Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Notability of television and televised sports

I am developing an idea of creating notability guideline about televised sports events in WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Notability (television). I could have some assistance if you are willing to help out. --George Ho (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Iheanyi Uwaezuoke

An SPA and an IP editor have added a wall of unsourced text (and a bunch of strange nonexistent categories) to this article, and have removed much of the pre-existing standard formatting in the process. I might be inclined to revert to the last normal-looking version[1] but the added material does seem to include some valid content that probably could be sourced, so I'd appreciate a look by some NFL-experienced editors to see if they think it's worth salvaging and improving. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I revamped the article, but it still needs a ton of improvement. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron_Rodgers/GA2

Hi fellows! A user became in active and then this was started. This page was nominated by them and there is no one to fix the issues. I tried but I know nothing about the game and I m having trouble in dealing with it. I will not be able to do any more to it so can anyone from you please try to fix the problems. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks! →TSU ^tp* 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to quarterback navbox

I think that quarterbacks who at one point or another were the primary, first string, starting quarterback (not due to injury) should be in bold. The box makes it too hard for the reader to indentify which quarterbacks were truly the most important. There will always be gray area (Tom Owens and Norm Snead both started the same number of games in between John Brodie's retirement and the arrival of Jim Plunkett), but at least putting names in bold would make it easier to tell. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)}

~~This seems like a good idea~~. It may be useful, but there is not proper way to determine primary quarterbacks. ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Support for this suggestion. Very good idea. It might be nice to have some an objective measure of who's the primary starting quarterback, if we can, since in certain cases it's ambiguous.--Batard0 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Good luck defining "primary". In some years, weren't Hill and O'Sullivan named the starter at beginning of season over Smith. Eras for teams that had subpar QBs will be difficult to objectively determine "primary".—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Not a good idea. Way too subjective. The gray area is big enough to span the whole way between black and white. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: What do people think about an objective criteria like: the bolded QBs started in at least half of one team's games for at least three successive seasons? (You'd of course list that constraint at the bottom of the box.) Or is something like this too complex? Do we even agree that readers will find the box more useful if the "primary" (however that's defined) quarterbacks are highlighted?--Batard0 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. No authoritative list exists for a list of NFL "primary" quarterbacks by team per WP:V and WP:RS. Creating our own objective criteria, however defined, and attaching such a "primary" designation in the absence of a reliable source smells a lot like original research per WP:OR. Rating such players subjectively simply becomes a matter of one or more editors' opinions, and that's even worse and a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal: Bold quarterbacks who played for the team for three years or more. We already have date ranges next to their names. I don't see how this would be POV or OR, and it would at least give people a better idea of who played for the team for a significant period of time.--Batard0 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But that would lead to long-term backup quarterbacks being bolded and players like Brett Favre for the Vikings not being bolded despite being the obvious starting QB for two years. – Pee Jay 13:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Personally, I don't consider a bench-replacement for less than a season or an injured replacement as a primary starting quarterback. Every quarterback is handed the starting job with the expectation they will stick around for the next decade and a half or so. Some do, and some fall after a couple seasons. Those are the ones I think should be bolded. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

One more thing. After a close read of above, I think here is the best way of determining primary starters: If they started more games than any other quarterback for their team for 2 seasons or more, and not due to injury. If the real starter was so bad that they benched him twice, and the backup started half their games twice, then they can be considered the starter. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{20:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

Maybe, if possible, also include them if they started x or more games for one season if it was not due to injury, like Randall Cunningham for the Vikings, Brett Favre with the Jets, or any of the Dolphins people in the past 10 years. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

The 49ers are relatively an easy one to do compared to other teams. Here are others; the early Broncos quarterbacks (prior to Morton) are very "iffy"-- it's almost as if they have 10 quarterbacks on their roster every year and they rolled dice to see which one would start:

This is all based off of information from List of Denver Broncos starting quarterbacks and other corresponding articles. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

This one uses these exact rules: Started more games than any other quarterback on the roster for two seasons or more, or started 13 games or more for at least one season and not due to injury:

I think if the need for specific rules is important, then these rules can be used. And yes, I realize that the other four infoboxes would have to be modified to qualify for said rules. --67.180.161.183^(talk)_{02:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

I appreciate the spirit of what you are proposing. However, I don't think it is easily maintained, or verifiable. The designation of "primary" seems to be original research, as it is not a standard definition, and verifying it would require making a spreadsheet generally available to all editors to see who rightfully belongs. Frankly, I think the need to mark which quarterbacks are primary is an indication that the navbox of all QBs is not very useful and clutters up articles.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation, I think we should give some consideration to how we can use this idea, because I think it's a good one at heart. These boxes have long lists of starting quarterbacks, which makes it difficult to tell who was important and who wasn't. Thus having criteria where more significant QBs are bolded makes sense on a basic level. I think you're right that "primary" isn't the right word, because that's POV and maybe OR. I think we'd simply need to spell out what the criteria are that qualify a QB for bolding. And I think to avoid confusion and miscategorization, it's best to keep it simple even if that means there are a couple (or even a few) cases where a not-very-important QB gets bolded. It's easy to get info on how many starts a QB got, for example. That's right up front on PFR and other sources of stats. It would not be hard to check a standard like "started more than half the team's games for two (three?) consecutive years". If we start introducing qualifications like injuries and other stuff, it becomes increasingly difficult to sort out -- and it might even be contentious.--Batard0 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest to first define the criteria, highlight the players, and provide verifiable sources in List of Dallas Cowboys starting quarterbacks. If there is consensus in the article, there wont be much debate in the template. The problem with just having it in a template is that the criteria is undefined and not verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be better to organize the infoboxes by year more strictly. Maybe something like is done in the List of ... starting quarterbacks articles: break it down via year, that way it would be clearer who, and when, and for how long each player started. It wouldn't require us to define what "primary" means, it would let the reader decide. --Jayron32 17:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Career stats templates

Why aren't there templates for career statistics tables for various positions? I haven't been able to find any. Has this been discussed?--Batard0 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Broncos subproject

I just nominated the WP:WikiProject National Football League/Denver Broncos subproject for deletion. I was just informed to make you guys aware of this. Besides, the project rarely even took off. (Discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Denver Broncos subproject) Zappa O Mati 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

John Garrett (American football coach)

Could ya'll check out what I've done to expand it and possibly regrade it? And if you could help me get the years in the infobox to line up with the teams coached I would really appreciate it. Cra sh Underride 05:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Offseason and/or practice squad member only

In player infoboxes, how does "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" apply to the preseason? For example, Lee Evans was released by the Jaguars following the first preseason game. Should he have an asterisk for 2012 or not? I would tend to think so seeing as that teams carry a 90-man roster in the preseason. ~ Richmond96 t • c 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Once a player has been released from a team that he never played for in the regular season, he should be asterisked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Richmond96 t • c 22:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom Brady - GA

I recently listed Tom Brady at WP:GAN. If you have any experience with reviewing Good Articles and would like to help out, please don't hesitate to make constructive comments. Achowat (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox NFL Player colleges

Hi folks, quick question. In the infobox for a player who attended multiple colleges, are all colleges listed or just the last school attended? Russell Wilson played 3 years at NC State, graduated, then played his final eligibility year at Wisconsin. Should it be "Wisconsin, NC State", "NC State, Wisconsin", or just "Wisconsin"? Thanks. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 11:08, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I think its the most recent school. Cam Newton played at Florida first, then Blinn College, then Auburn, though only Auburn is listed. Zappa O Mati 15:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm interesting. I checked Troy Aikman's page (he attended Oklahoma and UCLA) and it lists both in the infobox. I don't know if the fact that Wilson earned degrees from both schools makes a difference or not? SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 15:30, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd suggest using judgment and common sense rather than having a hard and fast guideline. The more colleges that fit the better, but if listing all the schools is going to mess up the infobox in some way you might just put in the most significant school or schools in the player's career.--Batard0 (talk) 04:38, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Quality/Importance links?

I'm getting a "forbidden" error when I click on the links in the Quality/Importance scale grid. It used to show a list of articles that met the chosen criteria (i.e. if you clicked on the number representing stub-class top-importance articles, it would give you a listing). It hasn't been working for a week or so. Anyone know what's up with it?--Batard0 (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems to have been a technical issue that's since been resolved.--Batard0 (talk) 12:16, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Bears website redesign

On August 28, the Bears redesigned their website, so now any sources from their website before the redesign now redirect to the home page. Because of this, much of the references on pages will need cleanup. Zappa O Mati 02:10, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: Steeler Nation Criticism

Please feel free to read & comment here. Thank you. Marketdiamond (talk) 18:54, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

2011 season pages still using current rosters

The following season pages are still using the {{<team> staff}} and {{<team> roster}} current roster templates:

They should be using {{NFL final staff}} and {{NFL final roster}} for the 2011 season instead. Hoof Hearted (talk) 15:58, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

No Fun League

The redirect No Fun League, which currently points at the main National Football League article, has been nominated for deletion. At the discussion I have raised the possibility of adding a relevant sentence at List of NFL nicknames and retargetting the redirect there. This suggestion, and the discussion in general, would benefit from knowledgeable users such as yourselves. Please comment at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 September 23#No Fun League rather than here. Thryduulf (talk) 18:03, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of 2012 NFL replacement officials

I hate 'em too. But that's not a reason to list them by name when they are not notable, or public, people. Kitfoxxe (talk) 06:52, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Replacement refs

Perhaps the NFL WikiProject should make a determination on if the replacement refs are notable enough to merit having their own articles like the regular refs. AutomaticStrikeout 03:24, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Discussion being noted at Talk:2012 NFL season#Possible split?. Zappa O Mati 03:40, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

Wait a second, if you're referring to List of 2012 NFL replacement officials, then woops, but if you're referring to a new page (like 2012 NFL referee lockout), then... You know what I mean. Zappa O Mati 21:56, 26 September 2012 (UTC)

NFL referee/official infobox?

Could someone please manufacture for us an infobox for NFL referee/official articles? I was looking at Clete Blakeman's article just now, and I thought it could use an infobox just to summarise the content. – Pee Jay 19:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

I added a people infobox as appears on several other articles, it's not much but it's a start. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Initiative

I think that a worthy goal of the Wiki-Project would be adding "box scores" to the templates already on team's season pages. I have tried to do this for a few teams, but I obviously can't do it alone. I'd appreciate some help, maybe we could have users "adopt a division" or "adopt a few games a week" to monitor. Just a thought. Thanks--Go Phightins! (talk) 17:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Speaking of the box score templates, I was reviewing the 2012 Olympics articles a couple of months ago, and noticed templates like {{2012 Summer Olympics men's basketball game E2}} and {{2012 Summer Olympics men's football game G2}}. Their purpose is "to collect source text [listing a box score of a specific game] used in several articles in one place, in order to minimize maintenance and storage space". Using this model, we could create, for example, a 2012 Packers-Seahawks template that could be used on the Packers season article and the Seahawks article (and any additional article like the 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game). The only issue is that we would have to create over 200 separate templates for each regular season and postseason game. But we would save the effort of having to edit both the two relevant team season articles (or three during the postseason when we have the additional playoff article) that list the same information. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Referees subproject

Several hours ago, I was approached by Electriccatfish2 about creating a refs task force similar to baseball umps task force I helped start earlier this year. Go Phightins! and I have since started work on it, although there is still work to be done. I figured it would probably be a good idea to leave a note here for those who may be interested. AutomaticStrikeout 03:22, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Request for Comment: 2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game

Please comment on the following discussion here: Talk:2012 Green Bay Packers–Seattle Seahawks game#Rename the article. Zappa O Mati 00:40, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Win/loss table for GMs

User:99.230.226.161 is going through NFL GM articles and adding win/loss tables like here for Thomas Dimitroff diff. I'm not very familiar with this project but this information does not appear to be necessary or even that relevant since the GM is not directly involved in the outcomes of games like coaches and players are. Is there any existing consensus for this issue or does anyone have any thoughts on the subject? SQGibbon (talk) 04:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

no notable achievements

per some discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFL player, it was basically decided that listing |highlights=NA or |highlights=None or |highlights=No notable achievements was a bit harsh. if there is nothing to report, than just don't report anything. in the spirit of this concept, I have created Category:NFL player with NA highlights. you can remove a player from this category by simply removing the "none" or "N/A" from this field. while you are at it, you can remove any <nowiki></nowiki> anywhere in the infobox, since these are no longer necessary to get the bullet markup to work. this is especially helpful when there is nothing being passed to that parameter, since it tricks the template into thinking there is something there. examples of cleanup edits: [2] [3] [4]. if you find any N/A type entries in articles that are not in the tracking category, let me know so I can update the tracking code. Frietjes (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Peterson's nicknames

Can I get a ruling on the use of "A. P." as a nickname for Adrian Peterson. Some anonymous editor came along a few days ago to remove it because Peterson himself decried the use of that nickname, but surely if people use that name for him, it's still a nickname? A third-party opinion would be very useful. – Pee Jay 09:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

People being confused about his nickname and saying it incorrectly doesn't make it his nickname, it makes those people confused. People come to Wiki for correct information, further spreading an incorrect nickname makes no sense. The man himself has said those who call him AP have "got it twisted", for whatever reason you wish for these people to remain twisted rather than be informed about what his nickname actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.123.71 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's wrong! If people call him it, it's a nickname. – Pee Jay 10:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. The fact is this, people DO call him A.P. Many, many thousands of people refer to him that way. I think Peterson is the one who is confused about the purpose of this. He says his "true" nickname is AD. Fine, that may be what his friends, loved ones, and teammates call him. But people in the media and in the general public are not his friends, loved ones, or teammates. Those people have another nickname for him, that being "A.P.". That being said, I don't know why his nickname would be used in his wikipedia page.167.102.150.4 (talk) 20:25, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

As the article provided states, people who call him AP have it twisted, some people think AP is his nickname, in reality it is AD. The people who call him AP have it confused or are lazy, that doesn't make it his nickname, that makes those people confused or lazy.

A persons initials hardly qualifies as a nickname anyway.

Fact is the man himself has said no, that isn't my nickname. Fact is he has explained where his actual nickname comes from, fact is he has expressed how those who call him AP have it wrong. Yet for whatever reason you want to continue to have these people persist in being wrong rather than accept and respect the players actual nickname and have people be given the correct information. I provided quotes from him to support my stance, all you have done is stomp around. Clearly you were amongst the "confused" crowd. I remember when his Wiki page did not have AP listed on it, unfortunately someone who has it "twisted" came along and changed that. Now it has been changed back to being correct again. You can see it was only a few months ago that someone even decided to add it on to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.123.71 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

People don't get to pick their own nicknames! I'm sure hundreds, if not thousands, of reliable sources can be found for the use of "AP" to mean "Adrian Peterson". This situation is more than closed. Achowat (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"thousands of reliable sources can be found for the use of "AP" to mean "Adrian Peterson" wow are you serious lol?

If anything most people when seeing AP, Football fan or not, would think Associated Press when they read AP. But as AD himself said, it's easy for people to be lazy and say AP, when they don't understand what his nickname actually is. Furthermore, he didn't choose that nickname, it is what was given to him.

and yet, amazingly enough, a Google search of "What is Adrian Peterson's nickname" shows nothing on the first page of results suggesting that it's AP. Even Purple Jesus gets in on the first page, but no AP. Aside of course from some thread with someone asking whether his nickname is AD or AP and someone explaining to that person that it is actually AD.

and indeed the further through the Google results you go, the same trend continues. Most of the mentions of "AP" are people asking whether his nickname is AP or AD or people explaining that AP is wrong. Funny, with these supposed thousands of reliable sources, you'd think Google would be picking them up somewhere?

Fact is the people who think it is AP are simply confused and have it wrong. It's AD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.123.71 (talk • contribs)

Your WP:GOOGLE methodology is flawed because of a confirmation bias. You're looking for information about his nickname, so you're going to get things from the small fringe that like to pretend only one nickname is correct. A google result for (Adrian Peterson fantasy "AP") every single result that is not the Associate Press uses 'AP' nicknamedly towards Peterson. I don't care what nickname is "right", or who's being "lazy". What matters is what people call him, and people call him AP. And I'm not saying that people don't also call him AD, just that AP is used as a nickname for the man. Achowat (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It's not really confirmation bias at all, you'd suspect that if it indeed was his nickname and used so often, then a search of "What is Adrian Peterson's nickname" would bring up some support for that. It doesn't. Quite the opposite in fact.

AP is used as a nickname only by confused people who don't realise his real nickname is actually AD. That doesn't make it his nickname, that makes those people confused. Why continue to promote that rather than aid those confused people? You talk about me using a confirmation bias, but talk about using a search with AP in it to support your stance lol? my, completely unbiased search, brings up no support for the suggestion that AP is one of his nicknames, only people dismissing it. Funny huh? Peterson himself says people who call him AP have his nickname confused, searches for what his nickname are offer basically no acknowledgement that AP is one of his nicknames beyond people dismissing it, but we have people who respond with biased searches and "but but but BUT PEOPLE CALL HIM IT!!!1". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.123.71 (talk) 03:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, I wonder why there are people taking the time to dismiss "A.P." as a nickname... BECAUSE PEOPLE CALL HIM IT! It may very well be "wrong", but if people call him it, it's a nickname. See here. Now get your panties out of a knot and find something better to do other than removing information without a good reason. – Pee Jay 09:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Because people want to see these other confused people helped and given the correct information. What's with the personal attacks? try to maintain a level of civility. Some have it twisted and think it's AP instead of AD, those people need the correct information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.123.71 (talk) 09:40, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

So do it by improving the wording. We must acknowledge that people use that nickname, that's for sure, but it is possible to indicate that it is not a preferred nickname. – Pee Jay 09:55, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

What biased search? I'm looking for instances where Adrian Peterson is called "AP", so I look in Fantasy Football articles because they generally have a less formal tone and are more apt to call a player by his nickname. People call him that, so it's his nickname. If there are significant coverage of this AP/AD controversy, it might warrant inclusion. But otherwise, AP should be included in his "list of nicknames". Achowat (talk) 13:42, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

NFL TAFI

I'm sure that some of you are aware of this project which I helped to start up a while back as a focused collaborative effort which highlights specific articles for improvement with one being chosen per week. One of my dreams for this project has been that it would lead to more focused offshoot "TAFI" projects that are a subproject/task force (or something similar) for some different WikiProjects. I would like to suggest creating such an offshoot for this WikiProject. I would be willing to handle the clerical aspects of it. Would there be any interest in this? AutomaticStrikeout 20:08, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This would be something I'm interested in...an NFL subject is narrowly construed enough that I would be more adept at adding content to it. I'm in! Go Phightins! 21:46, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, one of the drawbacks of the bigger project is that it involves a lot of editors with different interests. What one editor specializes in may not work for another editor. Starting a small offshoot here may demonstrate that other offshoots could be productive. But I'll wait and see who else might be interested. AutomaticStrikeout 21:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, terrific. Go Phightins! 22:15, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand the point. I looked at the 9/1 and 9/29 TAFI and they don't seem to be getting any edits.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that the members of the project have a wide variety of interests, and it's hard to find an article that generates a lot of interest. Here, that might be a little easier, as the scope would be more focused and the members would have a similar interest. AutomaticStrikeout 17:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Some have gotten more improvement than others...see entertainment for an example. Go Phightins! 03:39, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Pascal Matla

I have a non-urgent question regarding Pascal Matla. According to the article, he "attended training camp with the New Orleans Saints in the summer of 2006, but was released before the regular season began". Does that make him a Saints player? He's included in the category, but I have my doubts. 83.80.170.157 (talk) 19:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, he isn't a Saints player. If he's anything, he's an Admirals player. It's also not clear to me that this meets WP:NGRIDIRON notability guidelines and may be a candidate for deletion. --Batard0 (talk) 04:23, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Helpful source of photos

Hi all. The U.S. Army has been undergoing a lot of programs with the NFL concerning traumatic brain injury of late, and so there are a lot of stories on their site of NFL officials and players at various PR events, which fall into public domain and which Wikipedia can use. I noticed a lot of images of players from the Seahawks and west coast teams without a lot of photos on their pages. Might be helpful if someone looked here through the photos to see what's useful to the project. —Ed!^(talk) 15:56, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Vector graphics assistance

I've noticed the following on all of my Wiki NFL uniform templates:

I have no issue converting my PNG pictures into vector graphics, but I need assistance on how to do so. What's the simplest product to achieve this? Any assistance will be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. JohnnySeoul (talk) 15:35, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

I've looked into this in the past and learned one thing: it's not easy. There are some programs out there (including some that are web-based) that try to do the conversion automatically. I've tried them, and they didn't work at all for me. I think you'll likely have to do it yourself using a program that you'll have to master; vector graphic design is not as simple as the usual Photoshop-style design. --Batard0 (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jamaal Charles

Not completely sure what was going on, but looks like a significant problem. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 07:01, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Jovan Belcher

We may need plenty of eyes here on the page about the former Chiefs player who committed a murder-suicide. There's been a lot of activity on the article and may be a lot more, even though the page is protected. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:34, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

I noticed and it's watchlisted. We all might do the same to keep an eye out. --Batard0 (talk) 17:42, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

Template:Footballstats

FYI

I left a note at Template talk:Footballstats about NFL.com links for older players not being supported.—Bagumba (talk) 21:51, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

List of Pittsburgh Steelers first-round draft picks

Would someone with a bit better understanding of tables look at that article? It may be somewhat broken. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 23:36, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

RfC on the use of flag icons for sportspeople

An RfC discussion about the MOS:FLAG restriction on the use of flag icons for sportspeople has been opened at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Icons. We invite all interested participants to provide their opinion here. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:44, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Task forces, subprojects and WikiProjects

Is there any particular reason why the Chicago Bears, Green Bay Packers, Indianapolis Colts, Kansas City Chiefs, New England Patriots (formerly a subproject of WP:NFL), San Francisco 49ers and St. Louis Rams all have separate WikiProjects devoted to them, while the Carolina Panthers, Cleveland Browns, Minnesota Vikings, New York Giants, New York Jets, Pittsburgh Steelers, Tampa Bay Buccaneers and Washington Redskins are all subprojects of WikiProject National Football League? Surely the former group should be converted to subprojects of WP:NFL? In fact, subproject is probably the wrong term; they should all be task forces. Can anyone enlighten me on this? – Pee Jay 11:49, 25 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't know about why some are WikiProjects and some are subprojects, but as for the other question: I think task forces and subprojects are two ways of saying the same thing. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 17:14, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

AutomaticStrikeout, I think you may be right in this case, but usually the "subproject" name is reserved for fully-fledged WikiProjects that are subordinate to other WikiProjects. These are task forces. They don't need renaming, I just wanted to see if I could get some clarification on the issue. – Pee Jay 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

The Packers WikiProject is inactive. There hasn't been any activity on their talk page for over a year. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 19:09, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

That might be inaccurate to say, Caknuck. The project members may still be active in editing Green Bay articles, and if so, the project itself is still alive in my view. – Pee Jay 21:39, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

True, but the project page has also been tagged with an "Inactive" template since August 2011 and nobody's bothered to remove it. caknuck _° needs to be running more often 00:49, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Haha, fair enough! I should probably have noticed that, but in my haste, I was too busy looking at the page names! My bad. – Pee Jay 01:41, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Need help with sourcing a quote

Hi, there is a relatively new user who wants to add something Bill Walsh said about the Giants before Super Bowl XXV to that article. The user apparently is relying on memory, but I was wondering if anyone here can find a source that establishes that Walsh actually said what this user claims he said. I don't necessarily object to his proposal, as long as it gets sourced and edited to remove editorializing. Full discussion is at Talk:Super Bowl XXV. Thanks! —KuyaBriBri^Talk 18:36, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

I took a quick look and I'm afraid didn't find anything, except for this thing here which does state that Walsh picked Buffalo. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 18:43, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Quarterback win loss records

I ran across 2012 NFL quarterbacks win loss records today. First of all, kudos to Spparky for the time dedicated to this article. While the career all-time list may be notable per WP:LISTN (haven't looked for sources myself), it seems the 2012 specific information—if notable—belongs in 2012 NFL season or the individual team season articles. I'd suggest for next year that time alternatively be spent on line-graphs showing teams records over the weeks for the division title races in 2013 NFL season as opposed to a chart showing #1's for individual quarterbacks. My $.02.—Bagumba (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the article you refer to should be deleted. I have no opinion about anything else. – Pee Jay 02:31, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

File:Ron East.JPG

File:Ron East.JPG has been nominated for speedy deletion -- 76.65.128.43 (talk) 07:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

American football GA nomination/List of NFL champions (1920-1969)

I have nominated American football, for good article status. Additionally, I have nominated List of NFL champions (1920-1969), a very important article to the NFL WikiProject, for featured list status. The latter would be an excellent compliment to the current FL List of Super Bowl champions. If any project members are interested in commenting on either, you are more than welcome to join in the discussion and help improve them even more. Thanks. Toa Nidhiki05 20:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

These seem like lists, not just in the page names, but in their formats. Why are you taking them to GA instead of FL? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

List of NFL champions (1920-1969) is a list, so it has been nominated for FL. American football, like rugby union or association football, is not a list so I have nominated it for GA. Toa Nidhiki05 20:41, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Oh duh. My bad, I just misread what you wrote and transposed the GA to the list article. Carry on then. :) – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

TfD for NFL coaches infobox and proposed merger

Were any other WP:NFL editors aware of this TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2012 October 30#Template:Infobox NFL coach? Why was no notice posted on this talk page? Why was no notice posted on the template page for Infobox NFL player? This appears to have been a major process error and failure to provide proper notice to WP:NFL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I admit I should have left a message here but a message was left at the mainly affected page of the Infobox NFL coach. The TfD process was open for 10 days. Similar mergers have be done to all other sports. Infobox NFL player won't be really affected except the fact that some parameters will be added. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Magioladitis, no notice was placed on the merge target template page, Infobox NFL player, which is used on over 10,000 WP:NFL bio articles. The TfD should be reopened for that reason alone. You can't have a "merge" without two templates, and in this case, no notice was placed on the second template page. I am not opposed to such a merge in principle, and I assume other editors are willing to consider it, but WP:NFL editors have spent a great deal of time perfecting the present configuration of Infobox NFL player. The template for Infobox NFL player should not be altered without prior consultation with WP:NFL and the template's creator and principal contributors. As a longtime editor, you already know this and should recognize that the failure to provide TfD notice on the second infobox's template page is a fatal TfD process error. I urge you to voluntarily request that the closing admin reopen the TfD and that you not proceed with any attempted merge or other alteration of Infobox NFL player until you gain the consensus of WP:NFL editors regarding any changes you propose to make. Otherwise, I will open a deletion review complaint with all of that unnecessary drama. In any event, any changes made to Infobox NFL player are subject to editor consensus and further subject to the WP:BRD process. I urge you not to attempt any changes until you have the blessing of the project.

Also, as a point of fact, the TfD was open for seven days, not ten, but that is not really at issue.

Bottom line: WP:NFL editors want to be consulted before anyone changes our most widely used infobox template. Surely, you can understand that. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Mistakes were made in notification, but I'd suggest that we try to de-escalate this and fix whatever problems there may be. The TfD was listed on the main WikiProject NFL page, so it's not as if it was entirely hidden from everybody, but I concur with Dirtlawyer's points. In any event, I doubt that reopening the TfD would be productive from a practical standpoint. I think it'd be best and most useful to simply talk about if a merger of any kind is warranted into the Infobox NFL Player template, which is already well-developed, arguably well beyond Infobox NFL coach. Does anyone want to volunteer which specific parts of the coach infobox might be merged to the player template? It may be best to talk about this here and leave a note at the template page, since the Infobox NFL player template talk page doesn't seem to get much traffic. --Batard0 (talk) 05:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This may also be a good touching-off point to have a broader discussion about the organization of various football infobox templates. Right now, we have Template:Infobox NFL player, Template:Infobox gridiron football person, Template:Infobox college coach and some others. Speaking from my own experience, there's a slight problem with what to use for people like Blanton Collier, who was an NFL coach but was never a player. He doesn't seem to fit with Template:Infobox NFL player, which forces a section about the person's playing career, and yet Template:Infobox gridiron football person isn't sufficiently developed to include all of his statistics and details. I ended up using Template:Infobox college coach, since he coached college football too. Perhaps it would be wise to generalize the Infobox NFL player template to Template:Infobox NFL person. Just a thought. I think it would be good if we had one infobox template for all NFL-related people (players and coaches at least, maybe even referees), so that we could concentrate development and improvement on that infobox template instead of spreading ourselves thin with a bunch of them. In the long run, we may even want to generalize it to Template:Infobox American football person, which would more accurately reflect what Template:Infobox NFL player already is: a catch-all for players and coaches in the NFL, USFL, etc. (there are stats entries for other leagues already in the infobox). --Batard0 (talk) 05:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Batard, here's the problem with "de-escalation" as you describe it: it leaves the existing TfD decision in place. The TfD was fatally flawed, but not because the nominator failed to notify WP:NFL; that should have happened as a matter of courtesy and common sense. The real procedural flaw was the failure to place a TfD notice on the template page for the template page of the merge target, Infobox NFL player, and then notify its creator and significant contributors, as required by the TfD guidelines. A TfD merge requires two or more templates, and notice must be provided on the template pages of each of the templates that have been proposed for deletion or merge, as well notifying the template creator and major contributors of each. Beyond that, it is presumptuous in the extreme that four editors at TfD would decide to alter a project-specific infobox template used on over 10,000 articles within that project, and then leave the implementation of that "merge" and changes to the surviving template to a single editor without consulting the editors of this project. Too many project editors have spent too much time working on Infobox NFL player for that work to be undone on a barely discussed whim. The infobox has an evolutionary history and logic that were not even remotely discussed or considered during the TfD.

Infobox NFL player is the current consensus infobox for all NFL players. The infobox replaced Infobox NFL retired, Infobox NFL active, several predecessors or variants of those, and was supposed to replace all instances of Infobox gridiron football person used for American football players. User:Eagles247 spearheaded the time-consuming effort to upgrade the current Infobox NFL player, and supervised the robotic replacement of the previously deprecated/merged infoboxes. Infobox gridiron football person, however, does not fall under the jurisdiction of WP:NFL, and remains the principal infobox used by WP:Canadian Football for CFL players and coaches. The remaining instances of Infobox gridiron football person in American football player bios cannot be replaced robotically, and must be replaced manually. I know because I've personally replaced over 100 of them.

Infobox NFL player already incorporates parameters that may be used to describe a retired player's subsequent coaching career, but I personally believe that the current design is far from perfect for the presentation of such coaching history. While I am receptive to considering an upgrade of the template for Infobox NFL player to better accommodate coaching history, the design of that template should be the sole responsibility of this project, and not an editor who has very little or no understanding of American football. Nor should this redesign/modification take place under the forced circumstances of a TfD decision by four editors who simply thought that a combined infobox was a "good idea." It remains to be seen whether the head coach parameters and player parameters can be combined in a visually cohesive manner in a single template; this is not a simple matter of taking four parameters from the deprecated coaches' infobox, adding them to the players' infobox, and then calling it a day. It probably can be done, but it does not need to be done in a hurry-up, slap-dash manner to satisfy the TfD decision of four editors who have never worked on the templates and have little or no understanding of their history. But let's keep in mind, there's a reason why we have separate coach and player infoboxes now: a single solution for coach and player circumstances may not be the ideal solution for either of them. User:Eagles247 should be consulted for his wealth of practical experience and understanding.

As for Infobox college coach, it is not designed to dovetail perfectly with NFL coaches who have moved to and from college coaching positions. Infobox college coach was designed to be a uniform infobox for all college coaches, including football, basketball, baseball, and other sports. It is designed with a different set of parameters in mind than those typically needed for NFL coaches, including serving as the coach for more than one sport (a common occurrence in the first half of the 20th Century), and administrative work history as an athletic director or in similar capacity. User:Jweiss11 is the principal contributor to the infobox in its present configuration, and he can describe its history, peculiarities, parameters and uses far better than I can.

So, here's where we are. Batard, if you are willing to organize this discussion, I am willing to actively participate, but please keep in mind that we are talking about an enormous amount of work to alter the existing infoboxes. Bots invariably perform such work imperfectly at best and manual edits to most, if not all, of the existing coach articles will be required, and probably most if not all of the player articles, too, if we are going to fundamentally change the design of Infobox NFL player. None of this should be undertaken lightly, and no one should be under any misimpression that this work can be delegated to other editors or completed by somebody's bot. What you propose is not a small undertaking, and, yes, I am irritated that four random editors at TfD would presume to make these decisions for us and commit our project time, not theirs, to implementing these because they casually came to the conclusion that having a single American football person infobox was a "good idea." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

These are well-reasoned points. Just for reference, let's establish some basic facts and try to answer some questions:

The Template:Infobox NFL coach template is transcluded on 375 pages per this count. If the template were deleted, we'd have to change all of these to transclusions of Template:Infobox NFL player. These include Jim Thorpe's FA article and some other significant articles, so from a practical standpoint, it's important that the template at minimum isn't deleted until a consensus can be reached and (if agreed) we can make the transition to Template:Infobox NFL player.
The Template:Infobox NFL player template is transcluded on more than 10,000 pages, per this count. Thus, as stated above, any modification to it will have to be done carefully and with full consensus. The last thing we want, from a practical standpoint, is to muck up a bunch of pages. People intimately familiar with Template:Infobox NFL player should be involved in this discussion.
Here is a list of all infobox templates I can find relating to any professional football people, for reference. This doesn't imply any judgment about what should or should not be merged, and appears in order of number of transclusions. Add any I'm missing:
- Template:Infobox NFL player (transcluded 10,966 times)
- Template:Infobox gridiron football person (transcluded 7,026 times)
- Template:Infobox NFL coach (transcluded 375 times)
Turning to the question of the TfD, Dirtlawyer appears to be correct. At the very minimum, we need to have a gameplan of some sort before Template:Infobox NFL coach can go away. --Batard0 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Now, here are a couple of statements and questions meant to gauge where we stand on the infobox template issue, independent of the TfD question. They may not appear to be neutral, but I'm merely trying to establish a framework for discussion. I have no established opinion on the matter as yet. Please add statements to prompt further discussion. --Batard0 (talk) 09:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement 1 Setting aside all practical issues, the project's ultimate goal should be to merge all these templates into a single template (most likely Template:Infobox NFL player). This would allow for a focus on the development and improvement of a single infobox template instead of spreading ourselves thin on multiple templates that accomplish essentially the same task.

Support

Oppose

Discussion

It's really hard to say if this would be feasible, given the number of uses of the first two. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Based on this, it's probably best if we limit discussion for the moment to the coach template merger; it sounds like it could be very tricky to merge in the gridiron template. In the longer term, it may be a useful conversation to have, though. I'd like to hear arguments in favor of having two separate infobox templates from a qualitative perspective rather than a practical one. --Batard0 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Statement 2 Concerning the Template:Infobox NFL coach template, there are significant attributes that could be merged into the Template:Infobox NFL player, which the Template:Infobox NFL player template does not already cover in any fashion.

Support

In fact, coaching attributes have already been merged here, so this would almost certainly be minimal. We would keep {{Infobox NFL coach}} and {{Infobox NFL player}} as redirects to the merged template, so no changes to player articles (and probably no changes to coaching articles) would be necessary. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, so in other words, if the coach template were to go away and become a redirect to Template:Infobox NFL player, it actually wouldn't make any difference as the code is formatted right now, right? In other words, it could go away tomorrow and wouldn't cause any disruption to the articles that use it? --Batard0 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppose

Discussion

Question 1 If these templates were to be merged (or if just one of them were to be merged into another), in what manner should that merger take place?

A Deprecate the other template or templates and gradually change transclusions to Template:Infobox NFL player.

B Do as in A but also set up a task force to handle it.

C Don't deprecate the other template or templates, but rely on people to swap templates themselves as they wish. It's too big a job for the project, and a bot can't be written to carry it out.

Other (discuss)

Discussion

As the editor who performed the last overhaul of the code, I can assure you that if I perform the merger there will be no need to change the 10,000 articles using {{infobox NFL player}}. In fact, for this merger, you won't notice any change in articles using {{Infobox NFL player}}. We are basically talking about minor changes to 375 articles using the coach box. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, this is reassuring. As long as we're not losing any functionality at all of the Template:Infobox NFL coach, I can't see why we'd need to have a separate coaches template. --Batard0 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Question 2 Should the Template:Infobox NFL player be renamed?

A Yes, to Template:Infobox NFL biography, per other sports.

B Yes, to Template:Infobox NFL person.

C Yes, to Template:Infobox American football biography.

D Yes, to Template:Infobox American football person.

E No.

Discussion

It should be {{Infobox NFL biography}} per the convention used most other infoboxes. Frietjes (talk) 15:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Support A per Frietjes. A change is appropriate given that it would also encompass coaches, not just players. --Batard0 (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Support A. This is in alignment with all other sports. -- Magioladitis (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Next step

Given that this thread has been open for over a week, I would like to move forward. If there are no objections, I plan to finish creating a merged version of the template in the sandbox. the plan is to create something which will result in (1) zero changes to the visual presentation in articles using template:infobox NFL player, (2) zero changes necessary to the articles using template:infobox NFL player, (3) minor changes (if any) to the visual presentation in articles using template:infobox NFL coach, and (4) minor changes (if any) to the articles using template:infobox NFL coach. both template:infobox NFL player and template:infobox NFL coach would be kept as redirects to the merged template, called template:infobox NFL biography. more redirects could be created if desired, of course. I will also expand the "testcases" page to show the various usage cases, showing that there is indeed "zero impact" on player articles. Frietjes (talk) 21:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the lead in creating the mock-up, Frietjes. We have not taken the usual step of individually notifying active football project editors of this discussion yet, so I would like to keep the discussion open. With your new mock-up, WP:NFL and WP:CFB editors will actually have something tangible to discuss. Thank you for your efforts, and please bear with us. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:29, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I assumed that this was the place to notify WP:NFL editors. Frietjes (talk) 22:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

I endorse this plan of action, for what it's worth -- presumably those interested in the NFL should be watching this page, though of course the more voices the better. If anyone knows how to find other active and interested parties, let's notify them by all means. It's been pretty quiet around here. Thanks for putting in the work to make this happen without any hitches. --Batard0 (talk) 05:51, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

I endorse the plan too. -- Magioladitis (talk) 16:03, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Mag, the mcok-up for review was never created, per the comments above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Salute to Service

When I was watching games this year, I kept noticing commercials of a partnership between the NFL and the USAA called "Salute to Service", which is intended to support our troops. Should a page on this partnership be created, or should we wait for the Salute to Service Award to be created, or not create it at all? [5][6][7] Zappa O Mati 02:19, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

DragoLink08: ANI discussion regarding requested range blocks

Gentlemen, Cuchullain and I have filed ANI reports regarding User:DragoLink08's continued disruptive editing and sock-puppetry. I have also requested appropriate range blocks for the University of South Florida IP addresses that have provided him with an escape hatch to continue his sock-puppetry for the past three years. Many of you have had to deal with Drago's disruptive editing of the color schemes for navboxes, infoboxes and tables. Your input at ANI is requested. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 10:24, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

1993 Pro Bowl

Appears to have 1993 SEASON/1994 Pro Bowl Rosters67.198.82.87 (talk) 14:04, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:NFL / NFC Champion coaches

Template:NFL / NFC Champion coaches has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 16:51, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Pro Bowl navbox clutter

FYI

– Two TfDs opened: one for Pro Bowl MVP here and another for the multiple ones for each year's starters here

I just saw that {{Pro Bowl MVPs}} was created. This fails WP:NAVBOX on multiple points. One rarely would want to go from one Pro Bowl MVP to another, there is not even a standalone article for Pro Bowl MVP like Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award, and nobody would be adding see also's to the other MVPs just because the template did not exist. Guidelines aside, what reliable sources really writes about all Pro Bowl MVPs as a group? Pro Bowl MVP isnt even worthy to mention in the lead of any bio that would be an FA. If this isn't clutter, I dont know what is. Just look at Marshall Faulk as an example of navboxes gone amok. There is even clutter for the Pro Bowl starters for individual years in his articles, and there are all the ones at Category:National Football League Pro Bowl navigational boxes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:05, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

My first thought is that it should be deleted. However, {{NBA All-Star Game MVP Award}} and {{Major League Baseball All-Star Game MVPs}} exist. I don't think this is any different.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:11, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Those other All-Star games are at a higher level, witnessed by the fact that the Pro Bowl is on the verge of being cancelled, and is the only sport whose All-Star games gets lower ratings than a regular season game. As such, its MVP is even less meaningful. Pro Bowl MVP are not part of player's legacies, and sources do not refer to Pro Bowl MVP outside of routine game coverage. Nobody looks back on special Pro Bowl plays. This is not the case with NBA or MLB, which might explain why there are articles for Major League Baseball All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award and NBA All-Star Game Most Valuable Player Award, both FLs too, while there is no standalone article for Pro Bowl MVP.—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I agree, especially considering the fact that players from the Super Bowl teams are banned from participating. the award is for the MVP from the second best teams in each conference. we should just delete it and list the award in the infobox, as we are doing right now. Frietjes (talk) 22:36, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

please comment at the TfD. Frietjes (talk) 22:40, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Should we start a separate nomination for Pro Bowl starting rosters at Category:National Football League Pro Bowl navigational boxes?—Bagumba (talk) 23:01, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

I would support deleting those as well (see the now started TfD). Frietjes (talk) 23:37, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

RfC for order of awards on National Football League Rookie of the Year Award

I recently created an RfC to determine the order of awards on National Football League Rookie of the Year Award. Please comment here if you'd like. Thank you! SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 19:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Former players editing their own articles.

I noticed in my watchlist the past three days, three different professional athletes editing articles about themselves, two former American football players and one former baseball, mostly minor information and corrections, nothing extremely serious. Yes it's technically a WP:COI but I feel like they can become productive members of the community considering their first-hand expertise with the sport and the poor shape of many of our articles in this project. User talk:DMcClover58 is one example who I saw pop up on my watchlist. Yes, like every new editor they need to learn our policies and guidelines, especially with sourcing, but considering the drop of active editors especially with American sports, we should treat them with respect and help them when needed (instead of driving them away with a bunch of warning templates and reversions, which is one of the main cause of new editors not staying in Wikipedia). What do you guys think? Hardly in my history of the project I've seen professional athletes edit articles about themselves, so this is a unique scenario. Thanks Secret ^account 20:22, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Are we sure that they aren't just fans of players? In any event, as long as it's sourced and not inflammatory nor promotional, I see no problem. Go Phightins! 20:35, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Well uploading his personal wedding picture like McClover and like the case of Robin Earl, being a medicore subject, I highly doubt they are fans. Secret ^account 20:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

It could be a relative or friend of the subject, but by operating under DMcClover58 (talk · contribs) and Robinearl (talk · contribs) makes it rather doubtful. Zappa O Mati 03:46, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Franchise timeline error

Very small change needed. On the main graphic, the Oakland Raiders are marked as having won the Super Bowl in 2002, when they lost to Tampa Bay. The Buccaneers are correctly starred. Just need to remove the star for the Raiders.

see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Football_League_franchise_timeline — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.140.86.246 (talk) 19:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers GA

The Carolina Panthers, a topic of significant importance as one of the newest members of the NFL, is up for good article. If you are interested in commenting on or reviewing the article, please feel free to do so. Toa Nidhiki05 02:44, 5 February 2013 (UTC)

Ideal team

FYI

There is a new article, Ideal team, that deals with virtual teams of top players like All-Pro. You are invited to discuss at Talk:Ideal team how best to handle this.—Bagumba (talk) 02:34, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Category:Paul Brown coaching tree nominated for deletion

Since Category:Paul Brown coaching tree is of interest to this WikiProject, I am letting you know that its CfD can be found at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 7#Category:Paul Brown coaching tree. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 15:50, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merge of World League of American Football with NFL Europe

I have proposed that World League of American Football be merged with NFL Europe. As both are under the scope of this WikiProject, any member of this project is invited to comment on the proposal at the NFL Europe talk page. Toa Nidhiki05 23:37, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Uniform images

What's going on with the uniform images across the NFL? Lots of them were deleted and others were requested to be but declined. Now that User:JohnnySeoul is gone is there someone else that will be able to maintain and update these images? I could probably help out in some degree if I knew how. ~ Richmond96 T • C 01:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Pretty sure JohnnySeoul doesn't have the right to withdraw those images now, as they are now effectively Wikipedia's images. Just because he doesn't agree with the terms of use is not a good reason to delete them. – Pee Jay 07:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Some images were deleted though. See File:2009-2011AFCS-Uniform-JAX.PNG. I'm not sure who requested for it to be deleted. ~ Richmond96 T • C 02:40, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

He did; I'll deal with this. He appears to have mass-nominated his images; most of the nominations were declined but a few got through. Mackensen (talk) 01:52, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

One problem here is that many of the images are non-free drawings of public domain clothes, meaning that they violate WP:NFCC#1 (someone else can make a free drawing of the same clothes) and WP:NFCC#6 (WP:IUP#User-created images tells that all user-created images must be freely licensed). The logos on the clothes are typically below the threshold of originality (see Commons:COM:TOO#United States) and are thus in the public domain, but there are a few uniforms with logos which are more complex. --Stefan2 (talk) 22:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

GA nomination for National Football League

The National Football League article is up for good article status. As a significant article in this WikiProject, any project members are invited to comment on or review the nomination. Toa Nidhiki05 01:29, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

2001 NFL Draft

I have nominated 2001 NFL Draft for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Albacore (talk) 17:14, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Sports is up for featured portal consideration

This is a courtesy message to inform the members of this project that I have nominated Portal:Sports for featured portal status. The discussion is at Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Sports. The featured portal criteria are at Wikipedia:Featured portal criteria. Please feel free to weigh in. Sven Manguard Wha? 18:41, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Unofficial sources

Every time there is unofficial news of a trade, signings, waiver, etc, editors rush to add it to an article as if it was official. I've created the essay Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions to capture how to handle this. It's easier to just drop this on a talk page/edit summary than having to explain this every time. Feel free to improve it.—Bagumba (talk) 21:04, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

1-day contracts

For the record, I assume there is consensus that players like Jeff Saturday that sign one-day contracts with their favorite team before retiring don't need their infobox updated for that 1-day stint.—Bagumba (talk)

I don't know if there is consensus, but if there isn't already, I support Bagumba's suggestion that infoboxes do not need updating. They never actually play for the team in their contract which is a stipulation we use over at WP:BASEBALL, so I agree that we should only be adding when they play for the team or are a practice squad member or something. Go Phightins! 20:19, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

NFL player infobox, college – avoid abbreviations?

The description on Template:Infobox NFL player says "Schools names displayed should be consistent with how they are presented at NFL.com", which often uses abbreviations, such as "USC" for the University of Southern California, or "LSU" for Louisiana State University. In my opinion, we should avoid abbreviations to improve readability and to avoid ambiguity, unless the full name would be to long for the infobox (such as "University of California, Los Angeles" instead of "UCLA"). --bender235 (talk) 08:48, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I can understand USC possibly being written as "Southern California", since USC can also mean the University of South Carolina, but I don't really know about LSU being the name of other colleges. However, I really don't care, since USC is almost always synonymous with Southern Cal. Zappa O Mati 08:53, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm looking for a general rule. Yes, LSU is (to my knowledge) not used by another school. So is TCU or UCF. But to improve readability, I'd like to have it "Louisiana State", "Texas Christian", and "Central Florida", respectively. --bender235 (talk) 09:01, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_Basketball#Abbreviations_for_college_names_in_infoboxes. My recommendation there was to use WP:COMMONAME: "There are already WP articles on the college's sports team e.g. BYU Cougars, TCU Horned Frogs, UTSA Roadrunners, etc. which presumably follow WP:COMMONNAME. We should use the common convention decided upon already, independent of sport, and not go with NBA.com convention for basketball and NFL.com for football, etc. If there is a disagreement on the existing team article name, get consensus to change it through WP:RM." Same was also suggested at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_College_football#Abbreviations_for_college_names_in_infoboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 09:57, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

editing pages of players entering free agency

I've been editing player pages to reflect their free agency status since the start of free agency. I'm having trouble trying to figure out the best way to structure the lead sentence of the intro. I've been using example: "Justin Deaon Tryon (born May 29, 1984) is an American football cornerback who is currently a free agent in the National Football League." As I read it, it looks superfluous. I've seen different variations of it that omit "currently" and "National Football League". There is also Example: "Adrian Lemar Wilson[1] (born October 12, 1979) is an American football strong safety who last played for the Arizona Cardinals of the National Football League (NFL)." I like this one, but I think the free agent status should be included. What is the standard way to write the lead sentence for free agents? I've also been deleting the uniform number which then only shows "Free Agent" at the top of the infobox. I think it just looks better aesthetically to leave out the number, with the exception of when a player recently signs with a team and has not been given a number yet. Edday1051 (talk) 07:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Edday1051

Edday, when a player is a free agent, he is by definition contractually unaffiliated with any team or league, so "Bob Jones is an American football cornerback who is currently a free agent in the National Football League" makes no logical sense. Many of us have been trying to put the one-paragraph lead sections into chronological order; thus, we place the "He is currently a free agent" statement at the end of the one-paragraph lead as the last significant event in the player's career. For longer lead sections consisting of multiple paragraphs, the "free agent" statement is usually associated with the paragraph that discusses the player's NFL career, or is otherwise best placed at the very end of the entire lead section.
In the infobox of free agents, please also note that the player should be listed as a "Free agent" (not "Free Agent") in the current team field, and the status field should be left blank. Thanks. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:37, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

hey dirtlawyer1, thanks for clearing that up. As for the capitalization of "agent", I think aesthetically it looks better capitalized, especially as a title on the infobox. And what's your take on the number. I think it looks better left out with free agent and kept in with dashes when there is a team.Edday1051 (talk) 17:31, 14 March 2013 (UTC)Edday1051

Edday, I am following the capitalization rules of Wikipedia's Manual of Style per MOS:CAPS. "Free agent," like "tight end" or "offensive tackle," is not a proper noun, and therefore should not be capitalized in text. However, because "free agent" is the first phrase shown in the infobox field, the first word "free" is capitalized, but not the second word "agent." Same rule applies to all two-word positions listed in the position field of the infobox. This capitalization rule is proper formatting for all of Wikipedia, not just Wikiproject NFL.

As for the dashes for the unknown jersey number of a free agent or unsigned draft pick, it has been the consensus of WP:NFL editors to use the dashes as a placeholder until a new jersey number is assigned. Personally, I don't have a strong opinion about the placeholder one way or the other, but I continue to use it in deference to those other NFL editors who use it and, like me, believe in standardized formatting for the NFL infobox and related articles. Happy editing. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:51, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I would opt for FA to always be mentioned in the first paragraph of the lead if not the very first sentence. WP:OPENPARAGRAPH suggests listing why a person is significant in the first paragraph. Their current team or free agent status is arguably the most notable part of an active player. Note it's prominent position in the infobox. Understand that many readers will read the first paragraph if nothing more, and shouldn't have to wade through the end to see a player's free agent status.—Bagumba (talk) 19:00, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

I've had this discussion before with other editors, Bagumba, and reasonable people can hold different opinions . . . but if the first sentence of the lead paragraph/section is a statement of the subject person's notability, do you really believe that an athlete's temporary free agent status is what makes him notable? I would argue that his status and history as a professional athlete are what makes him notable, not a passing state of free agency . . . . Think about it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

My preference, for what it's worth, is "John Smith is an American football running back who is currently a free agent." Followed immediately by saying which team drafted him or first signed him. ~ Richmond96 T • C 22:35, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

dirtlawyer, the free agency status of the player should be mentioned in the first sentence. If were going on notability, their current status as a free agent is far more notable that the last team they played for. I agree with Bagumba that most readers will probably look at the first sentence of the intro and the player's current status should be the first thing they are introduced to.Edday1051 (talk) 04:57, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Edday1051

Edday, please review the Wikipedia concept of "notability" per WP:N. For Wikipedia purposes, "notability" is the concept by which we judge the suitability of a particular subject's inclusion as a stand-alone article. If the first sentence is a summary of the reasons for the subject's notability per WP:LEADSENTENCE, it's difficult to understand what the player's temporary free agency has to do with their notability. The principal reason why a professional football player is notable is his NFL career. (See WP:NGRIDIRON.) If you can work "free agent" into the first sentence, while also providing a brief summary of the player's NFL career, have at it. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

dirtlawyer, from what I understand, the lead sentence should be a definition of the subject, in this case a football player. The definition for a football player should state the fact that he is a football player, the position that he plays, and his current status(the team and league he's playing for, retired, or free agent). I don't see any reason why you would put the last team a player has played for in the lead sentence. A history of what teams a player has played for should be mentioned in the rest of the intro. The main reasoning being the last team the player played for may be the least notable part of his career. If you're going on notability, then you either should mention the team he's played most of his career with or whichever team he's best known, or list every team he's ever played for. But of course that would be unnecessary, considering you have the rest of the intro that can be several paragraphs long if necessary. And you can't understand why a player's current status as a free agent isn't notable? What? Free agency is arguably the biggest offseason NFL event outside of the NFL draft. The current status of the player as an active player who is seeking a contract from an NFL team or any other league is at the moment, the most notable piece of information on them. Once retired, then their past history of their career should take precedence. Edday1051 (talk) 08:38, 16 March 2013 (UTC)Edday1051

Talk:Bert Bell/GA1

Back at the end of November, User:Ijustreadbooks nominated Bert Bell at GAN. I reviewed it last week and placed the nomination on hold but it appears that they have been pretty much inactive since the start of February. Is anyone here willing to pick up and complete the review on their behalf? Thanks, Reso lute 20:47, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

If it can wait until later tonight or tomorrow, I'll take care of it. Go Phightins! 20:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

FLRC for List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame

I have nominated List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:51, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Naming standard for high schools

I propose that the infobox high school field be formatted like "Name of high school (City, State)" i.e. "Mater Dei (Santa Ana, California)" for a player who went to Mater Dei High School in Santa Ana, California. Format like "Santa Ana (CA) Mater Dei" don't always reflect the school's actual formal name, as not all schools formally take the city name. And I think city should always be mentioned to be more explicit about where Palestine High School for instance is located; "Palestine (TX)" makes it ambiguous to the casual reader who may not realize there's a city named such in the state. Arbor to SJ (talk) 02:46, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

There are always exceptions, but usually the format "[town] ([state]) [school name]" reflects how the schools are actually referred to (e.g. "Southlake Carroll", "Dallas Carter", "Compton Dominguez", or "Miami Northwestern" -- we just add state for disambigation). Plus the current format is consistent with what we use to disambig universities (e.g. "Miami (OH)" or "California (PA)"). There might also be a case, where the reader isn't sure whether "South Panola (MS)" is the name of the city or school, or both, but that will be explained on the school wiki page. I'm in favor of keeping the established format. --bender235 (talk) 14:18, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I second Bender's endorsement of the existing format for one very simple reason: in our space-limited infobox for NFL players, if we can present the same information in one line of text, rather than two, we usually should. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:24, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

The only space savings I see is using the state abbreviation. I'm not familiar with many schools being called by <town><school name> as opposed to just <school name>. A reader shouldn't be forced to click on the link to figure out a school's real name and make sense out of this WP-specific convention.—Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The convention to which Bender refers is a standard convention employed by the Associated Press and many, if not most American newspapers, and often employed by state high school athletic associations, of referring to a given high school by the town name (first) and actual school (second), as in "South Bend Kennedy High School." The reasons for its origins were to clarify similar or even identical high school names within the same state or region. My concern is that we don't need two lines of text (e.g., John F. Kennedy High School, South Bend, Indiana) in a space-limited infobox to delineate a professional athlete's high school and that high school's location. As alternatives, we could use the common short form of the high school's name (e.g., "John F. Kennedy High School" becomes "Kennedy") and omit the city altogether, or we could simply omit the high school from the infobox altogether as one of the least important pieces of information competing for space. Maybe including the high school in the "early years" text is enough. What do you think, Bagumba? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:36, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

I think high school should be kept as part of the "career information" in the infobox. --bender235 (talk) 00:39, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't think that the high school an NFL player attended is one of the top things people are interested in. Hence, I would support the suggestion to remove it. MOS:INFOBOX does say, "The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance."—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I'm not convinced the current <town><school name> format is common. If I look at Maurice Jones-Drew, he went to De La Salle. The school was referenced as plain "De La Salle" in this USA Today article. NFL.com lists as "De La Salle HS [Concord, CA]". I don't see that many Google news hits for "Concord (CA) De La Salle". Perhaps its common in hard-core HS sports sites, but that seems too narrow a niche to impose the convention on general readers.—Bagumba (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bagumba, I was one of the original advocates of using the high school field that was built into the original template. However, as I have seen the infobox fully completed with all options employed, I increasingly believe that multiple fields probably should be pared from the infobox as non-essential, perhaps including the high school field. It certainly should not take up two lines of text. Over time, we have also included every imaginable award, honor or accomplishment in the section labeled "highlights," even to the point where some editors are listing high school and college freshman honors, as well as award "finalists." At some point, it's complete overkill, and the meaningful data points get lost in the weeds.

We also have a pending merge of the NFL coach infobox and the NFL player infobox that WP:NFL must still resolve. When all of the coach options are added, the NFL player infobox as completed has the potential to become ridiculously long. I think perhaps we need a WP:NFL RfC to decide which elements to include in and omit from the merged infobox, and what elements should only be mentioned in the text. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:05, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

The format (town) (school name) is, in fact, very common. I mentioned a few in my posting above, but I could continue the list with: Midland Lee, Long Beach Poly, Euless Trinity, Converse Judson, Louisville Male, Miami Killian, Dallas Skyline, etc. A number of publications, e.g. Texas Football, use this format. There are, of course, high schools with rather unique names, that are usually refered to by just that (e.g. "John Curtis Christian School", "Oak Hill Academy"), but those are exceptions to the rule.

Plus, I don't see why (school name) High School, (town) would be any better in terms of higher generality. Not to mention that in the highschool parameter we should link exclusively to a school, not a town. --bender235 (talk) 18:25, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I think the naming conventions should follow those of the article naming conventions for schools. Unfortunately that link is to a failed proposal, and there is no consensus currently for school article naming conventions (as far as I know.) As mentioned above, for some school article names, it makes sense to write "[School Name (City, State)]." For others, "[City], ([State]) [School Name]" is more appropriate. It appears to be discretionary on a case by case basis, and I think the same rules should apply to how the names are displayed in the infobox. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 19:04, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

MOS discussion regarding linked NFL seasons in player infoboxes

Please be aware of this discussion at MOS: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers#Years; reverts. This discussion grew out of a feature article review for an NBA basketball player Juwan Howard. Before jumping into the discussion, I suggest that you read the relevant MOS section, MOS:YEAR. As I'm sure you can see, this has the potential to significantly change the currently used year span conventions in the NFL player infoboxes. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:17, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

New navbox opportunity

Anyone interested in creating a navbox for NFLPA presidents? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:25, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Drew Brees place of birth

Was Drew Brees born in Dallas or Austin? The sources disagree. Our usual authorities for this kind of information, his page at NFL.com[8] and his official bio at the Saints website[9], both say that he was born in Austin. His foundation's official bio page calls him "A native of Austin, TX".[10] But a number of other reliable sources quote Brees as saying that he was born in Dallas and moved to Austin at age 7.[11] An editor has now supplied a link to an NFL Films program about Troy Aikman, in which Brees (the narrator) clearly says just that: he was born in Dallas, moved to Austin at 7.[12] How to handle? Comments are solicited at Talk:Drew Brees#Place of Birth. --Arxiloxos (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I believe the NFL website is referring to Austin as his hometown, rather than his place of birth. If Brees himself and his website say he was born in Dallas and moved to Austin later, obviously we note that in his article. – Pee Jay 01:03, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

I wish it were that clear. The problem is that all the usual "official" sources say Austin. Brees' website describes him as "A native of Austin, TX" and the Saints website also says "Born Jan. 15, 1979 in Austin, Texas." That would ordinarily settle the issue for Wikipedia purposes, but in this case there are multiple sources where Drew's own statements contradict the official sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:06, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Surely if Brees has been quoted in a reliable, third-party source that he was born in Dallas, that settles the issue? Damn the "official" sources if they are proven to be wrong. – Pee Jay 01:37, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Texas does allow you to obtain verification of birth [13], or if you trust that ancestry.com has correctly parsed the data, you could use [14]. Frietjes (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2013 (UTC)

Discussion on Talk:2012 Packers–Seahawks officiating controversy#Clarification

Hello, everyone. Another editor and I are having a discussion on how the controversial final play should be described. All comments would be appreciated! Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 05:08, 23 March 2013 (UTC)

We've started a Request for Comment survey below the discussion, so feel free to join in, even if just with a brief comment. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 19:17, 7 April 2013 (UTC)

Stalled FLN for List of NFL tied games

The featured list nomination for List of NFL tied games has stalled, greatly hindering chances of it passing. Any and all input from project members at the FLN is welcome, so as to help get discussion and ultimately pass it as a featured list. Toa Nidhiki05 19:18, 5 April 2013 (UTC)

E. J. Manuel

Question: E. J. Manuel or EJ Manuel?

Per WP:INITS, we actually seperate initials with a full stop and a non-breaking space (i.e., "E. J."). Yet, apparently, EJ Manuel himself "uses" his initials w/out the full stop (i.e., "EJ"). What should Wikipedia do? --bender235 (talk) 14:26, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Good Article nomination for 1920 Rock Island Independents season

Hi. I have reviewed the article 1920 Rock Island Independents season which was nominated as a Good Article candidate back in December 2012. I conducted the review in mid-March, and Michael Jester (talk · contribs) (who nominated the article) made a good start in addressing most of the comments I'd made. It seems that Michael has not been online since April 1, and there are still a few comments outstanding in the review. The review can be seen here. The main outstanding comments are generally regarding broadness, and I'm hoping that a member of this project may be able to address them without trouble. If anyone wants to pick up the article, it would be great. It's close to passing. Hope someone can help. Thanks. - Shudde ^talk 10:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

College names in athletes' infoboxes

How should college names be listed in infoboxes in biographies for athletes associated with college athletics? Options include:

Specific website: Depending on the athlete's sport, use the college naming convention of a relevant website (e.g. Template:Infobox NFL player documentation instructs to use NFL.com)
Avoid abbreviations: Always avoid abbreviations that could be ambiguous (e.g. do not use "USC" for the USC Trojans that represent the University of Southern California, as it can be confused with the South Carolina Gamecocks, which represent the University of South Carolina. Use "Southern California" instead.)
Common name: Use the WP:COMMONNAME already in place for a college sports program's article (e.g. "USC" for the USC Trojans that represent the University of Southern California, "California" for the California Golden Bears that represent the University of California, Berkeley)

Feel free to add any missing options for discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Past discussions

Survey

Common Name Use of WP:COMMONNAME reflects the most common name used in reliable sources for college sports, giving more weight to prevalent national usage over occasional regional usage (e.g. the "USC" case). This allows for the possibility of abbreviations that have a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC to be used. If there is dispute over the name currently used as the title of a college sports program's article, WP:RM can be used to reach consensus of the merits of a name change. This will ensure consistent naming across Wikipedia when referring to college sports programs.—Bagumba (talk) 17:06, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
Common name per Bagumba; it aids in recognizability across a broader audience. oknazevad (talk) 22:14, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

I've left notification at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College baseball, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College Basketball. User talk:Bender235 was also notified, as a discussion between us inspired this RFC.—Bagumba (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Tai Streets

Am I the only person watching Tai Streets? His page was blanked for over 24 hours.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:52, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably, since this says the page has <30 watchlists with the page. Zappa O Mati 23:05, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

I saw the edit summary. I know he was not a hall of famer, but this is the first time one of the pages I watched went so long in a blanked state. I am surprised ClueBot (talk · contribs) did not catch it.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:06, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

You pointed to the wrong bot. ClueBot (talk · contribs) doesn't operate anymore, though ClueBot NG (talk · contribs) should've noticed. Zappa O Mati 00:26, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Help with John Mackey article?

Hello, I don't know if anyone is watching this page, but I've made a proposal recently on an article listed as being "Top-importance" to this wikiproject: John Mackey (American football). The article contains false information, and I'm interested in finding another editor to review my suggestion (see here) and make the change if you agree. The reason I ask in the first place: this request is made on behalf of the NFLPA, with whom I am working, so in the interests of following COI rules I'm avoiding direct article edits. Happy to answer any questions if need be. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Just in case anyone is still watching this part of the page, someone has now taken care of my request. However, I'm going to have additional suggestions for NFL-related articles upcoming; if you happen across this message and you're interested in helping, come ask me what I'm up to! Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 23:15, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

New Uniforms

When the Jaguars unveil their new uniforms on Tuesday, and other teams around the league eventually do the same, do we have anyone who will be able to update the uniform images now that Johnny Seoul is gone? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

Oorang.jpg

file:Oorang.jpg has been nominated for deletion -- 70.24.250.103 (talk) 03:22, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Changing team colors in infoboxes

I don't want to screw anything up, so can someone change the Jaguars primary color to black and the secondary color to gold (#d3a205) in order to reflect the changes in the team and player infoboxes? ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:15, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Done Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:41, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you know how to fix the weird box that is going on at 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars season? ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:22, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. I previously screwed up on one of the templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:29, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

Active roster

When do you add a player to the active roster templates? After they are drafted? After minicamp? After they sign?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:50, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

I think it's both after drafting and signing. I don't know about minicamp though. Zappa O Mati 23:54, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

New sports related IRC channel.

There is now an WP:IRC channel for collaboration between editors in various sports WikiProjects. It's located at #wikipedia-en-sports ^connect. Thanks Secret ^account 03:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Help with Domonique Foxworth article?

I'm hoping an editor here can review an update I recently proposed for the Domonique Foxworth article. My request is on behalf of the NFLPA, like with the John Mackey article upthread, and I am avoiding direct edits due to my financial COI. (In the past I edited NFL-related articles for fun, but I'm refraining from that for now.) My request here is fairly simple. Though Foxworth is the current president of the NFLPA, his article currently implies that he is a former president. I would like to clarify this and add in a short section on his work with the NFLPA. If you are interested in helping with this, the full request is on the article's Talk page. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 22:33, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Request for input

Any editor familiar with handling stadium article titles following a naming rights sale is welcome to provide input at Talk:Cleveland Browns Stadium#Requested move 2. Any editor unfamiliar with this type of situation is welcome, too. Thanks. Levdr1lostpassword / talk 06:25, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

IPs changing player positions

An editor or editors using the IP addresses 74.79.23.210 and 96.47.126.196 have been changing player positions without sources, usually going against the positions listed on NFL.com and/or the team websites. May be a careless error or a WP:SOCK trying to vandalize pages, not sure. But I do think it is the same editor, the edits are too similar and at different times. Just wanted to bring this to your attention. Luchuslu (talk) 16:09, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Some of this may be in good faith -- for example, the Saints are switching to a 3-4 defense next year and there's been a lot of debate among Saints fans about what positions the former 4-3 defenders are playing now. That doesn't mean that unsourced changes should be waved on through—they shouldn't—just that it may not be "vandalism" at work in all cases.--Arxiloxos (talk) 16:21, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Acceptable sources for player height/weight?

Do we only use official team or nfl.com profiles for height/weight, or can we use other sources? Russell Wilson just said in an official press conference that he now weighs 214 lbs, even though his official profiles list him as 206 lbs. SGMD1 ^Talk/_Contribs 12:58, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

The basketball infobox qualifies height/weight with "listed". It's well known that teams sometimes play games with what is listed. Any discrepancies can be noted with a footnote. See Kobe Bryant for an example.—Bagumba (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

NFL.com is usually perferred, but discrepencies do exist between them, the team sites and other third-party sites (i.e. Pro Football Reference). The key is using a reputable source that pass WP:RS. A player speaking at a press conference is kind of in a gray area. You could argue via WP:SELFSOURCE either yay or nay. Luchuslu (talk) 19:46, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Guys, WP:NFL has used the heights and weights from the players' NFL.com profiles. We've gone through a generational change with several of our most active WP:NFL participants having recently become inactive, and some of these conventions seem to have been lost. Since most of the NFL team websites are managed by NFL.com, the player data is usually consistent. Pro-Football-Reference.com's source for basic player data is NFL.com and data provided by the NFL. College player profiles are notoriously inaccurate (they often overstate height by 1 to 3 inches for players under 6 feet tall), and the college recruiting sites often just get data wrong. Personally, I find a lot of the pre-draft data to be suspect, too, and I wish we could just dump it as useless trivia that is typically unsourced in the Wikipedia player bios. In the absence of some pretty unusual circumstances, NFL.com trumps these other sources, as pro teams and the league generally do not fudge their numbers and have every reason to be accurate. Obviously weight fluctuates, and if the infobox number is within 5 pounds of the current NFL.com number, I usually just ignore it. In the event of a discrepancy regarding height, I always use the NFL.com number in the infobox. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:36, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

Very well said. Lets stick with what Wilson's NFL.com profile says. Luchuslu (talk) 19:11, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

NFL Draft trade references

I brought this up on the 2014 Draft talk page and I don't think anyone saw it— does anyone know why all the recent draft articles have a separate reference group for trades? I don't see any benefit to splitting up the references: you can always just click the number to find the one you're looking for. It makes the prose look really cluttery to have links that say "source 1" and "source 2" instead of just the numbers. –Thatotherperson (talk/contribs) 02:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

2012 NFL referee lockout

I've mentioned here previously that I'm working with the NFLPA to improve some articles on Wikipedia, and because of my financial COI, I'm asking volunteer editors to help with these improvements.

Most recently, I've proposed some updates and changes in wording for 2012 NFL referee lockout on the article's Talk page. One small change was made from it, but it doesn't look like anyone has yet considered the other suggestions. Would anyone else here mind taking a look? I'm happy to answer any questions over there. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll get to it in less than an hour. Zappa O Mati 22:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Done Zappa O Mati 23:06, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

I see that it is—thanks much! WWB Too (Talk · COI) 11:57, 3 June 2013 (UTC)

A few more suggestions for 2012 NFL referee lockout

Hello again, I'm hoping to get an editor or two to take a look at some additional suggestions that I recently posted on the Talk page for the 2012 NFL referee lockout article. Since I have a financial COI with regard to the article, as I'm currently working with the NFLPA, I'd appreciate it if someone here has a moment to pop over to take a look and, if appropriate, move the changes over into the article. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:05, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

And just to close the loop, this was also

Done. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:28, 11 June 2013 (UTC)

2,000-yard club up for featured list

Hello, I have nominated the article 2,000-yard club for featured list status. There has no been much input, however, and it would be much appreciated if members of this WikiProject could provide sound and objective comments and analysis on whether the article meets the featured list criteria. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 21:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

Untangling the NFLPA Game

Hello, I've previously made a few requests here asking for volunteer editor assistance on articles related to the NFLPA, as I've been working on their behalf to help update articles of interest (by proposing changes, not by direct editing, I hasten to note).

The NFLPA has now asked me to take a look at the article titled NFLPA Game, and boy, it's quite a mess. The article seems to be covering three different games, but treating them all as if they were the same thing. The issues with the article have actually been raised previously on Talk:NFLPA Game, but it doesn't look like any kind of conclusion was reached.

Based on the research I've done, and input from the NFLPA themselves about the situation, here's what seems to have happened around the idea of an "NFLPA Game" (note that the following leans heavily on primary sources; although I'm well aware that press releases are not the most desirous sources, they are currently among the most complete):

2007-2010 — The Texas vs. the Nation game is held in El Paso, TX, with NFLPA involvement
2011 — The game moves to San Antonio—some sources still give this the name "Texas vs the Nation", while others call it the "NFLPA Game" (and one source specifically states that this was the "NFLPA Game, formerly Texas vs the Nation").
2012, 2013 — The NFLPA Collegiate Bowl at Home Depot Center in Carson, CA begins; although the NFLPA was also involved here, this is a distinct game from the previous "NFLPA Game." Also note here that, in 2012, there was no Texas vs. Nation game.
Further complicating matters, however, there was a Texas vs. Nation game in 2013, but as a completely different entity, and with no involvement from the NFLPA.

It seems like untangling this, and deciding what to do about creating new articles, setting up redirects, etc., is going to be a bit complicated. Rather than just propose a solution to this, I'd like to get people's input and build consensus about how best to handle this situation.

So, what do people think? What's the best way to deal this mess? Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for raising this. It is a confusing situation. My research has found sufficient independent media coverage to support the notability of both sets of games. My suggestion is two articles, Texas vs. The Nation Game for the games in Texas that have been played with "Texas" and "Nation" teams (2007-2011, 2013), and NFLPA Game (or if preferred, NFLPA Collegiate Bowl) for the games in California (2012- ) that use a different team division. Of course each article would have to cross-reference the other, and the NFLPA's involvement would be mentioned appropriately in both. I recognize that this is not a perfect division, in particular because the 2011 game arguably fits in both categories, but it seems the most logical way to divide them. --Arxiloxos (talk) 15:48, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

I think that sounds like a pretty good solution. If you're interested in putting some time to it, Arx, maybe we could each take one? As noted above, I don't edit articles directly in situations like this, so I'd probably prefer to take NFLPA Collegiate Bowl—that being the more official name—and write it in my userspace, then offer it up for review when ready. Thoughts on that? WWB Too (Talk · COI) 20:14, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi Arxiloxos and all, I’ve now drafted a version of the article for the NFLPA Collegiate Bowl, to start addressing the issue of the current NFLPA Game article conflating two sets of games. You can find it in my userspace. I’ve also started a discussion about this on Talk:NFLPA Game. I’d really appreciate feedback there, especially with regards to the best way to handle setting up this article. On that page, I've offered my suggested solution. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:11, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

National Football League GA review

National Football League is up for GA review. It looks close to passing once some small fixes are made, but before I sign off, I wanted to solicit opinions about whether the article sufficiently covers the "main aspects" of its topic. Is there anything you feel needs to be added? Comments welcome at Talk:National Football League/GA2 under the "Outside Comments" section. -- Khazar2 (talk) 13:22, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to say User:Toa Nidhiki05 has now brought National Football League, this project's top article, to Good Article status. Congratulations! -- Khazar2 (talk) 02:01, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Fyi, I've changed one of the project's to-dos to bringing the NFL article up to FA (the goal was previously to get it to GA) as a result of this. --Batard0 (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Mass check needed

Gcveintee (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Gcveintee has been changing/adding numbers for NFL players for months now, with incorrectly formatted refs. He hit an article on my watchlist so I verified his changes. They were incorrect. I spot checked four random edits - all incorrect.

Matt Asiata - [15] ref leads to [16]
Lamar Miller - [17] ref leads to [18]
Cedric Peerman - [19] ref leads to [20]
Johnathan Franklin - [21] ref leads to [22]

Given that these were the first four edits I spot checked, it's a good bet most of edits are wrong. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 13:59, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

It appears to me that the data the user is adding are correct, but the ref links go to the wrong places. Is this right? If so, I think the user should simply be encouraged to fix the links...which it appears you've done. --Batard0 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I did not check if the data was correct but what concerns me is that they were changing already established numbers in some cases. Sorry I don't have more time - real life calls. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 14:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The data for Ryan Swope was correct, but the link was to a page for a Central Florida running back. It's certainly an issue that he's putting incorrect sources on pages, but the content seems to be accurate outside a few minor errors (initially listed Swope's numbers as from Central Florida's pro day). Luchuslu (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

He's continuing to put incorrect references in, despite being pointed to this conversation. I've added another message that will hopefully get his attention. While he might have good intentions, if he continues, a WP:CIR block may be required. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 21:33, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

I dunno, it might be required eventually, but it seems a little extreme for now. In my view, he's adding a lot of correct information, which is a net benefit to the encyclopedia even if his link locations are wrong. Other editors can come around and clean that up; as long as he's not putting in bad numbers, I think a gentler approach is merited. Let's also consider the possibility that he's not all that familiar with Wikipedia and isn't looking at his talk page. The best course may be a very temporary block that would force him to go there and discuss the issue. I think we should be careful not to sound hostile, as it's quite possible that he just hasn't seen the talk page and would change course immediately if he did. --Batard0 (talk) 04:08, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

I agree, a 24-hour block would get his attention. The information is correct, but just sourced incorrectly. Probably a newbie trying to do his best but being a little sloppy. Luchuslu (talk) 15:17, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Heads up on probable upcoming NFL Draft page moves

Just a heads up, User:Dicklyon has recently been moving every NBA Draft article from (example) "2013 NBA Draft" to "2013 NBA draft" citing MOS capitalization norms. Not sure if anyone wants discussion of this before he continues to move NFL Draft pages (he has already started) but if you don't agree you may want to address it now. If you all agree with the moves, then obviously no issue. Rikster2 (talk) 02:16, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't think moving the draft to lowercase draft is a good idea, since most sources seem to list them with the capitalized D. Zappa O Mati 04:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

What sources are you looking at? I was looking at books. Dicklyon (talk) 05:43, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

While I think the way the moves have been done hasn't been the best (without consultation of projects beforehand, etc., in a community that's supposed to be about consensus even after it became clear they weren't uncontroversial), I personally agree with the basic idea behind the move. The manual of style on capitalization says wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. This seems like a case where capitalization is indeed unnecessary. "NFL Draft" may be the branding the NFL uses for its drafts, but it seems to me that it's more commonly described as the "NFL draft" by news organizations and others outside the league. This one's open to debate, obviously. We should let User:Dicklyon know that there is a discussion here referencing him. --Batard0 (talk) 05:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

That was me just before you. Notifications work. I was being a bit bold, having not found much pushback on such changes yet (just a few "I don't care for it, but whatever" types of reactions from some similar pages). Dicklyon (talk) 07:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I think we should stick with capitals, at least for the NFL Draft. The league seems to use capitals when referring to the event itself, although they do use lower case when referring to the draft as a concept. See here for my source on this. – Pee Jay 19:41, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not in our style to copy the style of the specialist organizations promoting their own stuff; see WP:SSF. A much more relevant set of sources on how it's styled in general usage is this. Per MOS:CAPS (the only relevant guideline here, as far as I know), we should then choose lowercase, no? Dicklyon (talk) 19:49, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

In all honesty, I see this Google search as a more reliable source than the ngram. I don't know how Google compiles its ngrams, but the standard Google search seems to show that most contemporary sources use the capitalised version. – Pee Jay 20:07, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

The n-gram compilation is from books, which are usually more reliable sources than random web pages. And the web search mostly shows you titles and headings, which is why you see so many caps there. If you actually click through to pages, you'll find that many don't use caps in the text. Like the very first hit, at nfl.com, with NFL Draft as title but "Get the latest NFL draft news..." as text. And the NFL Draft 2013 ESPN page that says "ESPN.com has full coverage of the 2013 NFL draft." And the 2014 NFL Draft - CBSSports.com - NFLDraftScout.com page that says "CBSSports.com provides full coverage of the 2013 NFL draft..." – Dicklyon (talk) 23:04, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Like I said, the event itself is treated as a proper noun, hence the capital letter. As a concept, the draft is no longer a proper noun, so there is no need for the capital. Besides, I've just read MOS:CAPS and I'm guessing the relevant section would be "Proper names", which says we should follow "standard usage". Well, from what I can tell, standard usage (at least in contemporary sources) doesn't seem to favour one over the other, so we should stick with the status quo. – Pee Jay 23:45, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

I don't know what this means: "the event itself is treated as a proper noun". The treatment of the term, such as "2013 NFL draft" on CBSSports.com and "2013 NFL draft" on ESPN.com suggest that using WP style per MOS:CAPS would not conflict with the style used by other major publishers, treating it as not a proper noun. In cases like this, where the recommendations of our MOS are not different from what we see in sources, why would there be any question? Dicklyon (talk) 23:54, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

You must know full well that I was referring back to my comment earlier where I noted that the NFL refers to the event itself as a proper noun, i.e. using capitals. – Pee Jay 23:56, 13 July 2013 (UTC)

Actually, no, I figured at least that your "is treated as" referred to someone other than the NFL itself, since we already established that general usage is what's relevant here. And the pages at nfl.com are not consistent anyway. The "event" is the "NFL Player Selection Meeting", and the draft is what they do there; we don't need another proper name for that, just because the NFL likes to capitalize concepts important to themselves. The articles are mostly not about the meetings, beyond their lead sentences; they're about the drafts that happen there, the players, the teams, the order, etc. Other publishers use lowercase, so there's no reason we can't just go by own MOS and do the same, is there? Dicklyon (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

The capital D is pure vanity capitalisation. I believe Dicklyon is doing us a favour in downcasing: it's not a title, and readers shouldn't have to think it is and then realise it's not – even subconsciously. I'm quite satisfied with the evidence from books that he has offered above. Tony (talk) 02:49, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It might be helpful at this stage to know what precise part or parts of the MOS are being relied upon in this discussion about capitalization of these names. Once we have that sorted out, I think it will be easier to ask the simple questions we need to answer to sort this one out. Any takers? --Batard0 (talk) 04:56, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

MOS:CAPS says in the lead: "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization. Most capitalization is for proper names or for acronyms. Wikipedia relies on sources to determine what is a proper name; words and phrases that are consistently capitalized in sources are treated as proper names and capitalized in Wikipedia." I don't know of other specifically relevant provisions. Dicklyon (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much for this. So it seems to me the question we have to answer is: Is XXXX NFL Draft consistently capitalized in sources? If the answer is yes, it is a proper name by Wikipedia's definition and should be capitalized. If not, it is not a proper name by Wikipedia's definition and should not be capitalized. My initial reaction from the discussion above is that capitalization is not consistent: sometimes it's capitalized, sometimes it's not. Since there's no consistency, it should not be considered a proper noun under Wikipedia's definition and should not be capitalized. Is this logic sound? Are there other parts of the MOS that point the other way? --Batard0 (talk) 06:41, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

It's not even that mixed, once you discount caps in titles and heads; pretty much nobody uses caps for these. I posted n-grams at the basketball case. Here they are extended to NFL. Dicklyon (talk) 23:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

I just want to second Dicklyon's comment. Most (if not all reliable sources) lowercase draft. Hot Stop talk-contribs 23:45, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

These figures seem to show at minimum that there's no consistency, which under my understanding of the MOS means that lowercase should be used. I'm not sure if they show that lowercase is "standard" usage (whatever that means; is something "standard" if it's used half the time? Or must it be used 99% of the time?), but as far as I know, that's not a test we need to consider here. I'm still wondering what the arguments on the other side of this debate are. --Batard0 (talk) 04:05, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

List of New England Patriots players

Thought I would get some feedback from you all regarding the list of Pats players article. I feel the article (as are many NFL Football teams player rosters) is unworkable now. If all past players are added, then all the awards info will make the article way too long. I thought I would keep it simple and sortable. Example is found below. Thoughts????

Also, sports teams have article names listed as (Team) all-time roster, others are list of (Team) players....should we standardize??????.....Pvmoutside (talk) 13:26, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Player	Number	Position	Former school	First season	Last season
Rabih Abdullah	27	Running back	Lehigh	2004	2004
Bobby Abrams	50	Linebacker	Michigan	1995	1995
Ron Acks	51	Linebacker	Illinois	1972	1973
Bob Adams	80	Tight end	Pacific	1973	1974
Julius Adams	85	Defensive lineman	Texas Southern	1971	1987
Sam Adams, Sr.	61	Guard	Prairie View	1972	1980
Titus Adams	62	Defensive end	Nebraska	2008	2008
Danny Aiken	48	Long snapper	Virginia	2011	present
Kamar Aiken	16	Wide receiver	UCF	2011	present
Don Allard	12	Quarterback	Boston College	1962	1962
Danny Amendola	80	Wide receiver	Texas Tech	2009	present
Kyle Arrington	25	Cornerback	Hofstra	2009	present
Jake Ballard	88	Tight end	Ohio State	2010	present
Marcus Benard	58	Defensive lineman	Jackson State	2009	present
Jake Bequette	92	Defensive end	Arkansas	2012	present
Michael Bishop	7	Quarterback	Kansas State	1999	2000
Drew Bledsoe	11	Quarterback	Washington State	1993	2002
Bob Bleier	10	Quarterback	Richmond	1987	1987
Legarrette Blount	29	Running back	Oregon	2010	present
Brandon Bolden	38	Running back	Mississippi	2012	present
Tom Brady	12	Quarterback	Michigan	2000	present
Marcus Cannon	61	Offensive lineman	TCU	2011	present
Jeff Carlson	17	Quarterback	Weber State	1992	1992
Matt Cassel	16	Quarterback	USC	2005	2008

Some form of standardization is probably desirable. If you want to go all-out, look to Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (look through it; it's sorted by letter), which is probably currently the best sports all-time roster article out there. --Batard0 (talk) 16:32, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers FAC

Hello; I have nominated the article Carolina Panthers, a top-importance article on this project, for featured article. If passed, this would be the first article on an NFL club to become a featured article. All editors of this project are invited to comment on the featured article candidacy. Toa Nidhiki05 19:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Errr...

John_Mangum_(American_football) - John Mangum - Richfife (talk) 16:51, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

The latter is the older page, and it appears the former was a copy/paste of some sort (first edit to it was in 2011, tag was from 2010), might as well merge it. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 18:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

Done -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 17:31, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

players that get released/cut/traded during the offseason or preseason of the new league year

for example, William Powell was just cut by the Arizona Cardinals, in his career history, should we list their last year with the cardinals as 2012 or 2013? I believe the new league year starts in March at the start of free agency, so any player that is released from the team after that date, should they be considered on the team for the 2013 season? Edday1051 (talk) 00:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Rules and positions

It strikes me that the articles on football rules and positions (and types of plays and so on) generally aren't very good. This seems like something worthy of trying to improve, but I'm finding it somewhat difficult to locate sources that discuss the history/evolution of rules and positions, which would be pretty essential to make these articles comprehensive. Anybody have ideas or tips on this? --Batard0 (talk) 16:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

As far as sources go, I can wholeheartedly recommend the following:
Beginner sources

NFL.com's Beginner's Guide to Football is an excellent resource for a basic overview of the game aimed at beginners. There is not an in-depth look at each position, but it does give a broad overview of most positions. The source is a little outdated, however - it says kickoffs are at the 30-yard line, not the 35-yard line as is done now.
The BBC's NFL in a nutshell is a good overview of the game. It is similar to the NFL resource in that it discusses the role of positions broadly, but it is also older.
NFL 360 is perhaps the best source in that it is modern and aimed entirely at beginners to football who live outside the US. Unlike the others, it provides a nice video overview of all major positions but the fullback.

Overview sources

The Dummies website has a good number of articles on positions. The Dummies Guide to Football is itself a good source, because it is partially written by Hall of Fame defensive end Howie Long. Dummies has broad overviews of all positions as well as special teams positions, in addition to specific articles on, among other things, tight ends and receivers, linebackers, and punting unit positions.
This ESPN.com article on the fullback is a good resource for the modern role of the fullback in the NFL.

In-depth

The rulebooks for the NFL, NCAA, and NFHS define positions, numbering, and place rules on which positions can do what. May take a bit of digging to find the info.
David M. Nelson's The Anatomy of a Game is one of the best resources for the evolution of football out there. It mainly focuses on the college game, but covers everything from 1869 to the 1990s. I have and have read the book, and there is certainly a lot of information on the evolution of positions in it.

I'm sure there are many more sources needed, but these sources should be a good place to start. I'd certainly be willing to help work on this idea; the position pages need the work. Toa Nidhiki05 17:05, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Wow - these sources are excellent. I'm impressed. Position pages sound like a good target; what about trying to improve the quarterback article and seeing where that goes? Too ambitious to start with? My initial take is that it needs much better sourcing, the position could be defined better, there's a lot of extraneous information in the "dual threat" section, and the evolution of the position should probably be explained more clearly and succinctly. I'll try to make some efforts on it in the next couple of days – it would be great to collaborate and make it better. --Batard0 (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I found this book, large portions of which one can view for free. Looks like a pretty reliable source for the history of the position; I'll try to nail down that part of it. --Batard0 (talk) 17:37, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Seems like a good place to start; it's the flagship article of football positions, after all. Getting a good history section will be vital because the quarterback used to be a blocker. Aside from that, getting a good quarterback article could set a good precedent for the style of other position articles. I can get a sandbox copy up and ready if you want so we can tinker around with the article format more. Toa Nidhiki05 17:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good. Sandboxing is also probably a good idea; we should think about what the ideal structure is – possibly a description section that covers what the position is today followed by a history section explaining its evolution. Should definitely play around with it, because the way it is now seems fairly disorganized. --Batard0 (talk) 18:38, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I've got the sandbox up here. It might be good to relocate discussion to that talk, but I think the format idea you have is pretty solid; define the position first, then list the history. The history section would probably be the longest, be we could have a different section on 'quarterback trends', like the trend of the mobile quarterback and two-quarterback systems. We'll also need to include information on the role of the position in Canadian football and its evolution there, because the article covers the position in both the American and Canadian games. I myself don't really have much knowledge of the Canadian quarterback evolution, but I'm sure the people at the Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian football could help there. Toa Nidhiki05 18:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Good deal. That sandbox doesn't seem to exist, but let's take the discussion there when it does. I'd create it myself, but I'm reluctant to do so in your userspace.--Batard0 (talk) 10:50, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Sandbox is fixed now. Toa Nidhiki05 20:25, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Invitation to join a discussion

Through this way, I inform there is a discussion at WT:Disambiguation about partially disambiguated titles, known as "PDABs". This subguide of WP:D affects articles in this WikiProject, some examples can be found at WP:NCSP. There you can give ideas or thoughts about what to do with this guideline. Note this discussion is not to modify any aspect of NCSP. Thanks. Tbhotch.^™ Grammatically incorrect? Correct it! See terms and conditions. 01:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

Denard Robinson's position

There is a bit of an edit war going on at Denard Robinson. IP's keep trying to change his position in the infobox to Offensive Weapon. This is the term that the team website uses to identify him, but it is obviously not suited for a Wikipedia infobox. It's too vague, many readers will not understand what it means, plus it is not used by NFL.com, ESPN, or Pro Football Reference. It should be changed back to running back/wide receiver/return specialist. ~ Richmond96 T • C 22:59, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Another point came to mind. Teams make up their own positions all the time. "BUCK" and "LEO" come to mind. Yet we do not use them on Wikipedia. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:04, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Need help with final resolution on NFLPA Game article

In May I posted here asking for help untangling the situation with the article currently titled NFLPA Game. The problem, as I explained then, is that the article has two separate games confused. Having discussed the issue on the article's Talk page with User:Arxiloxos and User:Dale_Arnett, I've developed separate drafts for a standalone article about each game. (Once that's done, NFLPA Game itself should either redirect to the game with current sponsorship, or disambig the two; after some consideration, I prefer the former option). My drafts for each are as follows:

As of two weeks ago, it seemed that we had arrived at consensus on the two replacement drafts, however since then Arxiloxos and Dale have either been away from Wikipedia or busy on other projects. I would move these live myself but for the fact that I am a consultant to the NFLPA and do not wish to run afoul of COI guidelines nor Jimbo's stated opinion that "paid advocates" should never edit articles directly. Would an editor here be willing to review the articles and take them live, if they agree they are in good shape to do so? Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

I just read the NFLPA Game and my head was swimming. I'm inclined to agree that there should be two standalone articles and I'll take a look at your drafts in the coming days and may make some changes as needed. After that, I can't see why those shouldn't go live. I also noticed you're looking to clean-up Domonique Foxworth which I'd be happy to help out with. I helped bring NFLPA to featured article status so I'm familiar with the territory. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 19:47, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Writer! Let me know if you have any questions about either of the two drafts; I spent a good deal of time in research getting the details just right, though it was tricky. As for Foxworth: I'd been talking about the article with an editor who suggested I find sources and he would add them. However, as you point out, that hasn't happened yet. If I can help you with that as well, let me know. Lastly, great work on NFLPA, very good stuff there. Best, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 13:22, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This has been

Done. 17:19, 19 August 2013 (UTC)

Lee Bodden on Pats 2011-2012

Lee Bodden is not listed as one of the defensive backs for the Patriots. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.42.219 (talk) 08:39, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers FAC needs reviews

Hello again! The Carolina Panthers FAC has been up for well over a month now, and has received several reviews. Unfortunately, it has not received enough reviews - although consensus is leaning towards promotion, there is not enough reviews to do so. If you have time and are willing to do an impartial review of the article, please feel free to do so - for reference, no American football team article is a FA and this would be the first article to have achieved such status. Toa Nidhiki05 00:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

Article for Rams QB Tim Jenkins

The article for Tim Jenkins needs to be cleaned up. I would do it, but this is not my specialty. I focus on taking players of pictures. And speaking of this, I bought a new camera because of all the new restrictions about bringing things into the stadiums. It has 30x zoom but I am not happy with it because we had our first home game last night and the pictures came out crummy. I used to bring in a Canon DSLR with a big lens. I think I will try to figure out a way to bring it back in. Any suggestions? Can anyone recommend a good camera that they will let me bring in that also has a good zoom for shooting moving players? Thanks, Jeffrey Beall (talk) 00:33, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

I've nominated the article for deletion; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Jenkins (2nd nomination). It was deleted once already last year. Mackensen (talk) 02:03, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I guess that's one solution. Jeffrey Beall (talk) 02:54, 26 August 2013 (UTC).

Well, I cleaned it up too, but he's not any more notable than he was a year ago. Mackensen (talk) 03:05, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

2013 season pages will need updating soon

Hello NFL WikiProject, I know we don't do much organized collaboration here, unfortunately, but I did want to throw this out there as a way to get some articles to be useful for readers. Every 2013 season page has navboxes for all the games that, after they occur, need updating. While a bot would be the best way to do this admittedly tedious task, that would probably be too complex, though if someone wanted to try to figure out how, more power to them. Anyway, I thought maybe each week, some volunteers could do the boxes for a few teams, which would actually be double season pages, as you can simply copy over the information from one team's box to its opponent, with a few minor changes. These articles can really be useful for readers, but often they do not get updated in a timely fashion, if at all. If there is interest in this, let me know, and I can setup a "signup page" of sorts. Thanks! Go Phightins! 01:23, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean the table, like at 2013_New_England_Patriots_season#Schedule? Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Well those need updating too, but they usually get done. I mean like the tables at here. Go Phightins! 01:34, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Gotcha. Hot Stop talk-contribs 01:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I take it my suggestion last year to create 256 separate templates for each regular season game, similar to {{2012 Summer Olympics men's basketball game E2}}, was probably too much work, and it's probably easier to just manage 32 pages instead.

And yes, I also noticed last season that these articles did not get updated in a timely fashion, and were only done primarily by one or two users (sorry, I have to decline because I'm going to busy in real life for most of the season, especially during most hours of Mondays (UTC)) Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

That would be a lot of work, but might be easier in the long run. For now, I think we need to devise a consensus project-wide as if they are useful to readers, and if so, a method to do them in a timely fashion. Go Phightins! 21:49, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

Page move: John Cyprien

The page of Jaguars rookie safety Johnathan Cyprien was moved to John Cyprien a few weeks ago. Ever since he was drafted, I don't recall ever hearing him referred to as John. Isn't an article title supposed to reflect the person's most common name? ~ Richmond96 T • C 22:22, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Namath film title

I just created Namath: From Beaver Falls to Broadway, but I also noticed that some refs said Namath: Beaver Falls to Broadway, while others said the film title was just Namath. Which one should be the title then? Zappa O Mati 03:00, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Roster question

If a player is released prior to the 2013 regular season beginning, their infobox should read "20XX–2012", correct? Been seeing a lot lately that list "20XX–2013" for players who were cut over the weekend. ~ Richmond96 T • C 23:04, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Funny you bring that up. Me and user:Edday1051 have been discussing that. I'm in the opinion that it should be the same that has always been and be 20XX–2012 to avoid confusion that they played in a regular season game during the 2013 season.--Yankees10 23:09, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

my position is that we should include the new league year. I've explained why on my talk page in a discussion I've had with Yankees10. I think it may be moot because I think I just found the solution. Muletastic made this edit on David Carr's player page. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=David_Carr&diff=next&oldid=571003506 what do you guys think? I wish I had thought of this. I'm no expert in punctuation, so if anyone knows what punctuation is best used here, (semicolon, comma, etc?).Edday1051 (talk) 01:41, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Why not put an asterisk next to the year, indicating preseason or practice squad only? I.e. 2010–2013* means in 2013 they were only there in the preseason. --Batard0 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

that could confuse a reader who isn't familiar with the nfl infobox. He might assume the asterisk is for all three years as opposed to just 2013. Edday1051 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

That's true, and this is thus probably not a workable solution. --Batard0 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

yes, exactly why the example I provided above in the David Carr player page is perfect in my opinion. It clearly separates the new league year from the rest of the years, without adding too much additional text and clogging up the infobox, while also clearly creating a distinction between a player(using this particular case with David Carr) that hit free agency after the 2012 season and a player that returned to the team and was cut between somewhere between the start of the new league year and the start of the new regular season Edday1051 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Would anybody support the idea of only including the teams the players played in games for like the MLB ones do?--Yankees10 01:56, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think this is eminently reasonable. If the player hasn't played a game for a team, it doesn't tell readers much (and might confuse them) to list that team in his infobox. --Batard0 (talk) 03:11, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd be opposed to this because the nfl career history section in the infobox has a notation indicating the preseason/practice squad status. I think a player that is officially a member of a team for the offseason/preseason(minicamp, training camp, and/or preseason games) deserves to have that team noted in his career history. Edday1051 (talk) 03:32, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Do we need to have this notation with preseason and practice squad? Could we not do away with it and say only inclusion on a team's in-season roster counts for the purpose of the infobox? It seems this might be causing more confusion than it's worth. --Batard0 (talk) 12:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I wouldn't be on board with this. I think if a player signs a contract with a team then the team should be included. We should be able to identify players who signed with a team early in the offseason (ex. Undrafted free agents) and were released in September. ~ Richmond96 T • C 03:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think that information clearly belongs in the text of an article, but could reasonably be excluded in the infobox. If a guy isn't on an official team roster, it's hard to include that team/year as part of his official playing career. Stats sites like pro-football-reference.com, nfl.com and databasefootball.com don't include information on practice squad and preseason-only career stats, correct? I haven't fully researched the answer to this, but if it is indeed correct, I think it would be quite logical to follow their example, deferring to reliable sources rather than making the decision ourselves about how to represent teams and other stats. --Batard0 (talk) 12:50, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I disagree with those sources that don't include the complete team history of a player in their database. It's simply incorrect not to. You don't think it's important to know that a player spent any amount of time officially signed with a particular team? If I go to Vince Young's player page, I should be able to quickly glance at his infobox and see that he spent part of the 2013 offseason/preseason with the Green Bay Packers. I would guess most readers would rather quickly glance at the infobox, rather than scroll down and read through the text to see his career history. Edday1051 (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Doesn't this become rather confusing when a player has been on multiple preseason rosters over his career or even during a single season, interspersed with appearances on active regular-season rosters? As a reader, what I'm looking for in the infobox is significant basic facts about a person. Appearances on offseason rosters and practice squads don't strike me as that. Moreover, I think we're generally better off following reliable sources where that's possible and practical. It seems eminently practical to do so here. Vince Young's career history is adequately represented by his appearances on the active rosters of teams, in my view. This, for reference, is the Pro Football Reference page for Young, which does not appear to include offseason/preseason information. I certainly understand the desire to present more information about him in the infobox (I can see how one might think something's missing without it), but I think it's more in keeping with how Wikipedia works to follow our sources, and that the inclusion of preseason-only teams could make some player infoboxes quite messy. And believe me, in five years, most people won't view his preseason appearance in 2013 for Green Bay as a significant part of his career. --Batard0 (talk) 18:46, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

that's why we have the ":*Offseason and/or practice squad member only" notation to indicate just that. To an unfamiliar reader, they would see the asterisk next to a particular team and then notice the notation that follows indicating that they were only a non active preseason/offseason/practice squad member only. I remember seeing that my first time and figuring that out pretty quickly and I would imagine most readers would figure that out fairly quickly. My opinion is that it makes no sense not to include a complete team history. If a player OFFICIALLY signs a contract with a team, he has officially been a member of that team and should be included in the team history whether he was ever active or not for that team. I mean it just seems like were going in circles here and were going to have to agree to disagree. I would hope others would chime in, but it seems this talk page isn't very active Edday1051 (talk) 19:29, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be MORE confusing if we omitted offseason/preseason appearances from the infobox. Plus the article content won't always get updated properly, leaving us with some teams in the infobox, others in the article, and even others that were left out. I'd rather just list them all in the infobox. ~ Richmond96 T • C 22:37, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Cunningham II

No one is commenting at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Randall Cunningham II. Since his father is a four-time Pro Bowl, I thought some people here might care to take a look.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:30, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

As a point of information, the above editor created the article that has been nominated for deletion. I'm assuming good faith, but posting a notice here could be viewed as a form of canvassing. I'm not currently of that view, but thought it should nevertheless be disclosed. --Batard0 (talk) 17:42, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

NFL Starting Quarterback Stats

I am relatively new to this WikiProject. There is a user, Frobishero, that is going around to a lot of different starting quarterbacks, particularly ones in the NFC and changing the format of the stats in the main infobox, like Aaron Rodgers and Jay Cutler for example. I have reverted him a few times. He claims to be starting a new standardization in the summary of his edits without even going to the talk page first and he is marking them all as minor. I am not sure how to handle this. Rlchambliss (talk) 04:54, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Requested page move: AT&T/Cowboys Stadium

Earlier today. an inexperienced user moved the AT&T Stadium article back to Cowboys Stadium, and attempted to post the resulting redirect on WP:RFD. There is now a discussion at Talk:Cowboys Stadium#Requested move to move the article back to AT&T Stadium (because a small edit history that now exists there due to the inexperienced user's edits). Feel free to join the discussion. Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:04, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

This topic is still current at Talk:Cowboys Stadium#Requested move --JonRidinger (talk) 01:05, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Pierre Thomas

The article about Pierre Thomas has recently undergone a large scale deletion of material copied from another website. While that removal was necessary, it leaves the article in pretty bad shape, especially for the biography of an important player who has been a significant part of a Super Bowl winning franchise. I will try to find some time to get into this later, but if anyone else would like to have a shot at bringing this up to standard, it's there for the taking. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Looking for assistance with article on Domonique Foxworth

Hello all, as I mentioned previously on this page, I'm currently working on behalf of the NFLPA, aiming to improve a number of football-related articles here on Wikipedia. I've recently written a new draft of the article for NFLPA president Domonique Foxworth, as it currently suffers from a number of issues, described at Talk:Domonique Foxworth. You can view my proposed draft in my userspace.

I've reached out to a couple of editors who'd previously indicated that they might be willing to help out here, but haven't heard back from either of them. I'm thus hoping that someone from here might be able to take a look and, if everything looks OK, move the article over into the mainspace, reenabling categories when they do. Cheers, WWB Too (Talk · COI) 16:04, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

This looks to me like quality work done in good faith and with a neutral tone. I will try to move the rewrite into the article. --Arxiloxos (talk) 17:13, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

This has been

Done. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 14:30, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Need help with an infobox edit war on Tim Hasselbeck's page

Here's the discussion. Arbor to SJ (talk) 04:17, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Championship navbox consistency

I've noticed recently because of recent edits made by User:757 Sports Historian that some team championship navboxes seem to be sorted by players' numbers, while others are sorted alphabetically. For example, the Template:1950 Cleveland Browns currently sorts players by number, while Template:1954 Cleveland Browns sorts them by name, which is reasonable enough given that there are no numbers in the latter template. It seems whichever way we go, we ought to have a consensus around which way we do it for the sake of consistency. I think the argument for sorting by jersey numbers is that it gives a semblance of order to what otherwise appear as a jumble of numbers in the navbox. The argument for sorting alphabetically, on the other hand, is that it makes it easier for readers to locate specific players by name in the navbox; it also would allow us to be consistent with navboxes where we don't have players' jersey numbers, for whatever reason. Anybody have views on this? I think it's fine either way, the important point being that the style is consistent across navboxes. --Batard0 (talk) 06:15, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I would have to be in favor of sorting alphabetically, mainly because a reader would search for someone based off their name, not their number. I know a million things about football but rarely do I pay attention to jersey numbers.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:04, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Active NFL Head Coach Career Super Bowl History

I created the page Active NFL head coach career Super Bowl history which as the title suggests, tells you the history of current head coaches Super Bowl history, wins and loses, at any coaching position or as a player. The page was accepted and is now an active article. I added some categories to it but I was wondering if there is anything else I can do to advertise this page or have the link put somewhere where people will know it exists. If anyone has any suggestions please let me know. Thanks.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Zdawg1029, thanks for your work on this and for your post here. We've already had some back on forth on the categories and navboxes. I think I've explained my last batch of edits sufficiently in the edit comments, but let me know if you still have questions about that. More generally though, I think this article qualifies as original research. The facts within the article are clearly well-cited, but the article's subject as a whole constitutes a synthesis of sources. The topic itself, the Super Bowl history of active NFL coaches, is not found in the sources, nor do I think it can be found in reliable sources. As such, it is a good candidate for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion. The editor who moved this to the main space does not seem to be a good gatekeeper at Articles for Creation as this is not the first time he has approved a questionable American football article. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:36, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What do you mean it isn't found in the sources? The content isn't very debatable, either a coach was with a certain team when they were in the Super Bowl or not. I can add many more sources. There are many sources out there that say what coaches were on what team a certain year. And the only nav box removal I don't agree with is removing the current NFL head coach one. I can live with the only two categories on there being Super Bowl lists and NFL head coaches, and I can live with the only nav boxes being the Super Bowl one and current head coach one. The article is specifically about the current NFL head coaches.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:46, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

What content on the page is inaccurate or not "provable"? What would a reliable source be when it comes to a coaches career history?Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Each bit of data is accurate and provable. The problem is the article as a whole. The question is whether the subject of "the Super Bowl history of active NFL coaches" is notable. Do you have a source that talks about or comprehensively lists out this topic? As for the navbox, navboxes should generally be transcluded only on articles that they link to. Active NFL head coach career Super Bowl history is not found on Template:NFL head coach navbox, nor do I think it should be. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

Is there a source that comprehensively lists out this topic? Good question. Is there a source that comprehensively lists out other Super Bowl lists such as "broadcasters", "officials", "national anthem", "advertising", "USA Today ad meter", "adbowl", "lead-out programming" or "commercials"? And are any of them really notable if you think about it? So is there in actual page where someone else listed all of this? I know there is now. The whole reason people get into the NFL is to win a Super Bowl, so it is nice to see what current coaches have that "fulfillment", also many of which were contributing factors in them getting the job in the first place. And I can't tell you how many pages I have been on that have nav boxes at the bottom where the article it is on isn't listed in it, but are put on there because they are very relateable to the content in the nav box. If you give me 15 minutes I can find you a hefty list.Zdawg1029 (talk) 22:27, 15 October 2013 (UTC)

I have removed the Head Coaches nav box. Zdawg1029 (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Zdawg1029, thanks for that. You have a good point about those other Super Bowl-related articles and lists. As least some of those seem to be of questionable notability. You can see that USA Today Super Bowl Ad Meter has been tagged as such. But in the case of something like List of national anthem performers at the Super Bowl, you're going to find a slew of substantive, reliable sources talking about the national anthem performers year and year out and often in the context of multi-year history of the subject. So I think that one is solid. As for the navboxes, there's a tendency among many editors to slap every tangentially related navbox on an article, particularly in the area of sports where are oodles of navboxes around. Many of us have spent quite a lot of time cleaning this up. I'd be curious to see some examples from that "hefty list" you mentioned above. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

I still just don't see any point in putting active NFL head coach career Super Bowl history in articles for deletion. Winning a Super Bowl is a notable achievement, it is probably the hardest championship to win among the major 4 sports in the US. I would understand if it were a page about random coaches throughout the league, offensive coordinators, running backs coach, and what they have won, but this is specifically about the 32 head coaches. And like I said before, it is nice to see what head coaches have that fulfillment, what head coaches have already gotten that ultimate achievement in their profession that could retire tomorrow and could say they were a part of one. The "losing table" was an afterthought that I made just in case it was deemed relevant. Maybe I was being a little overzealous trying to link the page, I removed the head coach nav box and other categories, but I see no point in deleting the page altogether. Zdawg1029 (talk) 19:48, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't really see much value in this article as it currently stands. I simply have a really difficult time imagining a scenario in which a user is going to ask the question "which current NFL coaches have been to or won a Super Bowl?" It just seems like an extremely niche article. That being said, now that it's been created and appears to be well-sourced, I don't see any point in working to get it deleted, as the information it contains is valid and it may have value for others. My concern with it would primarily be maintenance, since it will have to be updated for each and every coaching change, but if Zdawg1029 or someone else wants to take on that task, then I have no complaint. However, if the article becomes out of date over time due to lack of maintenance, I would support removal at that time. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:40, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

The whole reason I made the page is because I asked that very question, so I highly doubt I am the only person in a country of more than 300 million that was curious about that. In my years of chatter with people about the NFL, this topic has come up many times. I have no problem maintaining the page, that is what Wikipedia is, people take interest in certain articles and maintain it. It isn't a list that would be changing all the time making it not up to date or accurate. Most coaching changes happen in January, and there is usually only between 6-8 each season. So keeping the article up to date and accurate isn't difficult at all.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Ramp down the defensiveness, dawg, I'm arguing for keeping the page. As for your "only person in a country of 300 million" remark, you should bear in mind that WP is aimed at a global audience and so called Americentricity should be avoided. I'm not saying that the article isn't useful, but I think people are much more likely to be wondering about the SB history of one particular coach (e.g. "my team just hired a new coach, I wonder if he's ever been to a SB"). In that case, I'd probably look to the article on that particular person. I just don't know how "discoverable" this new page is, particularly within WP. But, like I said others' opinions of its value may very well differ from my own, so I would support keeping it as long as it remains up-to-date. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, it is hard not to be defensive. I will keep it up to date.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:25, 16 October 2013 (UTC)