Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
WikiProject iconNational Football League Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

College in lead (again)[edit]

This discussion has run its course. All parties (1) are reminded of WP:3RR, any farther issues should be reported at WP:AN3 and will lead to blocks; (2) any additional discussions regarding possible sockpuppetry should be discussed at the appropriate venue; (3) discussions regarding specific articles or editors should be respectfully discussed at the relevant talk pages; and (4) there is rough consensus, as Bagumba noted in their comment below, regarding football programs and university linking. Consensus can change, so if there is a clearly worded proposal that an editor would like WP:NFL to consider, then please open a new thread on this talk page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 03:39, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

So on the discussion about the way we describe what team a player played for in college in February, Bagumba (talk · contribs) says "I'd suggest modifying the body to something like "Araiza committed to play college football at San Diego State University (SDSU) for the Aztecs..." I've seen the argument made that non-sports fans and non-Americans may be more familiar with the university, so a link to it at some point makes the connection more obvious." but what amount of support does this have? It has become an issue on J. J. McCarthy's page, where Centurion Seraph (talk · contribs) continues to revert every edit returning to the former. Could we please settle this once and for all and codify it as a guideline one way or the other? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:39, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay… I’m trying to be understanding here but what i gather from that is the University and team name are ideally listed (SDSU and Aztecs) ; which both are included in JJ’s? The University of Michigan where he attended college, along with the Michigan Wolverines football team page Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:44, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Centurion Seraph: You clearly didn't check the original discussion. The majority of (modern) NFL player articles use a piped link (Michigan) going to the football program they played at and omit the full university's name. The issue is there has been no clear consensus supporting the format you continue to revert towards. But if there is, could somebody please link me? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:12, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly there’s not a consensus if there are on-going discussions regarding it. And we’re not debating between one or the other, both are included. Just just putting ‘Michigan’ as you continue to so reads the most confusing, as he played in the state of Michigan to an uninformed reader. Even possibly confused with the Michigan Panthers new team to an uninformed reader. I fail to see how including the ‘University of Michigan’ and the ‘Michigan Wolverines football team’ both is confusing in any way Centurion Seraph (talk) 22:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
& in this very certain instance, we take pride in the “University of Michigan” name, hence ‘U of M’ as its shortest nickname. This a world class educational institution, as well as a football team. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:00, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Specific instance* Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:04, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think a well-developed lead would mention both the school and the team, but I could see arguments for just naming the team, especially if the player played at more than school. The thing we should absolutely avoid is writing out the name of the school with a pipe link to the team/program article. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Im sure i have done that last part a time or two in the past, in the future i will refrain. Thanks for sharing that. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:56, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The February discussion is actually at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 23 § Link to college football team article instead of college article. The rough consensus has been to link the football program in the lead and the university in the body. Do not pipe the program to the university e.g. [[Michigan Wolverines football|University of Michigan]] per MOS:EGG. —Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. But on JJ’s page the University is piped to the university & the football program piped to the football program; do you see anything wrong with the way it’s currently formatted? Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:30, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...codify it as a guideline one way or the other?: There's an example at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format § Lead —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ack. Bringingthewood changed the original indentation here—Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find it less concise and repetitive. He's notable as a football player, and the program is most relevant. "Michigan" in successive sentences a a tad repetitive. What the drawback of the university in the lead? —Bagumba (talk) 00:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Open to interpretation. Arizona State implies a state university, Michigan does not. Furthermore #7 ‘college attended’ states that university needs to be present in the final presentation. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please stop reverting valid edits? You have gone well beyond the WP:3R rule and have been unable to compromise at all, putting yourself at risk of being blocked. Bagumba can you take a look at the other edits to help settle this? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Dissident93, this is really only half the issue as well. You were trying to add inaccurate information over and over again and I just think it’s ironic that an entire group of people editing that page can come to a consensus on how it best looks, except you every time. Has to be your way every time. Never willing to compromise.
I’m willing to fall my sword over this Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly you have no idea what you are talking about when you tried to say he was 27 and 1 in his career, over and over again. I had to insist that it was just his starting quarterback record that he was 41 and 3 career Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:03, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Misunderstanding a fact of his doesn't imply I'm adding "inaccurate information" (it was already in the article). I obviously see the error now and have included that in my edits, but you clearly didn't even try to read it before reverting. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:09, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's better discussed at the bio's talk page or at WT:CFB. —Bagumba (talk) 01:11, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus can change, but let's see if there's support here to actually change it. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes id like to see as many opinions as possible, to get a concrete stance. If there continues to be no consensus i fear people will continue to have the University piped to the football program as a middle ground. Which you prefer not as stated above. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:49, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think people have used it as a "middle ground", but more that there was a bad MOS:EGG "standard" in the past and some people just copied it. —Bagumba (talk) 01:58, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But this really isnt the issue regarding J. J. McCarthy’s page which has both University of Michigan & Michigan Wolverines piped to their football program. Is having both not correct and worth reverting time and time? Its been the lead for months now, with no issue until today. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:53, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Likewise, WP:CCC applies, and perhaps WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. —Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba I appreciate you taking the time to contribute to this discussion. Though we seem to be of opposite viewpoints, you've done so intelligently and in a helpful manner. Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:12, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
7 should have been struck. It has not been consistent with recent discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 00:59, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Centurion Seraph Wow, all I was going to say is that someone with all those edits and so much time here, maybe you could teach me a new way to get my point across. I get slapped down like a red-headed stepchild when I do certain things. You should ask for a vote soon and maybe we could end this. A consensus is a good thing. In the past, when things are brought up and go nowhere .. it only brings future headaches. That's all I'm saying. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:05, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bringingthewood I would like a vote, clearly we need one. A few outspoken people seem to be considered a ‘rough consensus’.
@Bagumba Though you feel seven should be have been struck, the fact of the matter is it hasn’t been. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:15, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. But if we're going to WP:WIKILAWYER, it's WP:JUSTANESSAY. —Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Life's too ******* short. Maybe we can get some sort of vote going. Not sure if it's a user or Michigan thing with J. J. McCarthy. Hopefully this won't end up like a high school city or official sack stat consensus. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:07, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All this discussion and I'm even more confused where the community stands before the OP. Centurion Seraph (talk · contribs) continues to state I'm intentionally adding false information to the article. They have been unwilling to compromise anything with the lead, breaking the WP:3R with both me and Bringingthewood. Centurion also claims "Its been the lead for months now, with no issue until today.", but it was only added by 2600:6C48:647F:7F50:8958:7342:6122:10D (talk · contribs) in February, with the only editors actively opposing my edits since then being Schwabby1997 (talk · contribs) and other anonymous IPs such as 2600:6C48:647F:7F50:4479:7314:25FE:E56 (talk · contribs) and 68.188.185.250 (talk · contribs). Notice how they only edit Michigan-related articles and all revert to the same wording? Seems like a clear sockpuppet to me. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:20, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've opened a sockpuppet investigation into JooneBug37 (talk · contribs), which seems to be the primary account. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:02, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe @Jweiss11 reverted you edits to include both University and Program yesterday (not that im speaking on his stance). So are we the same too? Thats the most ridiculous claim Ive heard, im not operating any other account other than Centurion Seraph. Investigate your heart out. I do mostly edit University of Michigan related pages but that is not linking me to any other individual.
I did make concessions on the last line, so youre wrong. But yes February is 2 to 3 months ago, and in that time you’ve done nothing to add content or improve the page, you’ve only come by to do deductions of a collaboration of user edits. Most of the information has been inaccurate based on you not including the starting quarterback multiple times, based on you insisting that they won a national championship for the 2024 season, removing entire paragraphs because you think they read with bias, and that’s a few of the many things you’ve insisted upon deducting for no good reason, based on your personal preferences. Not to mention you can’t let it go that it includes both a university and team program. If all these accounts are opposing you it’s probably for a good reason. Centurion Seraph (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nor have I ever created another account other than the one im posting with right now. Centurion Seraph (talk) 17:16, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd advise you to make your case there where it can be seen. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:22, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's safe to assume everyone here is aware of the edit warring policy now, if they weren't before. WP:AN3 is the appropriate venue should there be any further issues. —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba I got it. Thank you. By my count, in reading JJs edit history; since the new year (2024) @Dissident93 has reverted the lead nine times to his oftentimes deluded version. Thats not to mention all the reverts and deductions to other sections across this time span and the number of people opposing him.
Now he launches a bad faith accusation at me, regarding a bewildering sockpuppet investigation, is this not considered apart of edit warring? Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:56, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Patrick Omameh/1[edit]

I am having some difficulty in a Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Patrick Omameh/1 review. I am being asked to expand a biography of a mediocre player beyond what I feel is normal. The summaries of the sources I am finding expand upon his mediocrity in a manner that I don't feel is very encyclopedic. The first two sources that I have dug into have resulted in the this expansion. Is this what we want?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:01, 24 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Offensive lineman stats[edit]

It is hard to write lineman article. Does anyone keep statistics like the average time a lineman holds his block in pass protection, the frequency of pancake blocks, yards per rush through off of his shoulder, yards before contact off of his shoulder, and/or missed assignment tackle for a loss frequency. It would be a lot easier to write offensive lineman articles if we had stats for them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:41, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, these type of stats are not widely reported and are thus typically not notable. I have removed stat tables like those that are either reporting obscure stats or are outside those widely reported. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are obviously niche stats, but there is no way to objectively document who the great offensive linemen are until we have some stats for them.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:55, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro Bowl, All-Pros, Pro Football Hall of Fame, NFL All-Decade Teams, NFL Anniversary Teams, team halls of fame/rings of honor, retired numbers, NFL Awards, All-American/All-Conference, other college awards, reliable sources stating that they were productive/good/great players, etc. I'm not sure stating that "Joe Lineman had 20 pancake blocks" means anything to the average reader. This is where the notability comes in: these stats aren't routinely reported by third-party sources and thus aren't well-known to the typical audience. Niche stats, as you say, aren't appropriate for an encyclopedia.
This goes into a larger issue for NFL (and most sports bios) where the biography ends up being a repeat of something like Rodgers threw for 318 yards, two touchdowns, and two interceptions in the regular season finale against the Bears over and over and over. It's bad enough with stats that are routinely reported (yards, TDs) but would be absurd to report on niche stats for lineman. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be troubled, like Tony, over the lack of objective performance measures for offensive linemen. Pro Bowl and All-Pro honors are good, but have limited value as tools for comparing players. Pro Football Focus has started to fill that gap with its detailed analytics on linemen. E.g., here. I do agree with Gonzo that articles should not be littered with random gap-blocking grades, but PFF is a reliable and respected source, and I think it would add value to our articles to report, for example, that during the 2021 season Trent Williams recorded PFF's highest zone run-blocking grade (99.9) of all time. Cbl62 (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even better if an independent reliable source is the one citing the fact from PFF. —Bagumba (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Cbl62, but I will note that pass blocking and run blocking grades are becoming more and more widely reported and thus notable. "Yards per rush through off of his shoulder" is a stat I am not familiar with or even really grasp. And it's doubtful that if a hardcore NFL fan isn't familiar with it that the general reader on Wikipedia would find it beneficial. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:57, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what stats are needed to distinguish OL performance and gap-blocking grades are probably what I mean by off his shoulder. I mean LT's right shoulder gap and LT's left shoulder gap (I think).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:58, 26 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of Green Bay sites for Packers Heritage Trail[edit]

Reposted from my original comment at WP:WISCONSIN

Hi all, I am working on bringing Packers Heritage Trail to WP:FLC. I recently traveled as part of a longer work trip to Green Bay last week, with the goal of getting photos of each historic site along the trail. However, unfortunately it rained pretty much the whole day I was in Green Bay. I was able to get a few photos but the rain and my tight schedule meant I missed out on a good number. I was wondering if there were any Green Bay residents in this Project who would be up for grabbing a few photos for me? If so, I would greatly appreciate it! Please let me know, even if you can only grab a few, and I can kind of explain what the photos for each site could look like. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:17, 25 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2024 picks are being added to 2024 NFL draft before they are announced[edit]

How is this possible?UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Added correctly or incorrectly? Sometimes there's a delay depending on whether you are watching over the air, on cable, satellite, or streaming. —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Correctly. I saw this yesterday and my only guess was that the TV coverage had a little delay. The names were always correct, so I never asked. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I liked when streaming had something to do with water. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:28, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Insiders" on Twitter/X are posting who is being selected well before the picks on TV.-- Yankees10 01:29, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Y10. I thought maybe they could pick the winning lottery numbers also. :( Bringingthewood (talk) 01:31, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just get on Fanduel in the two seconds before the line closes and the insiders' tweet 😉 ULPS (talk • contribs) 00:26, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
LOL, thanks. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RM of interest, being held[edit]

RM being held concerning playoff games in the NFL's history. GoodDay (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That one is attempting to change the NFC Championship Game and AFC Championship Game to lowercase. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:15, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also RM being held concerning UFL playoff games. -- GoodDay (talk) 03:33, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Disambiguating with (football) for football players, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:26, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Career records in infoboxes of active players[edit]

Hi everybody. I suggest don't add career records for players who are still active. Why? Well, I think it'll cause too many inaccuracy in infoboxes.

E.g. Justin Jefferson holds the record for most career receiving yards per game with 98.3. When he plays one more game, for example, it'll be 99.5, 97.5, etc. So we will need to change it after every game he plays.

Also, Patrick Mahomes holds the record for career playoff passer rating (minimum 150 attempts) with 105.8 and career passing yards per game (minimum 1,500 attempts): 296.1. Once again, we will need to change it after every game he plays. And additionally for these last two, IMO are arbitrary records and they shouldn't be added in infoboxes. (See: WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT) Sergio Skol (talk) 22:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

With that logic we should remove their career statistics in the infobox because those always have to be changed after every game. I'm usually on top of guys like Mahomes and Jefferson when it comes to career records, as I update those along with their stats in the infobox and their stat box during the season. HappyBoi3892 (talk) 00:12, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What'd we do for Julio Jones when he led for a number of years? As a Lions fan I remember watching that number in hopes he'd dip below Calvin Johnson in average. I remember seeing it there. Not that it necessarily makes a huge difference, but there may be the matter of games played to consider. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As long as T. J. Watt's page stays the same, lol. For years I've done weekly edits there. You have my word that page will stay accurate. Some of the lower records may cause a problem here and there on some pages. Thanks to PFR most of the vandals get weeded out right away. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:22, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NFL draft-related updates[edit]

There's still work to do relating to the 2024 NFL draft if anybody's interested. A number of the picks are missing text in the body that they were selected and/or need further cleanup (see e.g. these edits). Many of the undrafted free agent signings also need to be updated with text about their signing, the appropriate navboxes, NFL talk page banners, etc. Any help would be appreciated. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the free agent one is toughest. I almost wish we could define a threshold of Pro Bowl, All-Pro, all rookie team, something like that, for inclusion. That would mean you can't really update it til the year is over, which I think isn't crazy. Another possible inclusion could be All-American selection. I don't like the idea of all-conference as a threshold though. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:18, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Just noting that I'm not referring to updating the article on the 2024 NFL draft itself, but saying that those selected in the draft and those who were just signed as UDFAs could use editors to update their articles to reflect that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK guys, do whatever you want. Anyway you always do it =) Sergio Skol (talk) 00:50, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sergio Skol? Could you elaborate on the issue you appear to see? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Common draft era"[edit]

A review I received Based on Common draft on my featured list nomination of List of Kansas City Chiefs first-round draft picks asked for a bit more clarity on what the common draft is. Upon looking at common draft, I noticed it references only the drafts from 1967–1969 (1969 NFL/AFL draft, 1968 NFL/AFL draft, 1969 NFL/AFL draft). Template:NFL drafts also refers to that same set of 3 drafts as the "common draft", and everything after 1970 as the "modern era". Depending on where you look, "modern era" is often used to refer to the Super Bowl era, which, arguably started in 1967 or 1970. Never the less, I think for drafts, we typically refer to it as the common draft era as opposed to the modern era, whereas for seasons and championships, we may refer to it as the modern/Super Bowl era.

I believe the term "common draft" should be referring to everything from 1967 onwards and that the common draft and the NFL drafts template mistakenly imply that the common draft and modern era are separate eras. The phrase "common draft" is simply meant to refer to the fact that the leagues combined their drafts, which they started doing in 1967. They began simply calling it the "NFL draft", but it's, never the less, been the "common draft" since then.

A number of sources that explicitly reference the common draft era as having started from 1967 onwards:

Essentially, what I'm asking, is for consensus to update Template:NFL drafts to remove "modern era" and move all of those entries to "common draft". I'd also love consensus (and for someone to be willing) to update the common draft article. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An open question is whether WP:WEIGHT suggests that this is more commonly referred to as the "common draft era" or "modern draft era". My previous intuition would have been that Common draft (without "era") addresses the collective draft formats of the 1967 NFL/AFL draft, 1968 NFL/AFL draft and 1969 NFL/AFL draft, when the leagues were separate but cooperated on a joint draft. It seems redundant to refer to anything since 1970 as "common", when it is only one league, and the individual page titles like 1970 NFL draft don't have "common" in their name. Nonetheless, the term "common draft era" is real, it's just a question of how prevalent it is compared to "modern draft era". Incidentally, sources seems to refer to "modern draft" as 1967 and on. —Bagumba (talk) 09:35, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

NFL.com links in infoboxes[edit]

I am proposing we remove NFL.com links from player infoboxes completely. After the website nuked the player stats pages in 2020, they have become mostly unusable/irrelevant. This is in addition to over 11,000 broken links from that 2020 change. Unless there is any opposition to the change, I will deprecate the |nfl= parameter from Template:Infobox NFL biography in a week. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:15, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support also note that it should be deprecated in {{Footballstats}} and any other similar templates. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:24, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Just not useful for stats anymore unfortunately. I spent a while updating as many as I could, but I eventually just gave up. Doesn't seem worth the effort considering the (lack of) benefit. If/once deprecated I'm happy to help work on it with AWB. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 100%. I've always preferred using PFR for stats anyway. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:22, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikidata? It's annoying when sites dont redirect old urls. An option, if they are accurate, is to get the NFL.com link from Wikidata. That's what WP:NBA did. Somehow, the changed NBA.com link was being updated at Wikidata. It's easy to remove the code if Wikidsta becomes unreliable later. As an aside, would the height and weight measurements be more accurate on NFL.com than other sites? —Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bagumba: This is a good idea, and looks like most players already have their NFL.com link wikidata updated. I've made changes to the infobox sandbox [1] for that. However, the problem still remains that for most retired players there aren't stats that show up anymore on the NFL.com links (Jerry Rice, Emmitt Smith, etc.) so I'm not sure if they are useful. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:56, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm neutral on the link's relevance. The pro argument would it's from the related league's website. I was more offering an alternative for a "free" fix to the links.—Bagumba (talk) 15:31, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Featured topic ideas[edit]

I'm looking for ideas for featured topics that are primarily lists, as I want to contribute to a good or featured topic but I don't want to do GAs or FAs.

  • Lists of first-round picks doesn't have a primary topic, such as list of first-round picks
  • Lists of seasons by team would likely need the actual season articles over just the lists
  • Lists of head coaches could maybe be possible, with list of current NFL head coaches as the primary topic

Any feedback or suggestions would be appreciated, as I'm looking for new things to promote to featured list status now that I'm finished with the first-round pick lists (28 promoted, 2 nominated, last 2 prepped and ready for nomination but there's limits to how many I can nom at once). Hey man im josh (talk) 20:46, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Starting QBs ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:39, 10 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
List of NFL retired numbers? There are currently four teams with their own retired numbers articles. Harper J. Cole (talk) 14:11, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&oldid=1223354608"