Talk:2024 NFL draft

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:2024 NFL Draft)

Requested move 27 April 2023[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. One of the most obvious "no consensus" results I've ever seen; the discussion is divided, the sources are divided, everything is divided. As a result, we go with the status quo ante. (closed by non-admin page mover) Sceptre (talk) 14:52, 7 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

– Sources (books especially) overwhelmingly use lowercase draft, with either National Football League or NFL; even in news, I see NFL Draft only half capped today (5 of the first 10 hits), which is far from the "substantial majority" called by in MOS:CAPS. These articles are primarily about the draft processes, not proper named events or trademark or logo styling (the only NFL Draft trademarks are for clothing, not what this is about). This discussion is applicable to all, but I've selected one every 10 years, starting with the 2024 one that's being used as a template, as representative of the lot. Dicklyon (talk) 06:35, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Data
Discussion
  • Comment Seems the parent National Football League Draft should be included, and I've added as such.—Bagumba (talk) 07:08, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. Thanks for fixing. There may be more relevant changes, too. Dicklyon (talk) 09:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also added the upcoming 2023 draft, which has the most traffic currently.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment A relevant guideline is MOS:SPORTCAPS:

    Sports, games, and other activities that are not trademarked or copyrighted are not capitalized (except where one contains a proper name or acronym, or begins a sentence)

    —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—Aside from boosterism there appear no convincing reasons to persist with this capping. Tony (talk) 08:52, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and Tony. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 11:58, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per MOS:SPORTCAPS as "NFL Draft" is trademarked; see [1]. Also, while ESPN downcases the D in "draft", many other major media outlets capitalize the D: Fox [2], The Athletic [3], CBS [4], NBC [5], ABC [6], CNN [7]. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:21, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised that trademark was files in 2019 and not much sooner. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:41, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That linked trademark is for use on clothing. I would expect that the guideline is referring to trademarks of the event or its broadcast, as exists for the Super Bowl,[8][9] not merely trademarked for merchandising. —Bagumba (talk) 17:16, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems the NFL's actual draft event is trademarked here.—Bagumba (talk) 02:36, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The trademark for the sporting event is the logo shown, described as "The mark consists of a shield design containing the stylized letters "NFL" within the bottom portion of the shield, and eight stars and a football contained within the top portion of the shield design; and the word "DRAFT" in a rectangular box design under the shield design; and another larger shield design behind both the smaller shield design and rectangular box design." That's not relevant here. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a trademark expert, hence, I prefaced with "seems". Your comment sounds reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    J, you could also list Fox as uppercase, but here they lowercase (they're not consistent). Also the Guardian, Yahoo Sports, Bleacher Report, and more, use lowercase draft. The point is that it's not near the threshold of MOS:CAPS ("only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia"), even in today's sport news. Looking over recent decades, it's overwhelmingly lowercase. Will you acknowledge that? Dicklyon (talk) 11:18, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Shouldn't this nomination be for all the articles listed in the table at List of NFL drafts? Aside from 1967–1969, which already use lowercase "draft". Just an observation, but Category:American Football League draft has all the drafts in lowercase. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:37, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Oppose per Jweiss11. Uppercasing has become commonplace among football fans, reporters, and television coverage, as well as on Wikipedia. The NFL trademark seals this as correct usage, per MOS:SPORTSCAPS. No change needed, as nothing is broken here. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:48, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Randy, what's broken is that WP has a style in which caps are supposed to mean something, i.e. that it's a proper name or a trademark, and here they don't mean that. The evidence clearly shows that it's not a trademark and that most sources (books at least) do not treat it as a proper name. The "commonplace" uppercasing by fans and some news organizations and the NFL itself are still far from making a majority usage, much less the "consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources" that is the threshold in MOS:CAPS, our most relevant guideline. If WP followed fandom, we'd cap just about everything; that might make you happier, but it's not what our guidelines tell us to do. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Some additional history I found: On September 1st & 2nd, 2014, the NFL Draft articles were moved by Dicklyon from upper to lowercase. There was later a move request discussion at Talk:2016_NFL_draft#Requested_move_30_April_2016 which resulted in the articles being moved from lowercase back to uppercase (movelog here and a few more here). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And relevant followup at Move Review: Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 July#2016 NFL Draft. Many of us complained about that stealth RM on a single new article that got applied to the whole lot. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. If sources do not overwhelmingly capitalize something, WP doesn't either, and we see here that "draft" is more often lowercase in independent source material. This capitalization is against MOS:SPORTCAPS and MOS:SIGCAPS. Football fans are just capitalizing it because it's important to them and fairly often capitalized in non-independent sources, a classic example of the WP:Specialized-style fallacy. When ESPN [10], The New York Times [11], and Washington Post [12] (among a zillion others) write "draft", WP should also.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:25, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as it is a trademarked proper noun. MOS:SPORTCAPS allows for such to be capped. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:19, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As noted above, no, it is not a trademark (except for clothing; not for the event). Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Jweiss11. The NFL itself uses the capitalized form: [13]. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:33, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That fails WP:INDY. See also MOS:TM: WP does not do some stylistic thing, that independent sources also don't do, just because a business does do it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  20:28, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    SMcCandlish, nothing fails anything. I opposed per a previous user that makes a good point on the number of sources that utilize "NFL Draft". I then merely pointed out that the NFL styles it that way, which is something that can be considered when making this decision. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:36, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I think there are accurate points made on either side, but I'm personally more convinced that the pages should be left alone. This is because the 2016 RM was fairly firm that these pages should stay capitalized. So there exists consensus that this titling is good. Is this title bad, per policy? I'm not too moved. We have a trademark, and NFL does recognize this as an official event. Although the sources are split, which is true, there are sources that use "NFL Draft" and similarly, so I don't think there is an overwhelming degree that should move the page. Thanks. --Quiz shows 23:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That 2016 RM was hardly firm; read the move review, which acknowledged "an apparent split of opinion" and basically just said the opposition was raised too late. Dicklyon (talk) 03:53, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The related move review said: interested users may start a fresh RM with due notification on the talk pages of all articles that would be affected. That aside, consensus can change is anyways a policy.—Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mild Support - I could see how this aligns with the MLB draft, NBA draft, etc., pages on here. But I also have seen "NFL Draft" capitalized almost everywhere I see it mentioned in print or in advertising. Just a thought on keep it consistent with the other sports leagues. conman33 (. . .talk) 01:00, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Either NFL draft or NFL Draft carry the same meaning to a reader. This is different from proper names like NFL Honors (a specific awards ceremony) versus generic "NFL honors" (e.g. any of items in List of National Football League awards), or the NFL-specfic Super Bowl championship vs. a generic "super bowl". In that sense, capitalizing "draft" is superflouous to comprehension. Nobody has argued this meets the "usually capitalized" criteria of WP:SPORTSCAPS: Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources So we're left with the SPORTSCAPS conflict that NFL Draft is not usually capitalized but is a trademark.—Bagumba (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you say again why you think it's a trademark? Dicklyon (talk) 03:55, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (from above) https://trademarks.justia.com/884/19/nfl-88419594.html —Bagumba (talk) 04:06, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not a lawyer, but a trademark like Apple Watch lists "Mark Drawing" as the actual word,[14], while "NFL Draft" refers to a drawing including the words NFL Draft'[15]—Bagumba (talk) 04:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dicklyon: I see you had a similar comment above at 03:53.—Bagumba (talk) 04:26, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. You can see that I'm trying to convince you, and if I succeed, maybe you'll say so. I'm also not a lawyer, but it looks like you're agreeing with me that the "Apple Watch" trademark is a distinctly different type of thing than the NFL Draft logo trademark. Dicklyon (talk) 09:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. This is the relevant part of MOS:SPORTSCAPS: Specific competition titles and events (or series thereof) are capitalized if they are usually capitalized in independent sources: WPA World Nine-ball Championship, Tour de France, Americas Cup. Generic usage is not: a three-time world champion, international tournaments. None take italics or other special markup. The NFL draft is an event, and capitalization in reliable sources is not consisent as Dicklyon demonstrated, so MOS:CAPS applies. Mackensen (talk) 11:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. MOS:SPORTCAPS is the relevant guideline, and it makes a specific exception for trademarked names, and the title "NFL Draft" is trademarked. Also, as Jweiss points out, a majority very significant amount of media outlets use the capitalized version. Frank Anchor 11:48, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Per discussions above, "NFL Draft" seems to only be trademarked for clothing, or a drawing of its logo, not the words themselves like in the case of Super Bowl for the event. Jweiss only showed that "NFL Draft" is used, not that it has majority usage. —Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It appears here that both the logo and name of the draft itself are trademarked.`Frank Anchor 13:04, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, as I said earlier and your link shows, the name is trademarked for clothing. Not for the event itself, like "Super Bowl", for example. But Wikipedia is not clothing.—Bagumba (talk) 13:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is still a trademark for the words NFL Draft. Even if just for clothing, there is still a documented trademark. MOS:SPORTSCAPS states Sports, games, and other activities that are not trademarked or copyrighted are not capitalized. (emphasis mine) It does not say Sports, games, and other activities that are either not trademarked or copyrighted, or only trademarked for use on merchandise, are not capitalized. Frank Anchor 13:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something that specifies the capitalization of these trademarks? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a trademark for the word Chess... actually, there a several, but I'll take for example registration 5303472, which reserves the term for bathtubs. Does that mean whenever we talk about the game and its tournaments, we capitalize Chess? Of course not, because we're not talking about bathtubs... and for the NFL draft, we're not talking about clothing. Had we an article on the apparel, then capitalizing the Draft part would be appropriate there. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thats completely different since the trademarks are not referring to events having to do with the game of chess. Frank Anchor 13:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine they are indeed trying to invoke the game of chess, and the same goes for the trademark for Chess used for business services. The computer company Apple is indeed trying to refer to the fruit, they even use the fruit as their main symbol. The Jaguar car is trying to associate the product with a swift cat, and they use that as a symbol for their brand; it's not as if the company was founded by Juanita Jaguar or something. The "other activity" of the NFL draft is not trademarked, they want you to associate the trademark-bearing apparel with the event. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 14:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You can interpret it that way, but how does it improve Wikipedia as opposed to the lowercase "NFL draft"? And I assume you are not contesting that uppercase "NFL Draft" does not have majority usage. —Bagumba (talk) 13:42, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Correct, I mistakenly used the term "majority" before. Hense, why I struck that term when you called it out earlier. Frank Anchor 13:49, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Trademarks are granted for specific contexts, not merely for terms, and our usage reflects that. We use Apple when referring to the company, but apple for the fruit; Jaguar for the car, but jaguar for the animal. These articles are not about NFL Draft apparel, for which they hold a trademark. The NFL draft is an event, it is a descriptive term for the draft held by the NFL, it's not Draftapalooza or some such which would be a fanciful term designed for the event. The NFL does not appear to have registered a trademark for the wordmark NFL Draft (not that they would likely need one, given that NFL itself is well covered.) The trademark language on their website does not specifically claim a trademark, registered or otherwise, of the NFL Draft term, although it does leave open a blanket for unspecified terms ("NFL and the NFL shield design are registered trademarks of the National Football League.The team names, logos and uniform designs are registered trademarks of the teams indicated. All other NFL-related trademarks are trademarks of the National Football League." The missing space after a period is their fault, not mine.) I'm not convinced that capitalized is predominant at this point (checking examples in a few key sources on the current draft, SportsIllustrated and CBS capitalize, ESPN and The New York Times do not... NYT also puts periods in N.F.L.), but even if it was there is a large body of historic coverage and we're talking about the names for articles that are a couple decades old. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:15, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for the same reason we write Academy Awards and not Academy awards, the NFL Draft is the proper name of the event. Yes it is a draft, and when not part of the proper name, we don't upper case it. But when used as part of the proper name of the event, it should be capitalized. --Jayron32 16:23, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem with the Academy Awards analogy is that the issuing organization is the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. If written as "Academy awards", it's ambiguous which "Academy" these awards came from. Hence, a proper name of "Academy Awards" is needed to refer to those awards from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences. It's not the obvious "Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences awards", like the "NFL draft". —Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There's a thousand examples of proper names including common words that are capitalized. I shouldn't need to list all of them for you to understand the general principle. It's The Gong Show, not The Gong show, because "show" is part of the proper name. It's the Cato Institute not Cato institute, because "institute" is part of the proper name. The argument to lowercase it boils down to "Well, draft is a word that isn't normally capitalized" Yes, when we say things like "sports draft", no it isn't. The NFL Draft is a specific thing, and it has a capitalized Draft, because that is part of a proper name, in the same way that The Gong Show capitalizes "show". --Jayron32 18:31, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The Gong Show was always capitalized. The NFL draft, however, I've found references going back most of a century. Searching on newspapers.com, and searching for "NFL Draft" a decade at a time, it isn't until the 1970s that I find Draft capitalized in body copy in any of the top five "most relevant" article references, and then only one (someone refers to an "NFL Draft party" in 1979). In 1980s, it's 2 in 5 (search gets tougher then, as I have to wade past TV listings where NFL Draft is the title of coverage of the NFL draft), and one of those is NFL Draft Time. 1990s, 1 in 5. The aughts, 1 in 5. The 2010s, 2 in 5, but one of those was "the NFL Draft Theater". Newspapers.com doesn't go past 2020 at this point, but even that year, it's 2 out of 5. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 18:54, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Or, to put another angle on it -- the NFL calling this the NFL Draft is the equivalent of calling Tim Cook the Chief Executive Officer of Apple Inc. or Biden the President of the United States. The organizations that these people head may do so, but Wikipedia goes for the lower case for the job title, because it's a simple descriptor. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:17, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's The Gong Show, not The Gong show...: Strange arbitrary capitalization. It's not gong show, because that could be any random show with a gong, like the show featuring a gong that is The Gong Show with Dave Attell. No, its that Gong Show (all caps). Sure, NFL is a proper name. But draft is a common noun, so it's understandable, in basic English, what a (lowercase) NFL draft is. Capitalizing to NFL Draft doesn't change the meaning; but sure, corporations do it for branding or emphasis. However, Wikipedia is not their marketing arm, and most source don't choose to capitalize it either. —Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "Academy Awards" is a trademark in the realm of "educational and entertainment services rendered through the medium of an annual live, television program dealing with motion pictures." (registration 1103859, filed 1977, citing usage back to 1929.) So that gives that a different support. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2023 (UTC
  • Oppose All the editors here are great, hate to pick sides. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Usually an RM discussion deserves comments with respect to policies and guidelines, evidence, other reasons, not just picking a side and saying you hate to. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Dicklyon You're absolutely right. I wanted to strike my 'oppose' earlier, but my computer will not let me. Hope my deletion covers it. I can't come up with a good enough reason. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:55, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I restored and redacted for you, as this is otherwise confusing under Jayron32's post. Alternatively, Dicklyon can entirely delete his, your, and my comment, if he so chooses. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Shouldn't the RM include all Year NFL Draft articles? GoodDay (talk) 21:27, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as stated in the proposal, "This discussion is applicable to all, but I've selected one every 10 years, starting with the 2024 one that's being used as a template, as representative of the lot." Back when they were capitalized, the RM discussion to capitalize them was based on a proposal and discussion only at Talk:2016 NFL Draft, a brand-new article with few watchers at the time. The closer extended that to all (he said to all "20xx NFL Draft", but then moved the earlier ones, too). There was no input from anyone who wanted to follow our manual of style. Dicklyon (talk) 22:13, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question on TM – Does anyone still think it's a trademark relevant to the Player Selection Meeting? If so, please show why; the linked trademark data all seem to say no. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, the trademark refers to the event, the "NFL Draft". When when a piece of apparel says "NFL Draft", it's referring to the event. Jweiss11 (talk) 06:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that they've registered a logo (drawing) mark to be used for the event, and probably they couldn't register the plain word mark for the event since it had been in generic use for decades (similarly across lots of sports leagues). They could still register it for hats and tee shirts though, since nobody had though to make and sell such branded clothing items before then. That mark applies to clothing items, not to events. I asked at WP:VPP#When do we capitalize a trademark? for others' interpretations, and they pretty much all agreed that the TM thing here is a red herring. Dicklyon (talk) 07:48, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. The vast majority of reliable sources capitalize the "D" in draft, as evidenced by Jweiss11, so I see no reason to make it lowercase. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:43, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why do you repeat false alternative facts? Book stats clearly show the vast majority of reliable sources using lowercase D. Jweiss11 only showed that many major media outlets use the capital; nothing close to the "consistently capitalized" threshold in MOS:CAPS; one of his example outlets is themself inconstent in capping, as I pointed out above. Dicklyon (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME and as this is an official proper name title. Lowercasing it would be completely inconsistent with other events like the Academy Awards (not "Academy awards"). —Lowellian (reply) 23:56, 29 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    As discussed already, Academy Awards is the trademarked name of that event; and sources uniformly capitalize it. Neither is the case for NFL draft. Dicklyon (talk) 07:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support An argument is made that these drafts are trademarked and therefore an exception (per MOS:SPORTCAPS) to the general guidance at WP:NCCAPS and MOS:CAPS. This is disputed and the evidence presented is that this applies to merchandise but not the actual event. If this were held to be true that it is a trademark for the actual event, then it would be reflected in sources. However, this is not supported by the ngram evidence here and here, and it certainly does not meet the threshold for capitalisation set at MOS:CAPS. The threshold is consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable source [emphasis added]. Per WP:NHC, statements that contradict policy should be discounted. It is not determined by a simple majority. What the NFL does is not independent. Assertions of what is or is not a proper noun that are not based on MOS:CAPS are inconsistent with WP:P&G. Cinderella157 (talk) 00:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This is basically the New York City Subway debate all over again. Yes, books and sources will refer to "the draft" and so on when referring to the general idea, but as a title, it's overwhelmingly usually capitalized. It's a grammatical sentence to write "At the 20XX NFL Draft, the Jets got very poor picks in the draft." Referring to the event in general as a draft doesn't mean the title can't also be 19XX Draft. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you provide evidence that "it's overwhelmingly capitalized"? —Bagumba (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Referring to the event in general as a draft doesn't mean the title can't also be 19XX Draft.: It could be capitalized, but no meaning is lost if it isn't, making it optional. —Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    "No meaning is lost" - we can aim a little higher here! Article titles should also accurately reflect usage. Anyway, you surely realize that this exact argument could be used to justify any typographical arrangement that still reads as "draft" (nfl DRAFT gets the meaning across), so it's moot. As for sources, I suppose I agree that "overwhelmingly" is too strong, and if that caused a fuss I've struck it in favor of "usually" (but then, the same applies to the nominator, who claimed the sources were "overwhelmingly" in the other direction despite this being a very questionable claim). Given split usage, just favor the status quo. SnowFire (talk) 02:26, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: "nfl DRAFT", there is no guideline to unnecessarily capitalize. As for it "usually" being capitalized, do you have evidence, as it conflicts with the ngrams data that has been presented. I'm on the fence, so any data is appreciated. Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Given split usage. In such a case, doesn't MOS:CAPS tell us not to cap? Cinderella157 (talk) 03:17, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And the usage tends toward lower case. I found that looking at print journalism over the decades, up until now. Someone above listed several sources with uppercase, but at least two of those were NFL licensees rather than independent sources (although to be fair, lower-caser ESPN is also a licensee.) Looking at some other major outlets: BBC News - lower case. New York Times - lower case. Associated Press - lower case. Reuters - upper case. Los Angeles Times - lower case. Chicago Tribune lower case. MSNBC lower case. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 05:33, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On book data – if you search for "NFL Draft" in Google Books, most of the top hits are books with "NFL Draft" in the title, and with "NFL Draft" at the top of every other page, which I think contributes to the n-gram stats (but I'm not sure). If you search for a term such as "trademark" with "NFL Draft" together, you don't find any of those books, but you do find a bunch of books about sports law and other legal issues, and they pretty much uniformly use "NFL draft" lowercase, as most books independent of the NFL have done for decades. I don't see any suggesting that NFL Draft is a trademark (though we know it is for tee shirts and hats). They do discuss some number trademarks for Jerseys and such, and I'm pretty sure that doesn't make numbers be trademarks more generally. Dicklyon (talk) 08:12, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a good book related to TM and branding: Brand NFL: Making and Selling America's Favorite Sport. They use lowercase draft, and small-caps NFL. Dicklyon (talk) 10:37, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMONNAME fallacy Contrary to some !votes above, WP:COMMONAME only governs the name of a page's title, not the page title's stylization, such as capitalization. COMMONNAME is a subsection of Wikipedia:Article titles. Wikipedia:Article titles § Use sentence case says: Titles are written in sentence case...For more guidance, see WP:Naming conventions (capitalization) and WP:Manual of Style/Proper names. The lead of Wikipedia:Naming conventions (capitalization) cautions:

    Outside Wikipedia, and within certain specific fields (such as medicine), the usage of all-capital terms may be a proper way to feature new or important items. However these cases are typically examples of buzzwords, which by capitalization are (improperly) given special emphasis.

    The lead of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Capital letters has a stricter standard than "common" usage for capitalization:

    Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

    —Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 30 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support MOS:SPORTCAPS is a subtopic of WP:MOSCAPS, which states in its lead:

    Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is conventionally capitalized; only words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in a substantial majority of independent, reliable sources are capitalized in Wikipedia.

    There has not been a viable counterargument against the ngrams data showing that NFL draft is not consistently fully capitalized. Showing a handful (or more) examples using "NFL Draft" does not demonstrate that it is "consistently capitalized"; one could, for example, show 10 examples of capitalization, but if another 10 don't capitalize, that's not "consistent". The ngrams data is more objective. This applies whether or not "NFL Draft" is a trademark. Per MOS:TRADEMARK:

    When deciding how to format a trademark, editors should examine styles already in use by independent reliable sources. From among those, choose the style that most closely resembles standard English – regardless of the preference of the trademark owner.

    (See also Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) § When do we capitalize a trademark?) Moreover, the trademarks for NFL Draft are unrelated to the actual event written about on WP: one trademark is applicable only for clothing, the other is for a specific drawing (which includes a shield, football, stars, and the words). This is in contrast to valid WP capitalization for trademarks, like the Super Bowl game's trademarks for the word itself in entertainment events and broadcasting and teleommunications. Ultimately, trademark or not, both MOS:CAPS and MOS:TRADEMARK rely on its consistent presentation in independent, reliable sources. Finally, either "NFL draft" or "NFL Draft" have the same meaning, as NFL draft is just a descriptive basic English phrase of NFL and draft, unlike Super Bowl, for which the basic English phrase of (uncapitalized) "super bowl" has a different meaning.—Bagumba (talk) 10:10, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: NFL is a proper name. Draft is not. NFL Draft could be, but is not "consistently capitalized in independent reliable sources". That does it for me. SchreiberBike | ⌨  21:45, 4 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note: this was discussed at this RfC in 2024, with the consensus that “draft” should be lowercase in these NFL articles. Natg 19 (talk) 09:33, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Trey lance[edit]

Hey we need to add in the 49ers getting a fourth round pick from the cowboys for Trey lance Eddie1666666 (talk) 09:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Rasul Douglas[edit]

Need someone more expert in Wiki html for clean up in isle 3 & isle 5 BUF <--> GBP Rasul Douglas trade entries — Preceding unsigned comment added by IdioT.SavanT.i4 (talk • contribs) 00:23, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RFC on title of capitalization of Draft[edit]

An RFC at VillagePump on whether "Draft" should be capitalized in NFL Draft articles, including this one, has been opened. Frank Anchor 14:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was a request for Wikipedian's comments. It did not seem to me to be worded as something else, the language really did imply it was an opinion poll (which was all that would be allowed under WP:RFCNOT). But editors started to view its goal as overturning the 2023 Requested Move above, which was never even taken to a move review (please do not archive that discussion, thanks). They discussed it as if it would actually result in lowercasing the word "draft" on all Wikipedia NFL Draft articles. This seemed, to myself and others, an end-around the WP:RM process and WP:RFCNOT. After a controversial month-long discussion, a discussion not promoted to readers of any article, that viewpoint was approved in good faith by a single closer. Someone will probably come along soon - I'm surprised this hasn't been done already - and lowercase this title, negating the 2023 RM above. NFL draft has already been lowercased. I'm adding this personal-viewpoint summary to inform surprised editors and readers who come to this talk page to find out what happened. Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reporting draft pick before announced on espn[edit]

How is this possible? Warrenhodges (talk) 02:36, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've been refreshing this page all night wondering the same thing. It's crazy. CNC33 (. . .talk) 03:04, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2024[edit]

Jets have the 49ers picks in the fifth round now 2600:1014:B1E5:9E9D:C129:6D7F:32DC:9C7F (talk) 19:38, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk|contribs) 01:21, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan McMahon pick question[edit]

Why is it that when I click on "Dylan McMahon" on the selections list, it takes me to a 37 year old American professional wrestler named Dylan Mark Postl? ReallyAmazingDude13 (talk) 20:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is an example of a false blue link automatically generated by the template being used on this page. Not sure how to override it. Carrite (talk) 18:56, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2024 (2)[edit]

174.174.207.140 (talk) 21:22, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Lions traded down to 210 pick

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 00:09, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Links to rounds[edit]

Just a suggestion, but in the future it might be a good idea to have links to the individual rounds of player selections at the top level of the contents, in the same way that there are links to the rounds in the trades section. 108.3.163.220 (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

False blue links[edit]

Whatever the template is being use for this page, it automatically generates links for each player. This is fine as far as it goes, but sometimes the links generated are false blue links to other individuals. I couldn't figure out how to fix one of these on the fly during the draft — I leave it to those actively involved with this page to figure it out. Every link needs to be checked and wrong links fixed, I think. —tim //// Carrite (talk) 18:55, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody make an edit, I can't.[edit]

Detroit set a record with an estimated 775,000+ in attendance. Estimated 350,000+ in attendance day 1.

https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/40038344/detroit-shatters-nfl-draft-attendance-record-700k-fans 2600:1007:B005:6AB0:99CC:378C:D82F:262C (talk) 18:17, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_NFL_draft&oldid=1222011080"