boy 21:04, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

NFLactive survey

If you feel you are well versed on the "Pro Bowl Debate", please vote at Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive#Survey. If you are still interested, but not already familiar, please spend some time reading that discussion page. Please do not vote unless you have familiarized yourself with the issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Measureables

I would like to get the general consensus on the inclusion of player measureables (40time,shuttle,3-cone,vert,bench,wonderlic) in player articles. I believe they are valuable because they allow you to compare players in a fairly objective manner much like you compare players by their weight and height. If they have a relatively fast 40-yard dash, then one can assume that that skill would be an asset on a football field much like height is for a basketball player. If you ever watch an NFL draft, every player is compared and categorized based on their production and measureables throughout the whole show. These results define players and if sourced correctly are valuable additions to a profile. The only objection that one can think up is that it might be too stat-driven but if you don't know what a vertical jump is or a bench press, then there's no way you will understand such basic football elements as a sack or interception. I would go even as far to suggest that a template be made to house such information making it clean and concise. Does anybody think that measureables in a limited one-two sentence capacity would have a negative effect on the whole player article? Pats1 and myself are interested in your response. Thank You. Eeks2284 04:07, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "player profiles"? Are you referring to articles about players or the infoboxes? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Talking about the articles Eeks2284 06:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I think that it may be too unwieldy to try to work those statistics into an article. It would be hard to word without sounding completely redundant with every sentence. I think either a small infobox can be created, or it can somehow be added to the existing infobox under "NFL Combine," given that the player actually attended the combine, or something similar to that. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 08:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Interesting thought. Initially, I thought that some reference to combine performance would be acceptable in relevant "sections". That being said, adding it to the infobox as an optional field MAY not be a bad idea. I say may for a number of reasons. Most importantly - is this information readily available anywhere? If it isn't, then it probably won't work in an infobox. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's where I was concerned. I wasn't sure if one would even be able to find information like that with any sort of reliability at all. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 08:12, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I haven't looked but there is http://www.nfl.com/combine and http://www.nflcombine.net/. Maybe when my eyes aren't half closed, i'll take a look and see if they have info. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:23, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• I hear you on the half-eyes-closed thing. Haha. I'll check tomorrow, too, and see about starting a poll to see how we should pull that off. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 08:28, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Do you think this is ready for a poll yet? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

• Ok here are two of my favorite sites for measureables, http://www.900footballlinks.net/index.htm and http://www.nfldraftscout.com/searchcollege.php?draftyear=2008&colabbr=A. Measureables you can dig up on NFL.com are generally the most reliable but they take some time to find. The only issue is that measureables need to be sourced so keep that in mind if it's going to be added to the infobox. I personally think it would make more sense to add under the topic == (Player's Draft Year) NFL Draft ==. As you guys will find out, measureables will rarely be consistent from every source. When it comes to player heights and weights, the best source is generally official team pages. The best source for draft measureables is the NFL combine (electronically timed)but pro day times (hand-timed) are relevant as well, especially if that player wasn't invited to the combine or didn't do a certain event at the combine at the request of his agent. The main thing is to just source where the numbers came from which I'm sure you can do inconspicuously underneath the boxes. Thank you for joining me on this discussion and I hope we come to a beneficial conclusion for wikipedia and its inquisitive fanbase.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eeks2284 (talk • contribs)

• No one's responded conclusively yet to this discussion topic. In the meantime I am going to keep adding measureables until someone comes up with a legitimate reason why they detract from NFL wikipedia biographies. Although I don't have any experiences making boxes, I will play around with them to make the information more presentable in the meantime. If anyone wants to make a template, please do. Eeks2284 18:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not really sold on this idea for a number of reasons, but I certainly think that your patience on this was more than acceptable. If you choose to continue adding this I would suggest that you make sure to provide citations for all of the information. It's not as easy and checking "general stats" information and so you'll want to have good citations to back up the information. Be well. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Joe Montana

Anyone else want to get in on the editing of the Joe Montana article? I've reworked a great deal of content; I'm hoping to get some others to jump in. I can go ahead and finish, but it would be nice to get some fresh input. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

List of career achievements by _______

I think all the content in these pages should be merged back into the articles about the player, because there is no notability for "career achievements by ____". Any thoughts? Corpx 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

• I did some renaming to the articles that fell under Category:Career achievements of sportspeople per WP:L, as that's what these all are. The idea that achievements are not notable doesn't seem reasonable. Pro Bowl, Most Valuable Player Awards and a slew of other "achievements" easily meet WP:N standards. All of these are split off from the main player articles per WP:LENGTH. As Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Gary Gait all have articles, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a consensus to allow these lists. If particular portions of the content are not notable, then they can be expunged. It is certainly reasonable to have some mention of the awards in an article. I would suggest utilizing the {{main}} template. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not questioning the notability of these awards, but the overall "notability of _______'s achievements" Corpx 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
• I'm not following? So Brett Favre's achievements are not notable? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Reopened

Anyone else care to chip in on this? This information should be merged into the articles, and not have a separate list of accomplishments by ____. I cant speak for basketball/golf, but I do not think football articles should be doing this. Most of List of career achievements by Vince Young are trivial school records he set while at Texas and all the award information is already in the Vince Young article. I noticed that the same was List of career achievements by Brett Favre and List of career achievements by Peyton Manning were both redirected back to the main article and would like some 3rd party input on this Corpx 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar to my points on your talk page - this is an issue for a wider audience. The Favre and Manning examples are misleading - their reversion was not a result of consensus but of me being bullied out of the conversations and having to disengage to avoid wider problems. It is not up to WP:NFL to explicity overide things like WP:LENGTH. However, the validity of the content within List of career achievements by Vince Young is an entirely separate issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

• Since a lot of discussion has transgressed on my talk page, please leave your comments there. User_talk:Corpx#Vince_Young Corpx 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl Team Templates

Here's an idea: How about creating a Super Bowl team template with the roster information (see for example what they have for NBA champions on the bottom of the team page), only we do this for both teams instead of just the winner. WAVY 10 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• Got a link? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Check out the ones for the Boston Celtics (at bottom). WAVY 10 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

• How many people would the template include? Just the starters or the whole team? --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 20:14, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's done, only the players who were on the active roster for the game at the time should be noted. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree there. WAVY 10 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

• I've spent some time with this and personally, I am not in favor. I can see both sides of the issue here, so if someone wanted to create the templates, it would be alright. That being said, I think that templates are getting over used in sports related articles. I certainly don't think we could say "only starters" because many teams use multiple starters. Here's an example: Super Bowl XXV and the NY Giants team from that year. Phil Simms was the starter, but due to injuries, Jeff Hostetler started in the super bowl. Additionally, the 1990 New York Giants season article already has a roster section - and that seems sufficent enough to me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

New Cat

I just created Category:National Football League free agents. There is an el there that i think will really help people who want to find FAs. I've added a handful of players already, but i think this will be the most useful way to view the information. Lists would be harder to update. I'm talking to someone about having the NFLactive infobox help in the maintenance, but i don't know how easily that will be (if it is even possible). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Pro Bowl naming

On Template talk:Infobox NFLactive, there has been a bit of acrimony regarding whether to name Pro Bowls by the year in which they occurred, or the season they followed. It just occurred to me that this is a question of general interest to the NFL Wikiproject, and the convention should be consistent across the encyclopedia, so I have suggested to the interested parties that they move the discussion here.

Right now, the Pro Bowl articles themselves are named by the year in which they took place, rather than the season with which they are associated--so 2007 Pro Bowl refers to the game that took place on February 10, 2007, following the 2006 season. Should we stay with this, or change it? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

If it would help, the NFL itself called the game played on February 10, 2007 as the 2007 Pro Bowl,[3] and used a logo with 2007 on it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for trying to get some fresh input on this. Just to give you guys a bit of a summary, there are people who want to focus on the fact that the players in the 2007 pro bowl are "awarded"/nominated in 2006 based on their performance during the 2006 NFL season. There are a number of news sources that do it by year of the game, and a number that do it by year of the regular season the game follows. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

The National Football League, and the NFL Network refer to the Game in the year it was played, and the players have listed in their NFL Pages the election to the pro bowl for the season, so the NFL does not have uniformity with this game either.Terry A. Chapman, B.S.W. 05:12, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

There is no official way to list it, but it seems that the point of awards is to recognize what years a player was honored. So, if a player is a 2006 AP all-pro and a 2006 AP defensive Player of the year why should he be a 2007 Pro Bowler. The season in which the ballots are cast and counted would be consistent with all the other awards.Howdythere (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Manual of Style Discussion

I would like to call people to join in an imortant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates ranges in infoboxes/templates. This project has a number of infoboxes where this discussion is applicable. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Undrafted free agents in NFL infobox

Hi, I would like to get some input on a topic at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. I would like your opinion on an addition I made that is being contested. I have added a field to the infobox called "undraftyear", and when a year is entered it adds a line under a guy's college that says "Undrafted in 1997" or whatever year is appropriate. I did this because I felt there should be something noting a guy went undrafted, similar to the info for drafted players that was already in place. To see how this would look in an article, see here or here. If you would be in favor of this edit, I'd ask you to kindly voice this at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#Undrafted free agents. It is being contested by one person because they feel the year should not be there. I feel the year is important, just as the year of drafting is important. I also feel that since we have an NFL debut section in the infobox as well as a listed of teams and years played for each, it wouldn't cause any confusion. So if you're okay with this edit or you'd like to get in the discussion, I'd encourage you to do so. Thanks!►Chris Nelson 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Mr. Keiaho

There's apparently some disagreement as to how one should spell the first name of Colts linebacker Freddie Keiaho. The Colts.com site and Indianapolis' news outlets consistently spell Freddy with a 'y', but the NFL.com site spells it with an 'ie'. Of course this is just a nickname and he can spell it however he wants, but there must be more consistency, particularly in the article itself, which uses both spellings. I'm partial to the Y spelling, as it's how the Colts spell it, as well as other local news affiliates (see indystar.com). I would think that they'd know how Freddy spells his name. Even the programs available at the home games at the RCA dome use Freddy. Is there a "policy" for such a circumstance? Do you go by the NFL's spelling, or the team's spelling? Are there many players with nicknames used that have a question of spelling? I guess I'd just like some sort of "ruling" to decide how his name is actually spelled, and for that spelling to be used throught the article. My vote is for Freddy. Brainscar 03:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review - Scott Milanovich

I just created Scott Milanovich and it is now a WP:GAC#Everyday life. If you are comfortable with the process, please feel free to check it out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Straw Poll List of career achievements by Vince Young

Me and User:Jmfangio have a disagreement on whether List of career achievements by Vince Young should be allowed to remain, or whether the content (except for the school records) should be merged back into Vince Young. Please reply here. Corpx 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

This poll is not appropriate at this time. First and foremost - it violates WP:STRAW. Second - if you want to seek DR on this (which i feel is pretty excessive) - you need to follow the steps laid out at WP:DR. WP:LENGTH and WP:LISTS are pretty clear on this - and the article is long. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

You're deeming straw polls inappropriate using an essay? There is nothing wrong with using a straw poll to see where the community stands on this. Besides, I'm asking for more than just a vote. I'd prefer some reasoning behind the vote also Corpx 13:55, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

We can discuss the issue here, but a straw poll is not going to help anything . If nothing can be worked-out, then an AfD topic to propose the merger is a reasonable next step. ×Meegs 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Personally I think a standalone article is overkill in this case. While some of these achievements are certainly notable and worth mentioning, I see a lot of questionable ones (Rose Bowl QB rushing record? Really?). The high school section could be summed up in a few sentences. The college section could use some pruning. The honors & awards section seems reasonable. Do that and I think the amount of information left could be successfully merged into the VY article. --cholmes75 ^{(chit chat)} 14:37, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

• Meegs - before AFD there is WP:DR. There are numerous articles like this - a few of which have been identified at Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. Cholmes - There is a difference between saying "should this list exist" and "is all the information in an article good information". Some users want to argue about whether or not this article is a "well written list" - that's not the same issue. Simply put - there is consensus established by various wiki guidelines at WP:LIST and WP:LENGTH. As I previously mentioned, there is also a cat. that shows multiple articles for this information. If you look at the edit summary for this edit to the Jordan list (the creation) you will see it i was also done for length issues. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

As much as I'd like to think so, a comparison of achievements by Vince is not comparable to achievements by Michael Jordan. I can see it being appropriate for somebody of MJ's caliber, with all the rings and awards, but Vince is not anywhere close to that (yet) Corpx 15:52, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, if you use a personal interpretation of ones status as an "icon" or "important person" (or whatever you want to call these people) to establish a guideline. For as unimportant as you may find some of the records - someone else may find them extremely important. You have to balance this and look at it from the bigger picture. I have never commented here on the quality of the information within each article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Comparing Vince's accomplishments to those of Michael Jordan is not very hard to do. That said, I think the consensus so far is to merge it back into Vince Young article Corpx 07:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus Corpx - I'm sorry that you have an inability to discuss things like this, but you are not stating anything other than your personal preferences. I have pointed you to numerous guidelines, policies, and articles - and yet this continues. If you want to open WP:DR then do so, it's a waste of time in my opinion, but I will participate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The only other person who chimed in also backed the proposed merge, while you're the only person actively trying to keep the article in its current state. We've been through the whole guidelines etc thing on my talk page, where you abandoned discussion Corpx 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Hey guys, this boy has only been in the league for one year and two games...you could call this early career achievements, but his career is still ahead of him.Terry A. Chapman, B.S.W. 05:14, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Categories

Should a player have categories of a team he never played an actual regular season game for, for example should Sam Rayburn have the category San Francisco 49ers players if he never played a game for the 49ers. I believe he shouldnt have this category, what do you think--Yankees10 23:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm tied up at the moment, but I will give my dissertation later. Pats1 00:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A player that played in preseason, or was even under contract with a team, fits the criteria for the category. San Francisco 49ers players means just that - guys that played for them. Preseason games are REAL, the players are under contract and they even get uniforms with their names on the back! Having the category on their page does nothing but help inform people. Imagine this:

Let's say I'm browsing the Jacksonville Jaguars players category, but I don't know a ton about them. I see Chris Claiborne listed. "Hmm," I think, "I don't recall him being on the Jaguars." So I click his name. "Ah, I see now. He was signed by them but released before the season. Interesting. Man, his career sure has turned to shit." And there you have it. I just learned something about Chris Claiborne by way of the Jacksonville Jaguars players category. He is a player. He was on the Jaguars. That makes him a Jacksonville Jaguars player. Simple as that.►Chris Nelson 07:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, to belong to a group of players who played for any particular team, I think that the player would have to play a regular season game at the minimum. This is how it's all done for all baseball players. It's a group of players who played for the team. It's not a group of players who were under contract with a team. Playing for a team and being on the team are different things. Here's a baseball scenario, for example. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim's manager Mike Scioscia is on the team and is under contract with the team. But his name isn't on Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim all-time roster or in Category:Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim players because he never played an official, league game with the team. He is on the team and under contract, but never played a game. I don't see how football is any different. Ksy92003(talk) 07:24, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, comparing coaches to players that were cut after preseason makes zero sense. Also, baseball is clearly different because of the major and minor leagues.►Chris Nelson 07:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, here's a better example then. Say Brett Favre was traded to the Texans. But during preseason, he retired, broke a leg, was released, or whatnot. He never played an official game with the team, meaning the regular season and was never on their regular season roster, so why should that player be added to a category for players who played for them? He never did. Ksy92003(talk) 07:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Because the preseason IS playing, and there is NO rule for these categories stating it must be REGULAR SEASON play. I would be able to produce pictures and all other kinds of evidence showing Favre played for the Texans that preseason. And preseason or not, it is still a real live NFL game with the same rules, the same refs, etc. It's playing. If Favre PLAYED in preseason for Houston, it would be totally factually correct to say he played for them, and the category applies. The problem here is that people are making up rules for the category when they do not exist. You can't definitively say only regular season counts when it comes to these categories - it's simply not established and because of that, Favre would fit the criteria. What you're missing here is that these players FIT the criteria. THAT is why they should have the category.►Chris Nelson 07:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

A preseason game doesn't mean anything. It isn't an official game that counts in the league standings, and players don't get paid for playing in the preseason. Preseason games are like scrimmages as a tune-up before the season gets underway. For other sports, like Baseball's Spring Training and the NHL pre-season, there are a bunch of minor leaguers playing for the ball club as practice to get used to the big-league style of play. Most of those players don't even play with the team that year, let alone in their careers.

And back to the penultimate comment you made, Chris. Why is my comparison invalid? So what if NHL and MLB have minor league systems? That doesn't make any difference. Ksy92003(talk) 07:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's look at one comment you just made: "...players don't get paid for playing in the preseason." First comment - uh, yeah, they do. Players get paid the whole time they are under contract, with the exception of some reserve lists where they lose payment by fault of their own. So wrong there. Second comment - PLAYING. You just used the word PLAYING. As in a PLAYER. That PLAYS. For a TEAM. As in Category:THIS TEAM'S PLAYERS. You just proved, right there, that any such player FITS. THE. CRITERIA. Plain and simple.

Also, I'd like to point out that, by your logic, there is ZERO reason Brady Quinn should have the category Cleveland Browns players. Do you actually believe this should be so at this point in time?►Chris Nelson 07:59, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Chris is correct here. In training camp, rookies make $775 a week. Veterans make $1,100 a week. Also, all players, if they are on the team for the team's offseason conditioning program (roughly March to June), they earn a minimum of $6,720 (for 2007). Pats1 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I would argue that Quinn shouldn't have that category. He hasn't played an official NFL game with the team yet...even an official NFL game period.

That's absurd. Brady Quinn is a member of the Cleveland Browns. Brady Quinn has a parking spot with the Cleveland Browns. Brady Quinn has his own locker with the Cleveland Browns. Brady Quinn is UNDER CONTRACT by the Cleveland Browns. Brady Quinn goes to work for the Cleveland Browns. Brady Quinn is a football player employed by the Cleveland Browns. The category does not read Category:Cleveland Browns who have played in at least one regular season game with the team. It reads Category:Cleveland Browns players. Pats1 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And stop being so rude to me, Chrisjnelson. That's why you were blocked twice in the past three days. Just please stop being rude and uncivil towards me. Ksy92003(talk) 08:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see at all how Chris is being "rude" here. You are again trying to bring unrelated attitudes into this discussion. And, that, my friend, is incivility. Pats1 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sorry you feel my behavior is rude and uncivil, although I completely disagree. I'm just trying to help you understand that you're wrong. Fortunately, almost everyone would disagree with you on the Brady Quinn thing so I'm glad you're not in charge. And preseason games are GAMES no matter how little they matter. They are real games. Not scrimmages, but games. They have NFL.com game books. See? Real live NFL games. Teams. Players. Uniforms. Referees. Coin tosses. Play clocks. Rules, etc. They are games. Therefore if somebody plays in one, they have played for that team. This is not complicated.►Chris Nelson 08:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not gonna talk to you about this anymore. You gave your reason, I gave mine, that's all that needs to be done. You've already said that you don't even want to talk to me ever again, and I don't want to talk to you ever again because of your constant incivility towards me; it's creating a very hostile environment and is disrupting my editing pattern always being put down by people like you.

There is nothing hostile about this discussion. Whatever assumptions or attitudes you may have towards Chris should pay no part in this discussion. Leave it out, as Chris has been doing. Pats1 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And if you're "not going to talk about this anymore," what is the point of entering into this discussion? This discussion is designed to find a consensus as to [the issue at hand]. So ending discussion when there's disagreement is utterly pointless. Pats1 20:12, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You revealing my name, which I still feel was intentional, has made it harder for me to edit. I don't reveal my name for personal reasons, and I felt that you took that privacy away from me. You've also called me a Nazi, admitted to me that you lied to me, and have created such a hostile environment. And yet you still continue to act incivily towards me with your comments.

Fantastic. Take it to usertalks, or preferably, AIM, where it belongs. But don't go whining about it here, because nobody cares. We're here to discuss the NFL project, not what goes on in totally private and unrelated settings. Pats1 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

With all that you've done to me, you're pretty lucky that I haven't even tried to take any action against you; when you revealed my name at the ANI board and at B's talk page, I didn't react negatively at all. I didn't report you or anything. I didn't report you when I thought you called me a Nazi, I didn't report you for behaving incivily towards me. You're lucky that I haven't done anything against you despite all that you've done to me, and I thought that when you returned from your recent block that you'd keep your distance from me and stop your incivility towards me. But you're still making remarks directed towards me which I find incivil.

Fantastic. Go report it on an admin's noticeboard. But this isn't the place to report it. The title of this page is "Wikipedia talk:Wikiproject Natioanl Football League." Does that sound like the place to be discussing this sort of stuff? No. Pats1 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as the rules of the project and whatnot, everybody interprets everything differently. You have your opinion, I have my opinion. I never said my opinion was right or that your opinion was wrong, yet you come at me and say "This is not complicated" and "I'm glad you're not in charge," which was quite rude and offensive to me because of the context of those two statements. As far as the Brady Quinn thing goes, if everybody else disagrees with me about that, then let them tell me, don't speak for them. They have brains and if they disagree, then they are perfectly capable of doing so themselves.

And stonewalling isn't going to do anything to find a resolution. But everyone's opinion is equal here, so disregarding one and overwhelming accepting another isn't in-tune with WP:CON. Pats1 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, I never said my opinion was 100% right or that yours was wrong at all. So to say that I have no idea what I'm talking about (paraphrasing) is quite insulting when I haven't even said that you're wrong. Ksy92003(talk) 08:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

First of all, I do not consider our past history relevant here and this is not the place to flood your personal problems on. Do that on my talk page if you wish, but nobody here cares and I think it's inconsiderate to waste space here toward discussion not connected to relevant topics.

Secondly, I do not consider this a matter of opinion. It is a FACT that players I have previously discussed meet the criteria for these categories - if you want to deny it or change/specify the category's meaning, that's another issue. But until you do, players like Brady Quinn meet the criteria for Cleveland Browns players and the same goes for all similar cases (draft picks, UDFAs, free agent signings). I have proven myself right on this matter, and if you do not see it then there's nothing more I can do.►Chris Nelson 08:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I think a straw poll would be in order sometime in the near future. I would like to see Yankees10 and jmfangio enter the discussion though, so we can come to some sort of an agreement, not just keep entering into edit wars on pages like Patrick Pass and Jonathan Smith. Pats1 20:14, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

And by the way, Chris and I have agreed one what we'd like to see the infobox/cat system to look like. We'd be glad to present our proposal once more opinions are entered. Pats1 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken, so far Chris Nelson and Pats1 are losing this discussion--Yankees10 23:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? So what's the score? Pats1 23:21, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You and Chris are the only 2 that seems to like this idea, yes there hasnt been many people to respond but before people do you and him are the only 2 while me, Ksy92003, and Jmfangio‎ dont like the idea about the categories--Yankees10 23:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Pats1 seems to think it is a good idea to have 07 in the infobox, despite being cut by the team, for example he has Vinny Testaverde 2006-2007, he was cut before the 2007 season, and I think it is going overboard with having that in the infobox.--Yankees10 23:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was pointed to this discussion but i will not reappear any time soon. My thoughts on this can be found on Talk:Patrick Pass article but plain and simple: The answer to the question is No with one comment: Practice squads are entirely acceptable as well as people who were on the practice squads are identified by the nfl stat books. In short, if a player was on the active roster during the season (even if that means PUP or the practice squad) - then they belong in the category. If the were not, then they should not be included.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

What about the simple fact that players, such as Pass, meet the current criteria for the category? Also, I have a question, if you'll indulge me - Let's say a free agent signed with a new team in 2007. He was on PUP for the first six weeks of the season, then was placed on IR because he was not healthy enough to return. Then he's cut in the 2008 offseason. Does he deserve a category? Now, let's say a guy spend the entire 2007 season, his first since college, on a team's practice squad. He goes elsewhere in 08. Does he have his old team's category in your opinion?►Chris Nelson 23:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

As a clarification, in both cases I meant should the category be there after he has moved on. Keep in mind this is traditionally used as an "all-time" sort of category.►Chris Nelson 23:44, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Using those two scenarios, Chris, I would still say that the player does not have those categories. Ksy92003(talk) 23:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

yes they should have the category if they were injured because they still were on the team and they were still on the team if they were on the practice squad, they didnt get cut at any time.--Yankees10 00:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well as you can see, we even have some disagreements on "that side" of the argument so we are far from finished. What if a practice squad player is picked up after the preseason from another team? You think a guy signed to the practice squad today (having spent preseason with another team) should have the category if he remains there the whole year?►Chris Nelson 00:08, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay. I pretty much know your views on it though - regular season play only. I'm interested to see what Juan has to say, since from his previous post it sounds like he things the PUP one should not have it, but the PS one should. I'm attempting to establish if I have him right or not.►Chris Nelson 23:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Continued discussion

Collapsed discussion

With respect to the outstanding comments by Chrisjnelson, who is not able to comment on this discussion at this time: Where do we stand on this? Can we resolve this matter without having to bring in WP:DR. JmFangio| ►Chat  03:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I dont know where we stand either, Pats1 hasnt responded in a long time--Yankees10 22:27, 6 September 2007 (UTC) I don't know, where do we stand? I'd like Chris to be able to chime in...so we're going to have to wait a week, thanks to some things that won't be discussed here... Pats1 22:39, 6 September 2007 (UTC) Pats1 - unfortunately, we cannot hold up something because one user is unavailable to edit. We can however, establish what he believes to be the correct way. This is about establishing consensus and having polite discussion. JmFangio| ►Chat  04:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Right now, irregardless of Chris' editing availability at this time, I don't think we should do anything. This discussion has only involved five users, and I don't feel that five people is enough for a consensus, even if we all agreed with each other. With all due respect to Chrisjnelson, this discussion should include a much larger total of users before we establish consensus, and one user's opinions at this time aren't that significant without a large turnout, and by that, I mean since we only have five people, all of whom know each other, we already know what our opinions are, but that isn't enough to give consensus. In other words, at this time I don't think we should do anything. But not because Chris is unable to give any input on the subject, rather because we don't have enough opinions to reach consensus in any direction, in my opinion. Ksy92003(talk) 04:36, 7 September 2007 (UTC) You are spot on. Some more input would be helpful here. JmFangio| ►Chat  05:14, 7 September 2007 (UTC) OK, I stayed out of the above discussion because it diverged way off the path. Now that we are back on track, here are my thoughts: the line for who is and is not categorized has to be made somewhere: either by the contract criteria or the sports almanac criteria. Otherwise, a case can be made for Eli Manning to be listed in Category:San Diego Chargers players and John Elway with Category:Baltimore Colts players (although not contracted to those teams, each was still part of the organization ever so briefly). Preseason is a tryout; players have contracts during the tryout for collective bargaining and other specific reasons. Training camp scrimmages are tryouts as well, and a contracted player who does not play in a preseason game would be listed in the category under that narrow interpretation (i.e., Maurice Clarett is not listed in Category:Denver Broncos players). The simplest way to categorize should be the teams listed in the player infobox. Statistically, players are counted as being a team member when they make an active roster (or reserve lists). I think that is the way we should steer the categorization.—Twigboy 14:17, 7 September 2007 (UTC) Preseason isn't a "tryout." Teams "tryout" players all the time (for example, the Pats tried out 5 players this week, but didn't sign any) -- only a few of them are actually signed. So these players aren't really "tryout" players. Pats1 20:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC) How about a qualification period instead. For new players it is a trial to see if you qualify to be a member of the team. Players who do not qualify to play a regular season game, IMHO, would not be categorized, just as they would not be listed as such in the infobox.—Twigboy 03:04, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I agree with Twigboy's take. I have read all the arguments above and don't really wish to get into a lengthy debate, but that's my opinion. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 03:08, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Yes, the qualification can be "being under contract with a team." Pats1 12:50, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Just as a side note, User:Jmfangio has been banned indefinitely. Pats1 14:52, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Ok that doesnt mean that his thoughts dont count--Yankees10 15:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) It doesn't look like he'll be coming back anytime soon, so no. Pats1 16:05, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Well that doesnt mean you can just discount his ideas--Yankees10 16:41, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Yes it does. He is not welcome at Wikipedia anymore, so his thoughts aren't either. He won't be engaging in this discussion again, so whatever he said doesn't matter in any decision that is made henceforth. Pats1 16:43, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Who the hell made it your decision, you just are trying for anything because no one is agreeing with your ideas, I want to see what other people think, unless you show me evidence that if you are blocked for a long time that your ideas are discounted, then I dont agree with it--Yankees10 16:55, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I believe that when the season starts and the player is on the team, they should have a category stating that he was a player for that team. I think that there should be a new category created like Category:Philadelphia Eagles offseason players for those players who played during the pre-season and/or pratice-squad. Thanks --Phbasketball6 17:34, 8 September 2007 (UTC) That's not a bad idea... Pats1 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I think that Phbasketball6 has come up with a great idea.--Yankees10 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I also do not like the idea of having Vinny Testaverde as a Patriot from 2006 to 2007 in the infobox, because it created confussion that he might have played a game in the regular season for the Patriots. --Phbasketball6 17:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC) That is fixed by the new infobox and a notation at the bottom. See Kyle Eckel as an example. Pats1 18:00, 8 September 2007 (UTC) That's going overboard--Yankees10 18:57, 8 September 2007 (UTC) It's the most accurate. And I really don't think it's that complicated. Pats1 19:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC) It's just ridiculous, its not needed, who cares they played during the offseason for the team, especially for a player like Vinny Testerverde--Yankees10 19:46, 8 September 2007 (UTC) So in other words, you want to settle for the less-accurate alternative because "no one cares" about what actually occurred? That's not how Wikipedia works. Pats1 02:58, 9 September 2007 (UTC) By the way, Chrisjnelson has been unblocked but won't be able to contribute to this discussion for a few weeks while he's essentially on probation. Pats1 18:12, 8 September 2007 (UTC) Hi, I've been asked to come here and explain something. A checkuser recently identified Jmfangio as the reincarnation of a community banned editor who used to disrupt baseball articles. As one of the sysops who investigated this matter, I'll point out that blocking policy allows blanking the posts of any editor who violates WP:SOCK during a block or a ban. So weigh Jm's arguments if you think they have merit, bearing in mind that any editor in good standing could remove those statements from this page. DurovaCharge! 18:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC) I didn't read the discussion save for the first few responses, but should anyone want my two cents, I think that a player who was under any sort of contract with a team should be listed in that team's "players" category. To not list them would be ridiculous. Ken Dorsey hasn't taken a single snap in the regular season for the Browns, but he's been on their roster for two years now. Not listing him in that category wouldn't make any sense at all, as you'd basically be saying he was never a member of the Browns. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I'd also like to add that there's probably been dozens if not hundreds of players who never actually "played" in a game but who spent seasons with certain teams. Now I'm not going to look for examples, but if this was the case for a player, it wouldn't make any sense in the world not to list him under that team's "players" category. As said before, it'd be like claiming they never played for that team because they never appeared in the regular season. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:40, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I still think Phbasketball6s idea is the best having the offseason in the category, for example category:Philadelphia Eagles offeseason players--Yankees10 23:53, 19 September 2007 (UTC) I don't know if adding more categories is a reasonable solution to this. We've already enough categories, and is it going to help to just continue to add more categories just because some articles are excluded? I mean in sports, nobody gets remembered as a player who played with a team during the offseason. Players gain notability for setting regular season records, but not for setting preseason records. It just seems illogical to create more categories just because some people are excluded from others. Ksy92003(talk) 00:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC) I have seen players signed to a team, yet never play a down and get cut the next week, do they meet the requirements? They signed a contract and stood on the sidelines, but did not play a down.Terry A. Chapman, B.S.W. 05:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC) I know this example isn't football, yet it is relative. Troy Percival signed a one-day contract with the Angels on April 2 so he could retire with the team (he eventually came out of retirement and is currently with the Cardinals). I know there have been some cases of football players signing one-day contracts to retire with a certain team, as well. Now, he signed the contract, but does that mean he played for the Angels in 2007? No. He didn't play with them that year, so he can't possibly be a player for that year. Ksy92003(talk) 21:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC) That's a ridiculous example and you know it. The players we're talking about - [[Patrick Pass], for example, signed at least 1-year contracts. That is the norm in the NFL. Those 1-day contracts aren't even "official" by any means, just symbolic. Percival had no prospect of actually playing for the team and was never a "member" of the team during the "duration" of his contract - I'm sure he didn't attend team meetings or work out that day. But the players we're talking about did and actually had a prospect of making the team come the regular season. Pats1 T/C 21:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC) The only difference between a one-day contract and a one-year contract is the length. A contract is a contract, and official, all the same. What do you mean my example is ridiculous? It's no less valid than yours is. Can I say yours is "ridiculous?" Ksy92003(talk) 21:21, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Man o man is this getting ridiculous. I think it should be like it is right now. Example:Category:Tampa Bay Buccaneers players. Do we need to have Jay Fiedler in a category like Category:Tampa Bay Buccaneers off-season players? No. I doubt anyone gives a damn Jay Fiedler was with the Bucs for a few months between February and July. Now, if he played in the pre-season, that's a different story. But if they were members of the team from February thru July, they do not deserve to be recognized as members of that team in categories. Only in the infoboxes should they be recognized. Category? No Soxrock 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Pats1 keeps putting in the infobox that Josh Miller was on the team in 2007, who cares that he was cut before the season, put it in the article not in the infobox, and he is also very controlling over players that have or are currently playing for the Pats.--Yankees10 03:51, 25 September 2007 (UTC) I'm "controlling over" them because they happen to be on my watchlist from when they were on the Pats. And really, I don't understand what point you are trying to make with "who cares." I think the better option would be "I don't care." Again, this whole dispute isn't very complicated. The more accurate version of the team history is the one that shows Josh Miller was on the Patriots for a portion of the 2007 NFL season (March 2007-February 2008). The footnote is simply added for clarity. And I don't see how you can argue that the more accurate version isn't that which shows Miller on the Patriots in 2007, as he happened to be from the beginning of the league year to late August. You're simply trying to make that stint disappear from history for the sake of, what? Having the infobox be simpler yet less accurate? Pats1 T/C 01:06, 26 September 2007 (UTC) It does not have to be in the infobox, it is just unnecessary, just put it in the article,and im not trying to make it disappear that he was on the team in 2007, just write it in the god damn article that he was cut--Yankees10 01:24, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Again, why not both? Why settle for less accurate information in the infobox? I'm puzzled. Pats1 T/C 01:27, 26 September 2007 (UTC) This discussion is beginning to drift away. The whole issue is whether or not we should have categories. Whether they should be mentioned in the infobox or not is another thing; I believe we already have a standard for that: listing the team, followed by an asterisk (*) and making a note of it. Let's please keep this discussion about the categories. Ksy92003(talk) 01:28, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Well both things arose from basically the same edits -- I was retaining the category and infobox team history for a player cut before the regular season, while Yankees10 was removing the category and the team history from the infobox. So they're really the same issue. As far as having a standard, that's what I thought previously, until this latest dispute on Josh Miller. But I think if you're going to have one you certainly should have the other. Pats1 T/C 01:31, 26 September 2007 (UTC) While they are about the same issue, I think those are two separate issues. One, the infobox, is something which we already have a reasonable, non-disputed solution. Let's just deal with the category issue, for now, and if there are any problems with the infobox, we can deal with that after. Baby steps. You gotta learn how to not be afraid of water before learning how to swim. Take care of one issue before scooting on to another. Ksy92003(talk) 01:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC) But, you see, we don't have a reason, non-disputed solution to the infobox, hence the posting by Yankees10 above. So, yes, I agree, we should tackle one than another. But at this point it appears the infobox issue (or non-issue as I have seen it) is most prevalent. Pats1 T/C 01:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC) I really dont know what to say about this situation anymore, I have already explained all my ideas--Yankees10 01:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Alright, it's very hard to navigate throughout this discussion because of the comments which have steered far too much off course. So... let's begin again. What should we do about the categories for players who didn't play a regular-season NFL game? Ksy92003(talk) 01:51, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep (add) them. The players were under contract for that team and were members of the organization for a certain period of time, be it the offseason, training camp, preseason, playoffs, etc. The regular season is simply 1/4 of the league year. Pats1 ^T/C 01:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Keep the categories and the note in the infobox that says they were only offseason/practice squad players. In the long discussion above, Ksy92003 mentioned that players are notable for regular season records, not preseason records. I would argue that being under contact at all to an NFL team is notable - just making a roster is an achievement. --Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 06:01, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Mind that, just by looking at the category, the list of players in the category, if a player didn't play an NFL game with that team, you wouldn't know it unless you went to the article. So just that alone wouldn't let somebody know if they played an NFL game or not just by looking at the list of players in the category. I think this is where you were going with this, Niceguyedc, and hopefully this helps. Ksy92003(talk) 07:00, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I don't know that it makes a difference in this case. I was thinking more of the player's page itself. Looking at the category page would give no indication whether the player was only on the practice squad or not, but I don't think the category page is for that. My take is that the category is for anyone who was on the team roster at some point. The category page doesn't show any other information about the players, so I can't know whether a player played one game for a team or 200. Putting a player in a team's category would link the player to that team because the player was on it at some point, regardless of anything that happened while the player was on the team. Going to the player's page would let me know what happened while the player was on that team. --Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!} 07:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. And I'm looking at this on the simplest level. The category is titled "Team X players." Was a player who was on that team's practice squad, or under contract by the team in the preseason/camp/etc. a member of the team? Was he ever a "Patriot/Texan/Jet/etc.?" Of course. I don't know what else he was. Pats1 ^T/C 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I wont be responding till tomorrow, just to let everyone know.--Yankees10 01:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Heck, that's fine with us. Just give your opinion then. Ksy92003(talk) 01:55, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

am I aloud to respond even though i am a ag address, or whatever it is, because if i am than i think it is dumb to have the categories if they didnt play a game for the team to have the category--75.82.16.153 04:04, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you are allowed to respond. Pleas elaborate though. Pats1 ^T/C 11:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way it is a IP address not AG address, anyways I dont really know what else to say about the categories thing I just think its dumb to have them if they didn't play during the regular season for the team-Yankees10 23:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

And now Yankees10 has continued with his reverting of infoboxes using accurate team histories, even those with the special notation Chris has been adding. When I reverted his change, Yankees10 proceeded to tell me that "no one agrees with your idea, so just stop, all the other players released before the 07 season dont have that". Pats1 ^T/C 01:11, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

first of all I havent gotten rid of the notation in about a month and a half, since I know agree with the idea that it should be there, check my edits if you dont believe me, and Pats1 check all the other players that were relesed right before the 2007 season it doesnt say they were on the team, it is only there if they never played for the team before the 07 offseason--Yankees10 01:48, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian Football League

The above project hasn't yet really gotten started. Any members of this project who might be interested would be very welcome to help this project get off the ground. Thank you. John Carter 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Question regarding scores

I noticed someone changed the scores I'd posted on the 2007 Cleveland Browns season article with the reasoning that the Browns' score should come before the opponents' score; however, this wasn't done with uniformity, as the editor didn't change all the scores so the Browns' score came first. I've ALWAYS been under the understanding that the visiting team's score comes first, regardless who wins the game. Therefore, if the Patriots are at home and they beat the Browns 34-33, the score will read 33-34, because the Browns are the visiting team. I could be wrong, but I've always been under that assumption. It's just like in baseball: the Indians beat the Tigers 6-5, but the score reads 5-6 because the Tigers were the visiting team. Everyone's going to say "they won six to five," but the official scorers are going to put 5-6. So I think someone needs to clarify this. Really though, I think it's going to be one of those things where it can go either way. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 07:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, if you look at articles in the newspaper they will list the score example:

    The Cincinnati Bengals lost their game with cross state rivals the Cleveland Browns 45-51.

Here is where you are mistaken, if the article is about the winning team it would be listed the as follows: example:

    The Cleveland Browns beat cross state rivals the Cincinnati Bengals 51-45.

That is the best way to do this, I think?Terry A. Chapman, B.S.W. 05:21, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

In my limited experience as a journalist (junior in college), the proper way to write out a score is highest lowest. The Bengals lost to the Browns 51-45. The Browns beat the Bengals 51-45.►Chris Nelson 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Visiting-score first is only appropriate in box scores and certain tables. In prose, it is always high–low.—Twigboy 13:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that is what I was thinking.►Chris Nelson 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

What about season tables, such as Chicago Bears seasons? Also note, when watching ESPN or other sport broadcasting, when mentioning scores, they always say high-low. It seems like a reasonable convention here too. KyuuA4 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I've seen it both ways, but at least we got consensus without a huge debate. We'll go high-low. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 04:00, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

In every case I can think of with exception of certain box scores, the higher score always goes first, followed by the indication of a win or loss. Neither way is right, per se, but I've usually seen it as the highest total first. Ksy92003(talk) 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I follow football like a religion and the scores are almost always high-low regardless of how the sentence is written out. Useight 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Template broken?

I have checked several articles that use this template and have noticed that the draft info is not showing. If you go into edit, you find the info IS there. Has anyone else noticed this? --JustAGal 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it seems that someone broke the template. I reverted it back to a previous version. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be broken again :-( --JustAGal 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Template split?

What exactly was the rationale behind splitting the player template into active and retired? Looking at both, I'm not seeing what couldn't be accomplished in the same template, e.g. Template:Infobox musical artist which can cover opera to grunge bands to solo artists. The Deions and Keyshawns get cut and go into the booth but are certainly capable of being lured back at any time. Morten Andersen was just taken out of cold storage by the Falcons, so his infobox would have to be flipped then then likely flipped back at the end of the season when he likely retired for good. What do we do with Vick's current situation? Just seems like this split creates a lot more issues than it solves, as things will get quickly out of date. Tarc 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

According to the New Template Help section above, a user was being bold after a discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFL player#Height and weight revisited. And yes, you may be right that "this split creates a lot more issues than it solves" since it became one of disputed, edit warring pages in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As a further motivator, consider the salary cap driven trend of players being cut and signed elsewhere, injury driven needs for teams to pull in help, etc. My personal bet is someone will sign Corey Dillon by mid-season, and so forth. Every team, in short, has "transactions" through the season, even if the major impact is on the practice squads. It's unlikely with the various teams having QB problems that Vinny Testaverde will also stay off someone's roster, as he's willing to re-enter the trenches, and at the least, would help as a mentor for young bucks being trained up. In short, combining the templates makes much sense, and an entry parameter is sufficient to separate the active from the inactive or retired, et al. // FrankB 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

FYI--Templates of increased flexibility

re:

1) this change allows backlinks to previous season from team articles with minimal added clutter. Suggest adding the optional 300px width as this example shows, so infobox and the link boxes are the same sizes.

2) Added back and forward links to the season header box, so one can proceed season to season w/o bother. The next link will NOT show when the current year is the season article, until the current year is the next year. That can be fudged and revised (an override parameter overriding the disabling logic), but this seemed the best general solution. The links all work off of the parameter 'year=' and calculate the other article names, so no article changes are needed.

TOC suggestion

3) I think Template:Infobox NFL_season(edit talk links history) would benefit the appearance of all "season's" articles I've seen if the TOC is added at the bottom of this template ala {{TOCright}} or {{TOCnestright}}.

reasoning:

a) these articles tend to have a lot of sections and subsections generating a lengthy TOC

b) Big gaps of whitespace are ugly

c) Page and article type are unlikely to have much in the way of pictures with "free content" goal of foundation, so the lack of pics in these articles allows standardizing the TOC in such a position, with the aforementioned benefit of looking better.

d) Embedding the TOC in the table structure of the infobox will prevent some of the page rendering problems experienced otherwise in wikimarkup. See links for Template:FixHTML(edit talk links history) for such examples, but this is a good place for said technique as the first option.

e) An inhibit parameter can be added to handle the few cases where it's not a good idea.

Cheers // FrankB 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Adrian Peterson

Hi all, I've cleaned up the Adrian L. Peterson article and I feel it is close to being nominated for WP:GA. I'm looking for some reviewers to go over it and leave comments or make edits in order to get this article ready. Thank you! RyguyMN 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

New Infobox?

Should we vote on a new infobox, like favor the Template:Infobox NFLactive instead of the Template:Infobox NFL player? Thanks--Phbasketball6 21:12, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox NFLactive-it is better looking and takes up less space, and everyone has agreed that is the better one--Yankees10 23:18, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

NFL player for ease and simplicity. This split template idea is a bad idea, for resasons outlined earlier. Tarc 00:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The new infobox may not be totally complete, but it is already far superior to the old one and, in addition, I would say more aesthetic and organized as well. We're not letting it go anywhere for the good of Wikipedia.►Chris Nelson 01:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Pats1 ^T/C 02:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about aesthetic and organization for the purposes of this discussion; anything of that nature can be adapted and incorporated into any template at any time. What I am against is separate templates for active and retired players. Tarc 02:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Except that is not what is being discussed.►Chris Nelson 02:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing which template is better, and I gave my reasons as to why the "active" one isn't it. What are you complaining about? Tarc 14:32, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

We're discussing NFLactive vs. NFL player, not active vs. NFLretired.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, I wasn't discussing active vs. retired. Let me make this real simple for you;

support - Template:Infobox NFL player.

oppose - Template:Infobox NFLactive (and by extension Template:Infobox NFLretired. Tarc 15:04, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox NFLactive but I agree with Tarc, I want the NFL active but I think the NFL active infobox should be used for active and players of the past. Thanks--Phbasketball6 02:33, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, even though I agree with Tarc, Chris is right. Thanks--Phbasketball6 02:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Yea, Tarc before you were not clear at all, i take back what I said earlier. Thanks--Phbasketball6 15:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

no new infobox, the one is good--75.82.16.153 03:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I really can't understand how someone could say the old template is better than the new one.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:52, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to turn everybody's attention to Wikipedia:Polling is not a substitute for discussion.

Right now, this doesn't seem to be like any sort of discussion, rather people just saying which they like. Ksy92003(talk) 05:49, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

What decides the conference?

Well I don't know if this is the right place, but as it is the NFL Wikiproject someone here would probably know. I've wondered for some time now why in both the NFL and MLB the teams are divided into National and American conferences/leagues, as appose to the NHL and the NBA which has West and East (right?). I get that the old teams from before the merge between the two leagues are in that conference (if they are). But what about new teams (or haven't there been any new teams since the merge? in either the NFL or MLB?) Chandlertalk 01:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

For the NFL, see AFL-NFL merger. KyuuA4 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine the alignment is up to the league. I skimmed Seattle Seahawks and it made it sound like the league moved them to the AFC in 1976 and back to the NFC in 2002. I'd check at the articles for affected teams, you might find clues there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The AL and NL existed as two independent leagues, as did the NFC and AFL did prior to 1970, so that pre-established a coast-to-coast roster of teams in each league. While a Western/Eastern split makes sense for travel arrangements of the NBA and NHL, but does not for the NFL when there is one game per week (I'll let baseball defend itself). Consider an NFL-East and NFL-West arrangement, whereby all of the East Coast teams play at 1:00 Eastern time and all of the Western teams play at 4:00 Eastern. The Sunday broadcasts become regionalized, and less palatable for national audiences (not to mention a Giants/Jets time conflict). Now ... to move this discussion to article-related business (which is what this page is for): What I just laid out, if it can be sourced, seems to be something that the conference/NFL articles lack. If we can find something, this should be included.—Twigboy 04:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

TV scheduling can be mentioned in the main NFL article. KyuuA4 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Proposed player, coach, etc. biography project

There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#North American football players for a group which would work specifically on articles relating to biographies of individual players, coaches, and other related individuals. Any parties interested in working with such a group are encouraged to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Thank you. John Carter 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

NFL owner infobox

Should we create an infobox for NFL owners? I have been using {{Infobox_Person}} for the owner's infobox's, which is generic. --Pinkkeith 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Redskins-Cowboys

Also, does anyone know where I could find a free use image (other other acceptable image) for the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry? Really needs one. Jwalte04 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

List of Washington Redskins players

Just wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions, comments, criticisms, for my List of Washington Redskins players page and List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks. I'm trying to get them up-to-par with other player lists from different sports and maybe to Featured List status. I have added them to the peer review page, but thought that I would go more local in the help. So if you have any advice, write something on my talk page, the talk page for the articles themselves, or feel free to change them yourself! Thanks again, Jwalte04 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

One more thing, also looking for help on the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry article.

Remove the redlinks in the list of draft picks by creating stubs on the redlinked players. Dabomb87 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

New admin

Congratulations to Pats1, who is now an admin. youngamerican (wtf?) 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

State flags in infoboxes

It has been called to my attention by Yankees10 (talk · contribs) that there are several articles in which the player infoboxes contain the flags of the state the player was born in. See Corey Simon, Walter Payton, Jim Kelly, or Barry Sanders for an example. Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs), in an edit to Corey Simon, said that he read somewhere that flags were not supposed to be used in this manner. Is there a Wikipedia policy that says not to use flags this way, or is there somewhere on the project that says not to use flags in the infobox in this way? Ksy92003(talk) 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually I may be wrong, because that was for country flags. The policy said it implied citizenship, which may cause confusion for athletes born on army bases overseas. State flags seem fine unless there is a policy that says otherwise.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Okay. However, I do feel that it is unnecessary to add the state flags. I didn't say they are bad, just not needed. My reasoning for this is because I don't feel they really contribute. If you look at the infobox, and it says "Long Beach, California" I don't think that having the California flag in front of that is absolutely necessary. It's nearly impossible for me to explain this in a way that even I understand, but at least for me, state flags don't tell me what the state is. California's and Alaska's flag are the only ones I could identify if you gave me all 50 of them. While I know that my lack of flag knowledge doesn't relate to everybody, I don't think the flags need to be there because I don't think they contribute to the reader's understanding of where they are from. But I don't know if there is any policy that forbids this. Ksy92003(talk) 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm either way with this I like the flags, but wouldnt care if they werent used anymore--Yankees10 22:29, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Personally, I don't like the flags in there, but that's not what matters. It isn't about whether we like it or not. It's whether or not they need to be there and if they actually help. Ksy92003(talk) 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. I actually like the flags, but they aren't really helpful for an international encyclopedia with a global scope. They'd be pretty rad for something for a North American audience, but a flag of a political subdivision doesn't do much for the usefulness of the articles. youngamerican (wtf?) 13:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Also remember that a lot of the people who use Wikipedia are overseas, in England, and such... granted, they probably wouldn't look at an article for American football because they wouldn't have much need to look for those types of articles, but we need to consider that there are gonna be a lot of people looking at the articles, and for some of them, especially those outside North America, they'd be like "What kind of flag is that?" They've probably never seen our state flags before and might get confused. Ksy92003(talk) 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I dislike even the country flags, because I feel it adds un-needed clutter. I even further dislike the state flags that we're talking about here, because most people don't even recognize them, and as Ksy92003 pointed out, they would likely be especially useless to wikiepedia users from overseas. Bjewiki (Talk) 11:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

New NFL Championship Navigation box?

-Alright guys, I was bored on night and I decided to play around with the Pre-Super Bowl and Super Bowl infoboxes and decided to make a mock one where both of them are merged since I mean it is the same league pre and post Super Bowl era. Here is a sample of it and give me the feedback. No action will be taken until everyone agrees upon this even though I kind of added it to the Pre-Super Bowl articles already but those are needed of work anyway.

Comments please..and thank you. --Happyman22 03:57, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Happyman22, I like the work you've done here! The only addition would be to fill in some of the blue/purple shade at the bottom left with some text. It just looks bare down there in my opinion. Take care. RyguyMN 03:53, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Updated version

What do you think? Can we apply it and get rid of the two current championship boxes and replace it with this one? --Happyman22 (talk) 05:11, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Another thing? Rosy color or just the normal standard color? --Happyman22 (talk) 05:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

My suggestions:

• I think the footnotes can be deleted. I think it might break the "references" of each article it's placed in, or get some nonsense number. Anyway, this is a navigational box; those details can be found at the article.
• As for the season/year note, if you must keep it, keep it short and discreet, such as {{Academy Awards}}.
• Super Bowls I-IV do not require the special treatment they are given here, because it is confusing to the reader. (The full context is available in those articles.) They should be folded into the Super Bowl list, even if half of them were retroactively named.
• The year ranges in the "group" (pink) area are redundant as they match the information to its right.
• And while I'm there ... pink?!!
• AFL Championship games are all in the same article. Suggest a bolded (AFL Championship games, 1960-1969) follow 1969 in the NFL Championship Game section
• Suggest putting games of the same decade within a {{nowrap}}. This will keep them grouped on one line; although the longest line might need to be broken in half:

1990 (XXV) • 1991 (XXVI) • 1992 (XXVII) • 1993 (XXVIII) • 1994 (XXIX) • 1995 (XXX) • 1996 (XXXI) • 1997 (XXXII) • 1998 (XXXIII) • 1999 (XXXIV).

• Otherwise, a pretty solid job. —Twigboy (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

high school and college years

Many of the player pages have sections on when the player was in high school and/or in college. Many of these are calling them careers. Webster calls a career "a chosen profession or occupation". I just feel that being in high school or college isn't an occupation or a profession. To me it is an educational time to get an occupation. Should we call these "years" instead of "careers"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkkeith (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

• I don't think so. It is a common term in the world of sports. It is very common to say things like "[player] rushed for 3,000 yards in their college career". Wester is just incomplete in terms of covering how the word is used. Johntex\^talk 19:58, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Rams logo

The Rams logo was deleted a while ago. Could some kind person please put one back up. Everytime I always post an image it always seems to get deleted for one reason or another. I never know what they are looking for. Thanks, I appreciate it. --Pinkkeith 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Quick Clarification

Is there a general consensus about what constitutes having "been a member of" a team? I've run across several atypical situations and wasn't sure of the consensus. I would think a player becomes a member of a team when he signs a contract with them. But what about those drafted but cut during training camp? or spent one or more seasons on a team's practice squad? or signed by a team and them allocated to NFL Europe for one or more seasons? —xanderer 18:54, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been considering everyone under contract with a team at any time a member of the team. Like when it comes to adding categories and stuff. And since Jmfangio is gone, there really isn't anyone that's cared - at least enough to argue.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Ha! So to give you a more concrete example, would you consider David Kimball to have been a member of the Colts, Giants, Raiders, and the Frankfurt Galaxy? I'm torn. —xanderer 19:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Anyone he was under contract with, in my opinion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:52, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. For instance, Darwin Walker was technically under contract with the Buffalo Bills after he was traded there by the Philadelphia Eagles. However, he was cut before the season. Therefore, I would never expect to see the Bills on his team succession list (although I see that they are). Same for players that were drafted, and then cut before the season. I don't think that they should be considered part of a team for a given year, because they weren't. I think the limit should be if they make the active roster, or are on a reserve list (like IR), or even if they're on the practice squad during the season, then they are "on" the team (IMO). Bjewiki (Talk) 03:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm gonna give my opinion based on something I learned in Government class. Every case is different. For every person, there are certain circumstances which can change the ruling of a court case, such as insanity at the time of the crime due to not taking their medication, or whatnot. Not every example is exactly the same, and all the time there will be new twists that could change everything. The reason I'm applying this to this matter is this: there are countless reasons why somebody would be on the practice squad or under contract and be released from the club in some manner. There are so many different situations that you can't really say that there is one specific way that we should work with these situations. I see this as a case-by-case scenario; we can't really say if they should all have the category or not because every situation is different. Ksy92003(talk) 03:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't plan on acting on a case-by-case basis. I'm adding every team category for every player possible - every one they were ever under contract with. If they were under contract, getting paid and practicing, then were members of that team. Bjewiki's acceptance of practice squad players but not offseason players like Darwin Walker doesn't make much sense. Walker was contractually bound to the Bills. A practice squad player can sign with any team at any time. There are just under 250 practice squad players right now in the NFL that the Dolphins can sign if they feel like it. So to imply that practice squad players are more members of a team than a draft pick cut at the end of camp is a ridiculous notion, and why I put little stock into such inconsistent opinions and ones that clearly haven't been fully though through.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not going to give my specific opinion because I don't care either way. I'm here in this conversation to come to a consensus and help out however I can without giving my personal opinion... partially because I'm not sure myself what my own opinion would be. But I do think that if there is a distinction between practice squad players, training camp, preseason, et cetera, that there should be some regulations as to which would be considered "on the team" and which would get the categories.

So... what would be classified as "playing for the team?" Do they have to play a regular season/postseason game, can they play a preseason game, can they be on the practice squad, or can they be in training camp and then cut before preseason? I don't think there's any debating that a player gets the category if they played a regular season or postseason game, and I don't think you'll find anybody who would disagree with that. This is the second time we had this discussion, and my opinion has changed since then; I don't know when a player gets played outside of the regular season, but I think that a player can be said as playing for a team if they played a game and got paid for it. But what about the other cases? Ksy92003(talk) 03:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

My acceptance of Practice Squad players but not offseason players does make some sense. I think the cutoff should be the regular season. 100 guys spend training camp with the team, should they all be listed as with that team for that season? (The current system of some people having an * just adds clutter to the infox box). Additionally, you won't find sites like (NFL.com, ESPN.com, ProfootballRefernece.com) listing Darwin Walker (for example) with the Bills, because he was never there during the regular season. That's why it's called "making the team" at the end of trainig camp. Those guys who got cut before the regular season did not make the team, and thus should not be listed as part of the team for the given season.

Take a look at Lee Vickers. He was signed as an undrafted free agent by the Steeelrs. Cut before training camp, then signed to the Eagles PS in 2006. In 2007 he was on the Ravens PS, and has now suited up for a game. I'd expect him to be listed with the Eagles & Ravens, just like this [4].

A comparison from another sport would be Allan Houston. He signed a contract with the Knicks to attempt a contract, and lasted 2 weeks in training camp before giving up. So, would you list him as New York Knicks (1996-2005, 2007)? Of course not. Bjewiki (Talk) 10:43, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm still gonna do it this way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

And no, the practice squad thing doesn't make enough sense for me to accept it. You think a guy that makes $80,000 grand a year (a far cry from the league minimum), CANNOT play in games in his current situation and can sign with the team's rival that day should be considered a member of the team? Mmkay.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

As I said, it makes sense to NFL.com [5]. Bjewiki (Talk) 13:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean like this guy, who was released eight days ago but still has Jets colors and the team name? The moral of the story is that NFL.com is not a great source for this kind of thing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

First, most sites will leave players pages up with the team they were with last before the were released (such as [6], [7]). They're just not linked to from anywhere (like a roster page). Probably the only way they can still be found is if you specifically search for them. My guess would be that there's probably some time threshold before NFL.com turns a players page from a specific team to an "All-time" page ([8], [9])

Second, my main point is that the team list for a player should be consistent with what it would be on an easily verifiable NFL site (like NFL.com, ESPN.com, etc). You'll see that none of them list Darwin Walker with the Buffalo Bills in 2007 ([10], [11]), or Kelly Holcomb with the Philadelphia Eagles in 2007 ([12], [13]). Bjewiki (Talk) 18:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Eagles Captains

Is there a list somewhere of Eagles captains? I am working on the Wistert brothers' articles and Al Wistert could use either a navbox or succession box to show his captaincy. In some sports succession boxes or nav boxes are common for captaincies. Is this not kosher for NFL captains?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Championship team templates

This week I am working on the Wistert Brothers. Looking at Al Wistert, I think his article could really benefit from two types of templates. Above you see my query about captaincy templates. He could use 1948 and 1949 championship team templates. Unlike the NBA and MLB or even the NCAA, we have not produced championship teams for the NFL. Is there a reason for this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

A tweaked NFL team infobox?

--As of now this is just a tweak only seen on the Chicago Bears page. It is a small tweak of the current infobox that is currently in use. You can see the code differences at Template:NFL team and Template:NFL team beta. Once again this is just put other there as a proposal and I have added it to the Bears page just because it is not such a radical change. --Happyman22 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the deal on info boxes?

From what is here there is no uniform infobox. Nothing looks like it has been decided. What is the case, as of Mid Novemebr 2007?Howdythere (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

You mean for players? For current players, Template:Infobox NFLactive is the one being used and implemented. If you see guys without it, it's just because it hasn't been added yet. But that's the one most people have by now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Player pages format

I was wondering if we could get a consensus on how player pages ought to be formatted. I see lots of pages that are using different layouts: high school years vs. early years, college years vs. college career, professional career vs NFL career, and so on. I frankly don't really mind what type of layout we want our format to look like, but I do mind after I work on something and it is changed by a different user to a different format. Do you think we should start a discussion on this? --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

You don't say NCAA career, you say College career. Professional career is more fitting than NFL career; it's broader in the event of a move to the CFL or something similar. Take Ricky Williams for instance. If you went with the NFL career heading, you'd have to end that section, create a new one for when he played with the Argonauts, then create a new NFL one now that he's back in the NFL. The way it is, this all fits neatly under Professional career.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you there. Those who played multiple leagues do have "profession career" as their heading. (Jim Thorpe, a featured article, for example) Yet, there are others that don't. (Kurt Warner, Deion Sanders for example). We have a number of people who's only professional athletic career is in the NFL, but are still headed as NFL career rather then professional career. (Good Articles Marcus Allen and Terry Bradshaw for example.) Then there are some that have them listed by team. (Brett Favre for example.) Like I said, I don't mind how it is set up, but I would like to see a consensus on how we do it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Uniforms in NFL team

What Rolando mentioned, I think it's a good idea to add Template:American football uniforms to Template:NFL team. --Louis Alberto Guel 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I would second that idea. I suck at template coding, but I think if someone did that, it would get general support. Some basic ideas... 1) There should be spots for up to 4 different jerseys, as a few teams (Oregon comes to mind) use up to 4 different jerseys in 1 year. Pro teams usually have 3 (throwbacks excluded). 2) It would be nice if we could get helmet logos on the helmets eventually. The Helmet Project is a good starting point for this, but I don't know how well they will scale. 3) It looks like it wouldn't be too hard to work with the soccer unis, or customize them as needed, for the various stripes/color blocks that appear on pants/sleeves/bodies of uniforms.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One more thing. I have been playing with the template. We need to get the numbers color fully customizable. There are some unis with colored numbers on another color, and the current template does not allow this. Also, I am copying these to the template talk page, so people who can fix these issues will.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I edit at Spanish Wikipedia and I've edit all uniforms of the NFL teams. So we could use the same colors and patterns that Spanish Wikipedia use. And I also created and uploaded at Commons socks for teams. I'll show below.

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

--Louis Alberto Guel 12:48, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

This template doesn't seem accurate enough to me. There are a formidable number of subtle nuances in NFL uniforms when it comes to stripes, numerals, colors and patterns. For example: some teams, like the Ravens and the Steelers use atypical typography[14][15] for their uniform numbers. The Bills have a combination of 7 thick and thin stripes on their helmet this year. I just don't think this template cuts it. It's cute, but it will be inaccurate to the point of being useless. If you want a small taste of how subtle the nuances are, just check out the banter at Uni-Watch blog. (Even tiny things, like way the jerseys are assembled are discussed.) —xanderer 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Look, its better to use this than fair use images because of fair use being deleted for anonymous reasons. --Louis Alberto Guel 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

PD to fair use due to logos

Speaking of uniforms...I looked over rationales in several uniforms and noted the PD rationale of one user, when in fact they should be fair use logo, due to logos being used on the uniforms. Someone please change this. Miranda 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

NFL.com stats

I am having trouble using the stats at NFL.com. I have four questions?

1. I am trying to figure out why 1994 NFL kickoff return average leaders does not combine both of Jon Vaughn's teams.
2. I can not seem to figure out how to find a historical yearly team on NFL.com like the 1992 Patriots the way you can at DBF or PFR?
3. Can I find a historical draft year like the 1991 draft on NFL.com?
4. Can I find career leaders for given stats on NFL.com?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 20:57, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if this response is too late to be useful. NFL.com is not a great resource, though it does seem to be getting better all the time. That they're getting better and drastically changing things around so often is part of the problem, though.

1. I think it's just standard practice to give separate stat lines for any player that changes team mid-season. I find it useful.
2. They have team stat totals here, and some more stuff, like individual team leaders, here.
3. Just a few months ago, this is what I was able to find for online draft info. It looks like nfl.com has been redesigned since then, and now cover all the way back to 1936, here. The change probably broke a bunch of our ELs, though.
4. http://www.nfl.com/history/randf

Hope this helps. ×Meegs 20:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Article requests

I am not sure if your project has an article request section but Jack Clancy would be improved if Paul Staroba and Dave Young (American football) were created and Jarrett Irons would be improved if Paul Irons were created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. both of these articles will probably be at WP:DYK this weekend and Clancy will go to WP:GAC thereafter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 06:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Another name to help Clancy would be Rick Norton. For Mercury Hayes both Chris Floyd (American football) and Chris Howard (American football) would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD) 16:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Meadowlands v. Giants Stadium

This has been a point of contention for me on the Patriots season page, and a point of inconsistency in general. The question is this--when listing game locations, what should be listed for Jets home games, "The Meadowlands" or "Giants Stadium"?

I can see the case for those who argue Giants Stadium--since that is the physical location of the game. However, NFL policy states that when the Jets play home games there, it is not called Giants Stadium, but rather The Meadowlands, and I would argue that "verifiability, not truth" makes a better argument for The Meadowlands ("everyone knows" it's Giants Stadium, but verifiable official descriptions of Jets home games say otherwise). [The best analogy I can give is a musical one--the keys of E flat major and D sharp major have the same sound, but you can't look at a piece in E flat and say it's written in D sharp.] The majority of NFL season pages use "The Meadowlands," but this isn't universal (the Patriots page doesn't, and I've seen at least one other that didn't). Samer 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It always irked me how Jim Everett and Troy Aikman used to refer to it as "Meadowlands Stadium" to avoid mentioning the opponent. Try what the NFL may do to appease the Gangreen, "The Meadowlands" could only accurately describe the racetrack or the entire complex of Giants Stadium, the racetrack, and the Whatever-It's-Called-This-Month Arena (or that stinky tract of land around it). Sourced here, it's Giants Stadium. The Jets can take solace in the fact that the New Meadowlands Stadium won't have them feeling like second-class tenants (at least from a naming perspective). I don't quite get the music analogy, but the NFL's "Meadowlands" rationale tends to B-flat.—Twigboy (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Template I Created

Recently I created the Template:NFLStartingRunningbacks and some users think that it shouldnt be a Template due to some teams using more than 1 running back or the starting runningback having less carries than the backups, I just wanted to know what other people thaught about this template--Yankees10 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

1987 Scab player confirmation request

How can I confirm if Garland Rivers was a scab player during the 1987 player strike?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 07:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not having any luck with free online resources. 1987 newspapers is all that I can suggest. ×Meegs 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Season article game notes

#4 Missouri vs. #2 Kansas [box score]

1 2 3 4 Total • Missouri 7 7 14 8 36 Kansas 0 0 7 21 28 Date: 2007-11-24 Location: Arrowhead Stadium, Kansas City, MO Game start: 7:13 PM CST Elapsed time: 3:32 Game attendance: 80,537 Game weather: Fair skies; 33°F; Wind S at 4 mph Referee: Jon Bible

Scoring summary Q1 00:29 MU Martin Rucker 1 yd TD pass from Chase Daniel (Jeff Wolfert kick) MU 7-0 Q2 09:21 MU Dana Alexander 11 yd TD pass from Daniel (Wolfert kick) MU 14-0 Q3 10:36 MU Jimmy Jackson 1 yd TD run (Wolfert kick) MU 21-0 07:21 KU Brandon McAnderson 1 yd TD run (Scott Webb kick) MU 21-7 01:19 MU Derek Washington 3 yd TD pass from Daniel (Wolfert kick) MU 28-7 Q4 13:02 KU Todd Reesing 5 yd TD run (Webb kick) MU 28-14 09:55 MU Wolfert 43 yd field goal MU 31-14 08:28 KU Dexton Fields 10 yd TD pass from Reesing (Webb kick) MU 31-21 03:31 MU Wolfert 43 yd field goal MU 34-21 02:03 KU Marcus Henry 5 yd TD pass from Reesing (Webb kick) MU 34-28 00:12 MU Loren Williams safety MU 36-28

In looking around at the various season articles for pro football, it appears that there is more info being added this year than last. But I think there is a better way to do it than is currently being done. The way the info is being inserted (eg. 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season) tends to break up the text and creates a much longer TOC. This also has the effect of making it appear more like a sports guide rather than an encyclopedia article. I am proposing that a series of templates be used to create a game box similar to that shown at right. (The templates I created to generate this box are {{AFB Game Box Start}}, {{AFB Game Box Scoring Entry}}, and {{AFB Game Box End}}. Most of the fields are optional, and more could be added.) Moving this extra info off to the side would conserve space and allow the text to flow down the left side unbroken. It would make the article more readable (from top to bottom) and promote the creation of text which is more encyclopedic and not dependent on the info provided in the game box. —Mike 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I think the scoring summary could be underneath the box score, although that might cause an adverse section break in a 58-48 game unless you use a {{-}}.—Twigboy (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Green Bay Packers subproject

I just wanted to let everyone know I am trying to get the Green Bay Packers subproject active again. Anyone interested in improving the articles on the Green Bay Packers would be very welcome. I have recently brought the project up to par with other team sub-projects, now we just need to start working on the articles. Thanks and if you have any questions feel free to contact me or ask your question on the subprojects talk page.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Baltimore Colts page

Ok, before this starts to go into edit war, I am asking for a general consensus on what to do with the Baltimore Colts page. Here are the options:

1. Redirect to Indianapolis Colts because, as User:Bobblehead said, said, "primary usage is clearly the team currently located at Indy. Change to point to history article"[16]
2. Redirect to Baltimore Colts (1947-50) because, as User:Louis Alberto Guel said, "readers will look more at AAFC/NFL team than the current one and there are not a lot of articles that are linking to Baltimore Colts that is really talking about the current NFL franchise"[17]
3. Keep it as a disambig page, because, as User:Zzyzx11 said, "based on the revision history of this page, and Google hits, it is best to keep this a dab page"[18]
4. Create a new article on that page describing the Baltimore Colts history from 1953-1984, because, as User:PeteU said on Talk:Indianapolis Colts#Baltimore Colts history?, "for all intents and purposes there are two Colts teams--one that played in Baltimore until March 1984, and one that has played in Indianapolis since March 1984"[19]

Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

How about option 5, redirect to History of the Indianapolis Colts. That way it covers the AAFC and the NFL team. But all in all, IMHO, it should either be a redirect to either the main Indianapolis Colts page or the History of the Colts page, or kept as a disambiguation page. Common usage is by far in favor of the NFL Baltimore Colts and redirecting the name to the AAFC Colts is going to cause confusion among interested parties. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• I favor option three on its own merits, but it also seems to be the option of compromise. I estimate that Baltimore Colts is associated more strongly with the active nfl franchise, but not overwhelmingly enough for a redirect. I think the current disambiguation page is best for the readers as it guarantees that they'll never wind-up at an article about the wrong franchise. It's not terribly important, but keeping the disambiguation page also makes things easier for us, the editors, because it isolates all of the ambiguous incoming links in one place. The decision of splitting the current Colts franchise article in two seems like a completely separate issue, but I'm not crazy about that either. ×Meegs 19:44, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

  Agree. And under the guidelines of Wikipedia:Disambiguation#Primary topic, I disagree that the Baltimore Colts page should point to Baltimore Colts (1947-50), because I find no evidence that team would be commonly searched for and read than the Baltimore Colts from 1953-1984. And to rebuttal this edit summary, of course there are not going to be many articles listed on Special:Whatlinkshere/Baltimore Colts because once a page is marked with {{disambig}}, the template instructs any user that "if an internal link led you here, you may wish to change the link to point directly to the intended article." Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Not to mention I went through and cleaned out the internal links back in August... At the time there were about 500 internal links pointed to that page and I'd say well over 90 percent were for the 1953+ NFL team.[20] --Bobblehead ^(rants) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Option #2: Redirect to Baltimore Colts (1947-50). --Louis Alberto Guel 13:22, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Schedule templates

FYI ... I created some schedule templates similar to what has been used for college football. An example of how they can be used can be found at 2001 Kansas City Chiefs season#Schedule. —Mike 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Naming convention?

I'm not sure this is the right place to raise this issue, but what is the naming convention for biographies relating to American football? My own experience on this subject is that we use the term football for football (soccer), and use the term American football for the game played in the US. Is this correct? If so, should the article Ralph Ricker (football coach) be moved to Ralph Ricker (American football coach)? Aecis^Brievenbus 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Usually it's association football for soccer, but in the case of disambiguation, unless there is another person with the same name in one of the various footballs, there shouldn't be any confusion about which person the article is about. Side note is that Ralph Ricker shouldn't be disambiguated. There isn't anyone else named that that is notable that I can find. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The "coach" part in the disambiguation is unnecessary. (American football) is all the disambiguation necessary. Player, coach, etc. aren't needed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

would like to help

How can I get involved in the NFL Project? I would like to make contibutions to the history of the game. Please let me know!

--Mickeyp2814 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Onside Kick

Onside kick needs to be rewritten, and although I know it's more involved with the American Football project, could someone at least help me with the onside kick's relevancy to and use in the NFL (see here)? Let me know on User_Talk:Fleetflame. Fleetflame (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Infobox NFL player

There seems to have been a template redirect for {{Infobox NFL player}}. Now, the template does not seem show the stat links for PFR and DBF. What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 21:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Don't know when PFR was removed, but DBF and Sportsline were removed in this edit: [21]. Looks like all that is left is links to the AFL, CFL, and NFL pages. --Bobblehead ^(rants) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oops! I removed those stats accidentally. Thanks for telling me. I just add them back. --Louis Alberto Guel 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Peyton Manning

I've nominated Peyton Manning for Good Article status. If anyone wants to review it or has suggestions for improving the article, it would be appreciated. Dlong (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Ray McDonald

Is Ray McDonald (running back) the same person as Ray McDonald (Redskins player)? They certainly seem to be the same, but y'all know better than I :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

It looks as if both are the same (the only other Ray McDonald I could find through google was a college player at the University of Florida) Mr mark taylor (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Super Bowl Article Suggestion

Would it be a good idea to include one screencap (likely from NFL Films/TV broadcast footage) for each article in the game summary section? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Free agency tracker box I created, looking for WP:NFL approval

Last year, I created this sample box for the 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season article, and it quickly caught on to other team pages for the 2007 season (example). I thought I would make everybody aware that it is available to use for all the articles in the 2008 season. Didn't know who to talk to in order to make it official for the WP NFL project. To see what the box looks like when it's fully complete, check this Wiki-link.

Please note that this is an example, and I filled in names that came to mind instantly. I know realistically that Tom Brady would not be seen on the free-agent market anytime soon. Please note the color schemes (red = re-signed; grey = lost to free-agency, retirement, etc.)

Hope you guys like it. conman33(. . .talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Position	Player	Tag	Date signed	2008 team	Contract
QB	Tom Brady	UFA	April 4	New England Patriots	Five years
RB		RFA
FB		UFA
OT		RFA
C		UFA
WR	Troy Brown	RFA	N/A (Retired)
TE		UFA
LB		RFA
DE		UFA
DT		RFA
CB	Asante Samuel	Franchise	February 15	New England Patriots	One year
SS		ERFA
FS		ERFA
RFA: Restricted free agent, UFA: Unrestricted free agent, ERFA: Exclusive rights free agent

WP:FLRC

Five featured lists under the realm of the NFL project have been nominated here for removal of the featured status. An editor feels these lists require some work to stay as featured content. Unless these suggestions are fixed, these lists could lose their stars. Any help in improving the lists or any comments would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks needs feedback

It is currently a FLC but at the moment doesn't have enough supports votes to pass. Buc (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City Chiefs

Would anybody be interested in starting a Kansas City Chiefs subproject? RC-0722 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)