Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 20

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 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 24

After looking at Cbl62's list of one-game NFL players, I just realized that

) 16:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The AfD consensus was that GNG was not met. If you can now find coverage to satisfy GNG, consider asking the closer to re-open the recently closed AfD. Personally, I usually err on the side of demonstrating GNG when creating articles, avoiding future debates over SNGs.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Bagumba. There is an increasingly strong consensus that passing NSPORTS due to having appeared in a single professional game (whether it be cricket, soccer, rugby, or American football) does not trump GNG and that a showing of SIGCOV in multiple, reliable, and independent sources will still be required. Accordingly, if you want to ask the closer to re-open, you will need to present some SIGCOV that was overlooked in the AfD discussion. Cbl62 (talk) 23:30, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

There should be pretty consistent consensus on that, as it states it explicitly: "In addition, the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline." (My emph added.) I think the whole page is a little bit of an exercise in confusion, overall. If a page passes NSPORTS but not GNG, it should by the guidelines be deleted. If it doesn't pass NSPORTS (see above discussions on various zero-game wonders), but does pass GNG, then it should by the guidelines be kept. So the "presumption of notability" implied by NSPORTS only subliminally affects marginal cases, or perhaps suggests some procedural slack while attempts to establish GNG-compliance are made. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:34, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The presumption of notability was previously given greater weight. In the past couple years or so, mass creation of cricket and Olympics sub-stubs (at an industrial rate) led to frustration by many non-sports editors and as a result, a significant erosion of the presumption -- to the point where it has little remaining value in the eyes of many. Cbl62 (talk) 22:44, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

The explicit statement's been there a long time. In 2010, as soon as it was tagged as adopted as a guideline at all, it said: "In addition, standalone articles are required to meet the General Notability Guideline" -- very much the same. I can't comment on how (or whether) it's been applied. People playing first-class cricket isn't on the face of it a substantially lower notability threshold than major-league US sports like the NFL. Indeed in terms of squad sizes and substitution, it's a higher threshold: if you've played in a cricket game, that's 1/11th of the team for the entire match, as opposed to potentially just playing one down, and sitting out the other three hours. (I realize this was rather different in the gridiron game in the 1920s, etc.) Scaling that up is the fact that it's a more worldwide game, and hence scaled up per-country, which isn't necessarily a dilution of notability as such; while Wikipedia is a moderately US-centric enterprise, one wouldn't want to take that as baked in any fundamental way. If the articles themselves were annoyingly poor, I can see how that might pragmatically have been a factor. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

With two weeks of the regular season, plus the entirety of the playoffs now being played in a second calendar year, I what point do we take a approach like the NBA or NHL and use

) 17:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I must admit I have to keep catching myself on this, as it's indeed the norm for most "winter" sports, for example instance football -- the kind with balls and feet, that is! :) -- and rugby. But I think the short answer is, we do it when the balance of reliable sources do so. If you google this phrase you'll see some UK and Irish websites using this form (I might also be getting google-polluted on those), but not a lot of US-based ones doing so. ESPN, the NFL themselves, NYT, NBC, CBS, etc, obstinately insist it's the "2021 season", what the calendar says notwithstanding. We might be getting there slowly, though: this incidental mention on NBCSports "At the start of the 2021-22 season, the NFL expanded the regular-season schedule from 16 games to 17." Actually, bleachreport uses it a little more prominently also: "NFL Playoff Picture 2021-22 Week 14: Updated Standings, Matchups to Watch", and actually in a headline. I don't think we're there yet, but definitely something to keep an eye on the future. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I think the way it is now is somewhat of a hold-over from earlier years like in the early 60's when the entirety of the NFL seasons, including the championship, was over before the new year. Since then the regular season has spilled over into the next year sporadically. I could be wrong but I think the first time it happened was 2001 because of 911 rescheduling. It happened again in 2015 and 2016. With the current number of games it seems the regular seasons will go into January regularly. But yes 109.255.211.6, when more sources that cover the NFL start changing how they refer to current seasons, we should look into doing it as well, but it will be a different question if we should change how any past years are named. --DB1729 (talk) 17:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

This partially ties into the discussion above this one. The league refers to it by the single year the season started in though and I think that's why we still use it.--Rockchalk717 17:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

It's essentially actually additional instances of the same question: if the sources tip over to retrospectively referring to past seasons where there were regular-season games, or simply post-season games, in the following year in that format, then we should follow suit. But not before. Rockchalk, I concur that the NFL itself seems to be especially consistent in this usage, and very possibly they'll be the last to change -- if they ever do. But if everyone else -- or more precise, a clear majority of reliable secondary sources use a different term, we should use that, and not the one from the primary source. Common name over "official" titles. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:01, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

We do it when reliable sources start doing it. Since the NFL and most media outlets still refer to football seasons by a single year, we shouldn't deviate from that. – PeeJay 19:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The latter rather than the former being the reliable ones for these purposes, of course. Granting that the distinction is almost certainly moot, as secondary sources will simply switch from the one to the other when primary ones do. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Only when and if the NFL starts using two years in its season. Officially, it is known as 2021 season and the vast majority of sources refer to it as such. Also this very topic was discussed here less than a year ago and overwhelming consensus was to keep the single year. Frank Anchor 00:13, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

This link is interesting that it refers (as if decisive over all over things!) a section of the Wikiproject page here which mandates 2021–22 NFL playoffs etc, characterising this as a "compromise". Actual usage on this indeed seems wildly mixed, with the NFL still insisting on "2021 playoffs", many other sources using "2022 playoffs", and few using this exact form. So contrary to my prediction above, the secondary sources haven't really remained in line with the the primary. Though nor are they so consistent as to clearly argue for any particular usage either, that or other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The biggest difference being that essentially nobody refers to the season as the "2021-22 season," where as calling this year's playoffs the "2022 playoffs" or "2021-22 playoffs" is somewhat commonplace (though 2021 playoffs is still most common IMO). However, the topic of this discussion is on the season pages, not the playoff pages (also the playoff link is 2021–22 NFL playoffs, not "2021-2022", though I do not wish to change your post per talk guidelines). Frank Anchor 17:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Oh sorry, didn't occur to me wonder why that link was red, think I might have lost track of my own train of thought and which postseason I was actually referring to. Fixed as unnecessarily distracting. I agree the two cases aren't the same; I was largely musing on the need to continue to monitor what actually is the

WP:COMMONNAME, rather than just referring to past discussions, that themselves refer to other prior discussions, that cite Wikiproject pages, and so on. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 19:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Separating AFL and NFL records

This probably pertains to other articles and lists as well, but please weigh in at

) 06:47, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Deletion review of Pete Vainowski

Editors of this project may be interested in the deletion review of Pete Vainowski, which can be found here. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:06, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

) 16:15, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

@

WP:DRV for a community review. Therapyisgood (talk

) 02:38, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I think perhaps that this illustrates that NGRIDIRON isn't a "notability floor". Nor is it necessarily a ceiling, as we perhaps see in the above "practice squad" discussion. Of course

WP:GNG is "just a guideline" too, but it does link in rather intrinsically to verifiability, which is fundamental. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 15:18, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

This could be worth a deletion review. Not much we can do here, that arena is your best choice. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 18:16, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll probably do one soon. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:20, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I think this absolutely deserves a deletion review, based on the fact alone that it was voted to keep 8-3 in the AFD discussion. That would suggest that whoever deleted it acted in direct defiance of the community consensus. Porterland 15:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree, bad close. Definitely needs to go to deletion review.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 20:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Fairly clearly not "based on the fact alone that it was voted to keep 8-3", because 'just counting the votes' is expressly not how consensus in AfD discussions is correctly determined. (And everywhere else indeed, aside from ArbCom elections.) It's just beyond the bounds of possibility that just

WP:GNG? If not, can additional material or sources be found to get it there? 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 22:50, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

@

Gonzo fan2007: @Etzedek24: @Porterland: @109.255.211.6: I've opened a deletion review which can be found here. BeanieFan11 (talk

) 03:09, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Lead of article (again)

Hello, to continue the discussion above, now Onel5969 is saying that the lead of a PS player must say "for the practice squad of the _ of the NFL" and that not including that in the lead is "misleading". I do not recall this ever being the accepted form of the lead of NFL articles. What do users at WP:NFL think? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:57, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Do you mind if this comment is moved so that it is part of that discussion? Otherwise we'll have two sections on the same topic, they'll get archived. Recognising the frustration of the above editor seeming a little like a bone with a bone on this topic, the current text ("on the practice squad") doesn't seem wildly unreasonable as such. As I understand it, there's an employment and contractual distinction between practice squad employees and other (the active roster, IR, etc), so this is of some distinction. If a player has been a long-term employee of the club and has been on and off their team roster, this might be undue weight, and potentially high-maintenance at that, if the page isn't being kept fully up to date. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:49, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

It is very much undue weight to one aspect of the player's contract. To all intents and purposes, Badara Traore is a player for the Jacksonville Jaguars. That's the team that pays him. We don't need to get any more specific than that in the lead. – PeeJay 21:35, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, accuracy and specificity are not undue weight. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan magazine. For all intents and purposes the NFL is using the practice squad as the equivalent of MLB's minor leagues, holding players in case of a need for the major club. Do we say that Nick Dini is on the NY Mets? No, we say they are in the NY Mets organization. Why? Because there is an important difference between the two. Just as there is an important difference between the players that play on Sunday (or whatever day the game is on), and those that only suit up for the practice field. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 23:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

That is a totally spurious comparison. Please stop your disruptive edits or you will be reported at

WP:ANI. – PeeJay

02:06, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Please explain how it is spurious? Are Minor league MLB players on the active roster of their organization? No. Are practice squad players on the active roster of their organization? No. Can minor leaguers be called up to the active roster. Yes. Can practice squad players be called up to the active roster? Yes. Do minor league players have contracts which have restrictions about who they can play for? Yes. Do practice squad players have similar contracts? Yes. And please feel free to report me at ANI. Then you will get to explain how accuracy and specificity is not important in an encyclopedia. Or you can try your bogus "undue weight" argument. Is it undue weight to say that Jaryd Jones-Smith is an "American football offensive tackle", instead of simply a "football player", or a "tackle", or an "offensive player"? Hardly. Why, because specificity is good. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:17, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Ahhh, good old reductio ad absurdum. You’ve been asked by multiple editors to stop trying to implement this change, and good reasons have been given. You may not agree with them, but that’s irrelevant and continuing to ignore an apparent consensus is pretty disruptive. You’ve clearly already broken 3RR on multiple articles. Drop the stick or you will absolutely get reported, and it won’t go well for you. – PeeJay 02:33, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously, you have not read this thread correctly, as there is no "consensus" here. Far from it. And I have as yet heard a "good reason". Obviously, since I just refuted your two truly spurious reasons. I questioned your two reasons, and gave rationalization and reasoning to question them, and you respond with a personal attack. Interesting. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:54, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Obviously you're forgetting that this thread follows on from one above where your suggested changes were roundly dismissed. How bizarre that you would suggest that I committed a personal attack against you. How bizarre indeed. – PeeJay 17:18, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I must disagree that it'd be "undue weight". In the cases I've looked at, their roster status is explicit in every available source for their NFL -- it's pretty much the only reason these sources even exist. It's of pretty huge significance: we learn that Traore (for example) is a Jags OT. Is he the starter at that position, the reader may well wonder? The backup? The backup to the backup? No, he's in the spot on the depth chart as Debbie from accounts, or you or I -- not there at all. And that it's just "one aspect" of their contract: practice squad players are paid week-to-week (rostered players are typically under contract for a year or longer); they're hireable directly by other teams in more need of their services (to actually play); and of course, they can't actually dress for game day, much less actually play any downs. I think it'd be more accurate to say their contracts had "one aspect" in common with active players: that the franchise is paying their wages that week. Now personally I'm intensely relaxed as to how this is mentioned in the lead section, but it's pretty clear to me that decent

burying the lede. Would people be happier with this as a separate sentence, standing alone from the unqualified fact of his association with the particular team? "As of [date], he is part of the practice squad," or something along those lines, say? 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 16:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

In the cases I've looked at, very few articles specify whether any player is the starter or a backup at their position, so I'm not sure why we would specify that a player is on the practice squad. A player's status can change on the whim of the head coach, and while I realise that a player being on the practice squad has specific contract ramifications, it doesn't really need to be mentioned in the first sentence or two of the article. – PeeJay 17:13, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As I say, I'm happy for it to be mentioned in, let's say, the third sentence. (Or indeed later still -- should any of these articles ever develop any more sentences than the present claimed "standard" of two.) And I'm a little skeptical about the claim that "very few" articles make the starter/backup distinction: the very first article I looked at, Aaron Rodgers, makes this explicit in the second paragraph of the lead section, immediately after discussing his period as a backup. Mitchell Trubisky specifies his backup status. (I've only looked at two teams, but that's half their active-roster QBs.) It's far from clear to me why other articles wouldn't, much less why they shouldn't: if an article's lead section is reduceable to a fixed two-sentence format -- Name (dob) gridiron [position] quarterback for [NFL concern]. [College], and [draft pick] -- that's not a sign of commendable stylistic consistency, but of poor summarisation (if not of an underdeveloped article generally with little to summarise!) But more importantly, it's not the same distinction: the depth chart really could change at any time, just as soon as the HC finds a printer or a sharpie, but the change from practice squad to active roster is a formal and contractual one, subject to very strict limits set by the league. It needs Debbie from accounts to exercise her skill position, and a certain timeframe. If Matt Rhule could have made a practice-squad player active on a whim immediately before the Bills game, or even by any other act of will on his part, he'd have been a much happier man in Week 15. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

If a reader is super interested in a player's practice squad status, they need only look immediately to the right of the lead section to see whether the player is active, injured or a member of a practice squad. This discussion is only about whether it needs to be in the first sentence of the article (e.g. "Myles Dorn (born June 25, 1998) is an American football safety who plays on the practice squad for the Minnesota Vikings in the National Football League (NFL)"), which it doesn't. – PeeJay 21:17, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Less than immediately, as -- as I said -- it's rather a long infobox, and it's at the bottom of it. And "we don't need to put it in the text of the article, it's in the infobox" is a strange line of argument at the best of times. "The lead section of an article is itself a summary of the article's content." Do these ledes do a good job of that? No, they do not. We should aim to do better, not use existing poor examples as precedent for not improving others. I strongly suggest not insisting that this discussion be only about the first sentence, as if it is there's a high likelihood we'll be back here shortly arguing about the second sentence, or the third one, etc. After all, you suggested the editor making these changes was "ignoring an apparent consensus" about a series of different changes they'd made earlier. (Ones that were indeed in my opinion ill-considered, for the record.) You can't have narrow discussions on the one hand, and appeals to a broadly construed consensus on the other. The more useful scope is, I think, "should roster status appear in the lead section?", and I think the answer is pretty clearly "yes". 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No strong view on this point but based on the edit history at

WP:3RR. Cbl62 (talk

) 22:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Cbl62 - Point taken. My apologies. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 02:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Ideally, let's not edit-war even within the formal restrictions on numbers of reverts! Clearly there's some "history" with these articles by now, but let's discuss this content change on its merits, without getting more heated or more personalised than it need do. To that end, let's not conflate them with other changes on the one hand, nor combine them with other contentious changes on the other. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:37, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

• Oppose mentioning practice squad status in the lead of articles. The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. It should be clearly stated in the article that a player is on the practice squad, with all the transactions and details in the body of the article. Thus the lead can summarize these details by saying they play for a specific team. Unlike the MLB comparison made above, practice squad players are part of the NFL team. The MLB comparison is ridiculous, as minor league teams are affiliated with major league teams, and are not necessarily owned or operated by the same ownership group (as an example, the
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)
  @ 15:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
• Oppose mentioning practice squad status in the lead of articles. This argument, as with the original "Lead of article" section, is unnecessary. Practice squad players practice with the team, get paid by the team, etc. It is common for some practice squad players to be routinely called up/send down depending on roster availability. It is established consensus that practice squad players are part of the team, and therefore the lead should remain as established: "______ is an American football ______ for the ______ of the National Football League (NFL)." There are previously established methods for mentioning practice squad participation, such as the "Roster Status" line of the Career history section of the infobox. Porterland 15:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What does the 'etc' denote here? Because like the Monty Python 'wise woman' gag, fundamentally there's twp things you need to know about Traore: he's paid by the Jags, and he practices with the team. Whence "Jacksonville practice squad". You say PS players are "routinely" called up, but that requires either a change of contract status -- at which point, by definition they're no longer practice squad players, they're on the active roster; or, the use of 'flexing'. The latter is a recent provision (so doesn't apply at all to many of these players, or to some of the NFL seasons of others), and is explicitly limited to two games per season. I can't help but note that in many cases it'd shove them from one side of the NGRIDIRON guideline to the other, something being regarded as utterly crucial in other discussions, but being relegated to "below the fold" in this one. Seems entirely inconsistent to me, I'm afraid. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:03, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

IP109, I think you are looking at this through the wrong lens. This is an encyclopedia. In the grand scheme of things, a player's practice squad status on any given week is irrelevant. This is different than MLB, where the minor league team is a separate organization that the player is playing for. In the NFL, a practice squad player cashes his check from the NFL team, practices with the NFL team, uses the NFL team's facilities, wears the NFL team's clothes, etc.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 15:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I second what

User:Gonzo_fan2007 said. In most other professional sports, it is worth mentioning as the given athlete is playing for a separate organization: the AHL for the NHL, the G League for the NBA, or MiLB teams for the MLB. But, as Gonzo said, the NFL is different. Unlike other sports, NFL practice squad players practice with the rest of the team, use the same facilities, wear the same jerseys. There is a "roster status" section in every NFL athlete's infobox for a reason. Porterland

20:19, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Gonzo, I'm puzzled by your seeking to 'remind' me this is an encyclopedia, as if this were something I were neglecting to notice, or apply the policies and guidelines of. Just the reverse. I'm also aware -- indeed, I just stated -- that the Jags practice squad is part of the Jags organisation. Where is any apparent confusion on my part about either of these points? Let's not endlessly argue against points not being made, and attempt to address the ones that actually are. In similar wise, this is not about PS status "from week to week". This about players many of whom have never played a single NFL season or post-season down, and yet who it's apparently being insisted must not be in any way distinguished from (for example) four-year veteran starters. They must have the same "standard" two-sentence opening, and nothing else whatsoever in the entire lead section. I think if you feel that's a good model for a good encyclopedia article, it's you that's employing the wrong viewing device. Portland, it's been observed that it's in the infobox a number of times, and as I keep pointing out, that's no substitute for an adequate textual lead section. "Has actually played in the NFL" is of considerably greater significance than is being acknowledged -- or apparently, even being allowed to be mention here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

IP109, please don't create false offenses. I said This is an encyclopedia. In the grand scheme of things, a player's practice squad status on any given week is irrelevant. This is one connected thought and I am not "reminding you this is an encyclopedia". My point is straightforward here: since this is an encyclopedia, minor details can be added to the body of the article, but are not necessary for the lead. If there was a person who only played on practice squads, never was on an active roster, and never did anything else that was notable, then in all likelihood, they are not notable enough to be on Wikipedia. The statement "______ is/was an American football ______ for the ______ of the National Football League (NFL)." in almost all cases sufficiently summarizes the topic of the article and follows

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 15:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, if we're going to remind folks that this is an encyclopedia, it would be a pretty good idea to go for accuracy, which is a pretty important thing for an encyclopedia. And being on the practice squad is not the same as suiting up every Sunday. If it were, then why wouldn't being on the practice squad satisfy

WP:GRIDIRON? I'm actually a bit astonished that a project would promote misleading leads. I also find it curious that some folks think it's fine to separate out non-roster players in other leagues, simply because they play in a separate organization, when the practice squad serves the exact same purpose, with pretty much the exact same restrictions to movement and contracts for the NFL. Onel5969 ^{TT me}

23:21, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

• Yes and no. My two cents: If a player has played in actual NFL regular-season games, then focusing in the lead on the fact that they have, at one time or another, also been on a practice squad strikes me as
  WP:UNDUE. However, if a player's entire "NFL career" is limited to practice squad roles, the practice squad status is important and necessary to note in the lead, so as to avoid misleading the reader. Cbl62 (talk
  ) 23:49, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, if a player is "off and on" the active roster and the practice squad, it would be unnecessary detail and busywork to update that each time. I'm not sure that really passes the bar for inclusion in the article at all, but if it were, it would be sufficient to confine that to the appropriate "season" section. Nor do I see any need for a huge amount of detail even in hindsight after the conclusion of a season, or of an entire career. But I do think that rather than doggedly preserving two-sentence summaries, a better model would be be to include brief mentions of different teams a player has been contracted to, and some very general indication of what play they saw. So to continue our example, let's say something on the lines of: "In the 2020 season Traore was under practice squad contract to the Chicago Bears; in the 2021 season, on the Jaguars practice squad." Whereas for players seeing actual gameplay, wording like "played the 2021 season for" (etc) would suffice regardless of whether they pinged between different part of the full roster. (I'm not at all wedded to the precise details of any of this, just trying to illustrate one possible way forward; please by all means critique and improve.) I think that's broadly in line with what we see in much more fleshed-out articles: for example in (to take another genuinely random example) the Chad Henne article lead we learn of a season as a backup, and a season spent injured. (Not a model case either, as we get that detail on those, and nothing on many seasons in between, but oh well.) Of course there are further marginal cases where someone might not have played a down without being entirely confined to the PS (dressed for some game days, but was never used; kicker pulled a quad in game warmup on W1, spent rest of season on IR), but we can worry about one thing at a time. These articles may not be in any danger of hitting GAR anytime soon, but we should be encouraging small improvements in the direction of an adequate article summary, not looking for purported procedural rationales to revert them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 16:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I've come across a number of them but don't recall specific examples. They're typically players who receive SIGCOV for their collegiate careers but don't make it in the NFL (except for a stint on a practice squad). Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Jordan Ta'amu is an example of a practice squad player who has never appeared in an actual NFL game. The lead should clarify this fact to avoid misleaing the reader. Cbl62 (talk) 16:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

See also Uzoma Nwachukwu, Jake Hausmann, and Cornelius Ingram. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Otis Anderson Jr. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Couple of those are currently active players, so on the one hand they're potentially "bubbling under", and might hit NGRIDIRON in the future, and on the other might be concerns regarding transient maintenance issues. But I'd continue to claim that "previous seasons" and "previous teams" are good targets for such summaries (as indeed a couple of those currently provide in some form). Whether they're indeed presently notable or not I'll stay shtum on. "AfD them after they retire" would be a fairly extreme eventualist approach, but at least one with a time horizon on it. ("Not For Long!") I happened across a couple of further examples of retired such players -- if memory serves one was a kicker that'd played in a pre-season game which the article went into in lavish detail, but the identity of the player escapes me for now. If it's clear in hindsight someone's NFL career is of little or no notability then at time of removing reference from the lede as to their current employment status, the same would logically be done for their past NFL stints, leaving their college football or other source of notability to speak for itself. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Here's another practice squad player currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Trevon Grimes. Cbl62 (talk) 00:13, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Grimes was never on the practice squad, he was released in his first training camp. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:07, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

From the article, he appears to have been on IR for 4-5 weeks, so the "contracted to a team, but never played, how best to summarise" issue is similar, albeit not overlapping in time with the regular or post season. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:21, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully not in a way objectionable to anyone's sensibilities, I've tried slightly fleshing out the leads for several Jags players in

WP:SUMMARYSTYLE. Badara Traore (him again!), Joseph Charlton, Michael Jacquet, and Tre'Vour Wallace-Simms. Nothing at all radical or exciting, IMO, but I mention it just in case participants in this discussion feel it's relevant here. (For good or for ill!). 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 20:58, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm late to the party here, but I'm going to vote Oppose mentioning practice squad in the first sentence of a players article in most cases. players who have spent time on active rosters in the past probably shouldn't have it, because the Infobox already states it under Roster status. This is a pretty tough call, with a lot of things to consider, which could complicate the consistency of any consensus outside the current norm. If I'm mentioning anything that's already been mentioned, my apologies! Spf121188 (talk) 21:08, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the issue here is so much whether we need to qualify, as you say in the first sentence, what we say about people being players for the City Mascots football team. Though it's probably somewhat tangled up with that in terms of "past history", as there have been a number of different edits to these articles that others have taken various degrees of exception to. But I think we should be aiming to have more than the minimal two-sentence leads where there's a decent amount of article to be summarising. After all, they're primary notable for the pro careers, probably good to say something about that career. e.g. someone is currently a free agent, so rather than saying nothing at all about their pro career, we say which teams they previously played for, or signed to in some capacity, etc. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Participants of this project may be interested in the deletion discussion of Paul Quessenberry, an active tight end for the Houston Texans who meets NGRIDIRON. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 19:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I thought it was neutral, but ok. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO deletion of that part would have been preferable, as striking it but leaving it visible amounts to the same thing. (I personally found it confusing, as at time of said notification, from the article itself it did not appear the player met GRIDIRON at all -- though indeed he does, appearing in one game two weeks after his team's elimination from theoretical playoff contention. And "active" may be misleading, if he's simply been "flexed" from the practice squad for the permissible maximum of two games.) Moot now given this discussion, but worth bearing in mind for future reference. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:02, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Neutral would need to present both sides, or none at all.—Bagumba (talk) 11:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The thing is... even if he “deleted” the section he struck, it’s still visible in overall history. So really, he did the right thing. Spf121188 (talk) 00:45, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I disagree. It's not like this view needs to be kept super-secret, but it's not really in the spirit of a neutral notification to have a conspicuous rationale for going and !voting one particular way evidently favoured by the notifier, struck out or not. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:59, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I know little about the guidelines for disambiguation pages, but is it correct to have a dab page for Bill Fleckenstein? As there is only one person having an article with that name, the 1920s/30s football player. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:44, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, that does seem strange to me. I've requested the football player to be moved back to the main topic. Natg 19 (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a very recent -- and on the face of it, premature -- move in anticipation of the redlink to the other Bill being infilled. This might be a good idea, if the other is indeed of roughly comparable notability, but it's a distinctly cart-before-the-horse way of doing it. This isn't quite an "uncontroversial technical move", as clearly the moving editor might object, and also it could be done without admin help by first moving the dab to Bill Fleckenstein (disambiguation). Then again, if Gridiron Bill is the primary topic, might just need a hatnote at that article. EncMstr may be able to clarify what's up here. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been moved back as a contested, undiscussed move per

WP:NCGRIDIRON.—Bagumba (talk

) 11:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure, clearly it doesn't meet the dab standard at present, but on the face of it there's intent that it do so when (hypothetically) that other article got created. Odd order for that editor to have done it in, and odd place for them to have left it in, so ultimately that's on them. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:38, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the split. I was delayed by the sheer number of notable-appearing Bill Fleckensteins. I added a stub article to establish notability for the new article. That Bill Fleckenstein is reasonably well known in certain circles and probably is well-known to the 1920s football player—or at least he was in the mid-1990s. —EncMstr (talk) 19:25, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC?—Bagumba (talk

) 03:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@

WP:GNG.—Bagumba (talk

) 04:00, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I googled him earlier and he's been interviewed by PBS and by CNBC (if memory serves), so I'd imagine has some degree of notability. Some hard yards to do on the article all right, but as Bagumba very correctly and wisely says, no big fire in getting there instantly. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Participants of this project may be interested in the village pump proposal to abolish NSPORT. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:49, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I greatly enjoyed the neutrality of this notification. Downside,

Zapp Brannigan is opening his gunports even as we speak...  :) 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 02:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

AFC Championship Game

Possible vandalism or more likely misunderstanding about the article AFC Championship Game. But a mobile-editor keeps changing it, to appears as though it's about the 2021-22 AFC championship game, between the Chiefs & Bengals. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've protected it.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS and NGRIDIRON] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I know this is another since-sailed ship, and risks singing a song I've sung before, but wouldn't a more neutral notification just have mentioned the existence of the proposal(s) generally? As it stands there's a distinct "and here's the part you sports editors won't like!" connotation to it. (A moot distinction perhaps, as evidently sports editors don't like any part of any of them.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

IP109, I think as plainly written by

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think excerpting one part of a set of proposals is "providing context" -- it's exactly the opposite. Whether it's as neutral as required I defer to your judgement on. But it's clearly not as neutral as it could be. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

IP109 (I keep wanting to type

PT109 which seriously dates me): I actually modified the notification to make it more neutral after extensive back-and-forth on my talk page. I believed it was neutrally-worded to begin with and certainly so as it ended up. Even the editor who complained ended up concluding, after my revisions, that the revised "message seems generally appropriate now." See User talk:Cbl62#RFC Notifications. Cbl62 (talk

) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW the symphony of sailing and music metaphors are appreciated ;) Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not because these edits are easy, but because they're hard! Yeah, I noticed that exchange, so I was vaguely self-conscious I was re-quibbling an existing quibble. Yet not enough to stop me, evidently! It seems I'm going to going to start type-checking my metaphors for some degree of consistency. "Metaphors: mix and match" as the caption of a cartoon accompanying a letter complaining about those once put it. (That's in theory dated me, though good luck chasing down that reference.) The nuance is probably over-worked on my part; if people get the link, unless it's blatantly one-sided, they should be able to make up their own minds when they get there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

For starters, the "others" death section of the 2021 season article seems excessively long. I feel like we need to make some sort of requirement like ___ number of seasons played, ____ number of Pro Bowls, that kind of thing. Additionally, it's confusing to me how the article is the entire season, but yet the deaths section is by calendar year. That doesn't make any sense to me. I feel like the deaths section should be people (taking the 2021 season as an example) who died between February 8, 2021 (the day after Super Bowl LV) to February 13, 2022, the day of Super Bowl LVI.--Rockchalk717 05:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole section seems trivial, with the deaths generally having no impact on the season unless they were still playing (moments of silence and uniform patches aside).—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Trivial seems a little harsh, but there might be a scoping issue here indeed. This article isn't 2021 in American football -- though evidently that page does exist, and might be significantly expanded, possibly to include things like this -- it's the NFL season per se. I don't think it'd be be workable to threshold by "importance" of the person, except as measured by the usual relevant-notability criteria. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

For the "deaths" section, I was adding anyone who either (a) played in the NFL, (b) were drafted into the NFL, did not appear in a game, but became notable in another way, or (c) had a close relation to the NFL, or an NFL team and is notable (e.g. the official Ben Dreith). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What about: moving this entire section to 2021 in American football#Deaths (and augmenting it with any other notables from college football, other pro leagues, etc), and having a short section in the NFL article, mentioning only those whose deaths specifically received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in connection with the NFL, with a {{main}} section hatnote linking that to the other? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I like that idea. Useight (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Second anything to move deaths from these league season pages. It happened during the season, but does not materially impact the season (

WP:UNDUE).—Bagumba (talk

) 09:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A second second-thought on this: there's no CFL by year articles (at least that I can find), and movement of players between the two main leagues is not uncommon. (And the two college systems too? Iunno.) Would it be helpful to rescope this to 2021 in American and Canadian football or 2021 in gridiron football, say? It'd help flesh out what's currently a very skeletal index page, but that could be useful and rather more substantial. Compare with 2021 in association football, for example. (A very dissimilar case of course, as that's a worldwide game with no single league or competition that's the single 1,200 pound gorilla.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually like the idea suggested by the IP. I feel like we should leave out the "others" section and maybe just list Hall of Famers who died during the actual season (after the previous Super Bowl to the day of the that season's Super Bowl) because the Hall of Famers are typically going to be the ones with tributes, with some exceptions like the Chiefs didn't do a tribute for Curly Culp their Hall of Famer who died in November. That keeps the list small, because maybe at worst 6/7 Hall of Famers die in a given year, versus the probably 100ish of the 20,000 players to ever play the game and the thousands and thousands of coaches.--Rockchalk717 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'd personally be inclined to do is to copy the existing format from the NFL season page as-is -- HoFers bullet-pointed and summarised separately, and all others listed in columns -- and have a much shorter all-prose section in the NFL season. Which will likely skew towards those for sourcing reasons, but without any predetermined format that might be seen as arbitrary for inclusion or exclusion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Deebo Samuel wasn't tagged with the project banner, done now. I mention this not to get a cookie (mrm, cookies...) but because I wasn't quite sure what Importance to tag him with. Oh wait, he's on the "2021" All-Pro team -- so that makes him Mid, right? (I'd put that in the article, but it's semi-protected from the lines of me.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this project, but according to the criteria as its laid out at WP:WikiProject National Football League/Assessment#Importance scale, it would appear that he does not yet qualify for "mid" and should instead be "low" for now.

As a side note, I think that criteria is a little too detailed and should probably be more generalized (like the difference between 2 and 3 Pro Bowls isn't really clear outside of this grading scale). We should also keep in mind that importance is very subjective overall. Great to have some kind of criteria to go by, but there's no guarantee it's going to encapsulate every possible scenario. The more generalized the criteria, the better. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I've misread that as one All-Pro or two Pro-Bowls, somehow. (BTW, why does the All-Pro Second Team only have nine players? Don't think that's gonna work out well for them in this hypothetical game! (Or is it a hypothetical depth-chart, so we don't need more than a certain number of RBs and WRs?) So by that scale he'd be Low. It does seem a little artificial, but I suppose useful to have a standard to argue for case-by-case deviation from than just wild ah-hoc guesswork. Personally I think a modest amount of recency bias is a good thing in such cases: this is the sort of subject that the Wikiproject might be punting for a DYK at this time of year, or on the front page (were the article in merely vastly better shape). Can always be demoted again. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For AP 2nd team All-Pro, if there was a unanimous pick at a position, that means 0 votes for another player, so there is no runner-up. Other polls might have separate votes for 1st and 2nd team.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Aaaah. Or "instant runoff" voting (first and second picks per pundit) would be the obvious fix there. Thanks for the info. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

After a thorough discussion, we seem to have settled on three basic options. All of them are fairly acceptable, just need some help making a final decision. We can see the finish line!

Please weigh in at

) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the Wikiproject's Featured Lists, too! (Admittedly there's 75 of 'em...) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

) 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If my changes aren't accepted? Then I give @

) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with AFL / NFL vs American Football League / National Football League. Either should be fine, though I suppose the "official" name is the full name. Natg 19 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I should point out. Before I made my changes, there was inconsistencies among the intro of those articles. Some said NFL, some National Football League, some linked to the latter & some didn't. GoodDay (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Typically we repeat the title bolded per

MOS:BOLDAVOID applies, and we should modify the lead sentence so it's not so repetitive e.g. repeated "AFL" and "championship game" mention: "The 1968 AFL Championship Game was the ninth annual American Football League's championship game ..." (1968 American Football League Championship Game).—Bagumba (talk

) 09:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's an example of one of those changes. Generally speaking, the bolded term in the lead doesn't have to match the article title necessarily, but since we are spelling out "American Football League" only a few words later, this change seems unnecessary and may even look odd to some. Might as well swap those back around and put the full name in bold and abbreviate on second mention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Would a full write out "Year American Football League season", "Year American Football League Championship Game", "Year National Football League season" and "Year National Football League Championship Game", be best? GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You have already started two discussions regarding AFL at

talk

) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is about article titles. This discussion is about article intros. BTW, you began this discussion at this WikiProject, not me. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore. I think it's best we stop communicating with each other. Allow others to chime in. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm with GoneIn60 on the suggestion of flipping those mentions around. Then it's style-conformant with BOLDTITLE, and it follows the general good practice of mentioning the full name first, and the abbreviation of that subsequently. The NFL pages will necessarily differ one way or the other, assuming they're stable at those names. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, was surprised that this WikiProject existed, let alone the now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League. I thought both leagues were handled by Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, it's buried in the navbox at

WP:AMF under "Related projects".—Bagumba (talk

) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dang, Canadian football is there too. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Year AFL re-directs & articles inconsistencies

A side note: We've the following inconsistencies - Examples:

) 02:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For the somewhat understandable reason of the non-existence of each of those at the other's being... well, in being. But the Australian Football League ones should ideally be renamed to that form. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we should get closure at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_football#American_Football_League_related_articles,_should_be_changed_to_AFL first for American Football League seasons. It might provide a basis for how to proceed with the Australian Football League.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So far, there's seems to be very little interest in that RFC. One would've expected quite a number of editors chiming in there, by now. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Though I get the impression that nothing will be done about it. The IP is correct, that there's inconsistency with the 1960–69 Year AFL season redirecting to the American Football League seasons & the 1990–present Year AFL season being the titles of the Australian Football League seasons. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If someone proposes renaming 1990 AFL season–2022 AFL season on those lines then I'd certainly support. Or at least that's my current hot take, until someone prevails on me with a good argument to the contrary. But that's another sport, hemisphere, and indeed Wikiproject entirely, so really only tangentially related to this discussion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect there'd be a big push against conceding to the American Football League, over at the Australian Football League WikiProject, via changing the Australian league's season articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be right; I try to pitch my expectations of anything other than entrenched silos of local consensus low, so as to avoid excessive disappointment. But that project or WP:RM would be more appropriate venues, whether for lighting a candle, or cursing at the dark. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If somebody takes the time to bundle an

WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.—Bagumba (talk

) 08:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. In line with my comments at the recent AFL RfC, I would also lend my support to having it expanded. Ping me with a link if that discussion ever happens, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've floated it at the appropriate Wikiproject initially just on the offchance they were wildly enthusiastic. Hopefully it doesn't turn into another "local consensus" trench-warfare battle, but see above on expectation-management. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What should be the intros of the Year AFL & NFL Championship Game articles?

Nobody (so far) has been reverting my changes at the Year AFL & Year NFL Championship Game article intros. There's been no complaints at all, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League (of course, it's inactive), whose shorthand link ("WP:AFL") has been taken over by the Australian Football League's WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this the discussion we just had above? If not, by a wild coincidence my same comment just happens to apply. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Nobody (so far) has been reverting my changes..."

It could be that active editors who have an interest and oppose are weighing in here instead of reverting at the article. That would come as no surprise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverting when there is an ongoing discussion would be edit warring and disruptive.

WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus too.—Bagumba (talk

) 08:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Would anybody mind, if this entire discussion on the article intros, were moved over to Wikipedia:WikiProject American football? Jumping back forth between here & the somewhat related RFC over there, can be confusing. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This NFL project has more watchers and activity. Moving it would be counter productive. My suggestion is that the RfC has run its course. Would you consider accepting the consensus there as it is currently? If not, how much longer were you comfortable with?—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'ma gonna request closure for it. At the pace & direction it's going. By the time the RFC-tag would've expired in early February, there'd likely be 15-opposes to 1 support. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been closed. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I've

WP:BOLDTITLEd the 'season' articles. Which may or may not precisely be reverts of GoodDay's edits, I didn't check in detail. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

So now they're completely out-of-sync with the NFL season & NFL Championship Game articles. Would it have hurt that much, to have left my edits stand? GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not like we didn't mull over this at vast length before anyone did anything. BOLDTITLE is style guidance, WP:NFLANDAFLARTICLESINEXACTSYMMETRY is not, so I dunno what else to add at this point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I reckon, there's absolutely nothing more to add. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Would it be alright if I shorten the infobox headings to Year AFL season & Year AFL Championship Game - to better lineup with the corresponding NFL articles? Bringing this up here, as Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League is dormant. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Matching the title (and what should be the boldtitle) might be the more important consideration. The current length doesn't seem excessive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Do what you want then (which you already have), put the AFL season & Championship Game articles out-of-sync completely, with their NFL counterparts. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As I didn't edit the infoboxes at all, this seems to be rather conflating two different issues (and in the correct place for the one, and not the other). If you feel strongly about the 'boxes, I have no especially strong feelings either way. Nor argument to offer based on style guidelines, beyond the above observation. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

An editor proposed a change at

) 15:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't really know if this is the best place to do it but my nomination for Julio Jones for GA has been up for a little over a week. I'm just trying to get the message out there so I can get through with it and move on to another article. If anybody is up to reviewing it then go ahead and check it out. NSNW (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 18:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I was following some advice that I contact the wikiprojects of a particular article to gain awareness of the nom. I guess I'll start working on another article now. Thank you. NSNW (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Should we update this article during the playoffs? Currently, this article lists each team's starting QB during the regular season, which may lead to irregularities when teams rest their starters prior to the playoffs. For example, Brandon Allen and Gardner Minshew are listed as the starting QBs for the Bengals and Eagles, when the "real" starting QBs will be Joe Burrow and Jalen Hurts.

This can be easily changed by updating the note from starting quarterbacks of each team's most recently played regular season game to starting quarterbacks of each team's most recently played game.

Additionally, there had been a lot of discussion in the talk page in the past of how to deal with this list during the offseason, so if anyone has any suggestions, feel free to discuss. The status quo right now seems to be to leave it as is and protect this page until the regular season begins. Natg 19 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It does appear to have been semi-protected the last couple of years, but even that seems questionable if it's being done more for "version freeze" reasons than to stop actual in-progress IP vandalism. Either scoping arguably leads to a more fluctuation-prone list than is needed or useful to readers. Might it be better to frame it as their usual starter? That reinstates Burrow and Hurts, albeit getting into subjective territory if a team is mid-QB-controversy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea but would rephrase it a bit. Instead of usual starter it would be who's at the top of the depth chart. Then you could properly adjust the table based on offseason signings. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I made the change to update for the playoffs. I think it could get messy if we update throughout the offseason, and "depth chart" can be subjective as I doubt that teams release their official depth charts often. Natg 19 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Whelp I was reverted. @Dissident93: who reverted my change and wanted more discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like everything posted so far have been alternate proposals and not direct support for your change. I don't oppose your change, I'd just like to see more support from others first. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems too subjective to be of any benefit to the page. How would you have decided the 2020 Dolphins when they flip-flopped between Fitz and Tua all season? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

What about the pre-season games? Should they also be added? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No, they are televised practices. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please can QB ages be added to the table? I was going to do it & then realised I didn't know how & so didn't want to mess it up.Tarquin.F (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a piece of trivia that has no bearing on them being a starting quarterback. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that for retired players their main infobox photo should be with the team they are most associated with, all other things being equal. However, there is no guidance on this page for that, so I figured I'd raise the issue here.

18:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't think that was ever the case. I think that it's always been the most recent and quality photo of the subject. I think that, just as with the vast majority of WP:BLP articles, that the lead image should always be the most recently taken quality photo of the subject. --Righanred (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

At

WP:NBAIMAGE. The thinking is readers want to know what the player currently looks like. For football, having a shot w/o a helmet should be a factor too.—Bagumba (talk

) 02:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that the most recent picture should be perferred, but I think that helmetless pictures shouldn't be prioritized over good-quality recent images. I think that a "WP:NFLIMAGE" should be created soon to put ends to edit wars on Tom Brady, Jared Goff and other pages. On a semi-related note, I also think that there should be consistancy in the caption of the lead image. I like: "(lastname) with the (team name) in (year image was taken)".--Righanred (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking back at this, I think that a caption requirement isn't nessesary--Righanred (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is already general guidance at

MOS:CAPLENGTH, which seems in line with your suggestion of "(lastname) with the (team name) in (year image was taken)".—Bagumba (talk

) 00:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't use this on photos it doesn't really work on just to enforce consistency. If a player has an image where they clearly aren't in uniform or team gear, don't use it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say a helmetless pic is a factor in selection, but certainly not the sole factor.—Bagumba (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I always thought we simply used the highest-quality image of an athlete. Usually it would be the newer picture. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Editors of this project may be interested in a

) 17:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

• Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
• Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
• Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
• Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
• Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
• Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
• Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
• Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Due to User:CitizenKang414's recent edits, I thought it would be prudent to ask here for confirmation that we should not be putting team logos in the infobox of individual season articles (e.g. 2021 Cincinnati Bengals season) unless the team is using a specific logo in that season (e.g. 2021 Cleveland Browns season). Can anyone confirm for us that that is the case? – PeeJay 17:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's a non-free logo, only on the main page about the team per Wikipedia:Logos#Placement.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:PeeJay – Thanks for posting this on the appropriate discussion board, I should have done this earlier. I also apologize if I sounded rude or hostile in any of my edit summaries that were directed at you. CitizenKang414 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Bagumba-- if it's non-free, only in the main page. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, just an important point of clarification –– I was careful to only be putting logos that were marked as free/fair use (i.e., "public domain"), mainly wordmark logos but also a few primary logos that were in the public domain, on these season articles. Does this rule apply to all NFL logos, or just the non-free ones? WP:LOGOS says: "Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos... should be used within an article", but this does not appear to address or apply to "public domain" logos, which I was adding to articles and which PeeJay kept reverting. CitizenKang414 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that’s an important point. I was aware that the logos being added were tagged as free, but I’m still pretty sure it’s unnecessary decoration. The addition of a logo doesn’t help the reader’s understanding of the article. It would be better to add an image of the team playing that season, or something else truly representative of the team that season. – PeeJay 21:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If the image is free, it then becomes purely an editorial decision of where it should be used.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Having read the MOS page you linked above, I’m not sure that’s the case. – PeeJay 01:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I should have said if free and not a trademark...—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The terminology here is a little opaque, as by any intuitive interpretation, a non-copyrighted image of a trademarked logo is still "non-free" in a general intellectual property sense. And I'd be very wary of "only-a-guidelining" this advice too, given its IP-law-adjacent status. Thus, what Bagumba said in the first instance. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was contributing from my phone so I wasn't able to be fully clear. What I'm saying is that

WP:LOGOS. – PeeJay

13:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To try to be a little more clear about my own 'clarity' comment -- turtles all the way down, isn't it? -- I wasn't criticising yours, I was saying that the wording of the guideline is unclear. In fact, it's tortuous and illogical. Logos aren't "free", so by talking about "free images" of non-free logos, it's muddying the issue quite a lot. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I should also add, this would mean that wordmarks (even though they're all free) shouldn't be used on other articles such as the rivalry pages, and they definitely shouldn't be used in userboxes such as User:UBX/NFL-Browns. – PeeJay 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Would be interested to hear some opinions on

@ 15:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Historic games should have

WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, even better if it's still referred to years later. The refs are currently all bare urls, and I'm not currently free to click on them and dig more on their timing.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a tough call, but it feels like this should go to AfD. I filled in the bare references on the page, but it does seem like most of the coverage of the game is of the routine variety. "Hail Larry" is really only used to refer to the game in one reference (unless I missed something, which is entirely possible.)

Gonzo_fan2007, I think your instinct is correct here. Spf121188 (talk

) 16:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe merge and redirect to Hail Mary? It seems sourceable, but not screamingly high in independent notability. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant Hail Mary pass :) Spf121188 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Totally what I said. IP109 malreported. :) <exit, coughing somewhat embarrassedly, especially given my editing location> 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha, honest mistake, it happens. On a side note, I do think that's a solid

alternative to deletion.Spf121188 (talk

) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is still a memorable game. Even this article mentions it as Hail Larry. In 2018, the game was mentioned on the Cardinals website. Recently, Hail Larry was mentioned in this article and in 2022, Hail Larry was referenced on the team website. Fitzgerald even recalled those plays. It is notable as a article and calling it “Hail Larry” would be accurate. Even “Dez Caught It” has its own article. If this article is to be merged, it should be merged to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona). —2600:387:15:617:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In response to the above - any mention of the game on teams websites is not considered independent. Secondly, the "Dez caught it" game was MUCH more notable given the controversy surrounding the biggest play of the game, which led to some rule changes. This game was certainly a memorable game, but memorable games can be fairly common. Spf121188 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

4th and 26 has its own Wikipedia page. I think Hail Larry can as well either as the name Hail Larry or change it to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona). 13 seconds has its own Wikipedia page. If Hail Larry isn’t the right name, it can be moved to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona) because it still is notable. I just added stuff regarding the 2021 game between the Packers and Cardinals, including a unsuccessful Hail Mary attempt by Rodgers. —2600:387:15:617:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Another articles existence isn't a valid criteria for an article to be kept or not. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I'm just on the fence about this article/game having it's own article space. Spf121188 (talk

) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment regardless of the outcome of any future AFD, it definitely should be moved to
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)
  @ 22:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worth nothing, in my opinion, the articles' creator is currently blocked. I understand that has zero bearing on this being a worthy article, but, it may be worth noting. Spf121188 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not so convinced of notability. A redirect to 2015 Arizona Cardinals season#Postseason, which has the game summary almost immediately under the section header, or 2015–16 NFL playoffs#NFC: Arizona Cardinals 26, Green Bay Packers 20 (OT) may be more appropriate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with redirecting it. If 4th and 26, Miracle in Motown, and The Catch II can have their own articles, so can Hail Larry. If Hail Larry isn’t the right title, change it to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona). I think it is very notable. The 2006 Chargers-Patriots playoff game has its own article and so can this one. —2600:387:15:617:0:0:0:2 (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Again,

WP:OTHERSTUFF. Except that those 'other stuff' are extensively sourced in a way that makes their independent notability clear: not within a Bear's roar of being the case here. However, your objection certainly rules out it being an 'uncontroversial' merge, so our remaining options seem to be to craft on it little more to see if it can be made to work better as a standalone topic, or AFD. If kept, I think the very scope of the article needs more thought. Is it about the game as a whole? Two HMs in that game, only one of which involved someone called "Larry"? Larry Fitzgerald catching them generally -- I see references to a HL in 2007(!). 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 11:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing why this just isn't redirected and merged to
  WP:N guideline says: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.—Bagumba (talk
  ) 12:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreeance with Bagumba. While this is still a memorable game, it's kind of a run-of-the-mill OT playoff game, with one hail mary and another long OT pass that wasn't a hail mary as another user indicated. And the sources that one of the IP's attached earlier are almost exclusively from the AZ Cardinals website, which aren't independent. I say redirect and merge. Spf121188 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with both of the above comments. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm in support of a merge/redirect. I've never heard people refer to a "Hail Larry" before this article was brought up here. Don't really see any notability to this game, it didn't change the course of history and I forgot about it until now. I also have an issue with the name because implies it was a Hail Mary but it wasn't. From the first source in that article; "Fitzgerald turned a short pass into a 75-yard gain on the first play of overtime to set up his five-yard shovel pass reception for the winning score". 5 yards and then running it up the rest of the way in overtime is a great play, but it's not something that deserves its own article. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks everyone, I boldly redirected
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)
  @ 15:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Mildly bold; seems like the correct result. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

NFL history mystery of the day: We have an article on Sam Mason (American football) who per Pro Football Reference (here) played fullback for the 1922 Minneapolis Marines. Pro Football Archives does not show Sam Mason as being on the 1922 Minneapolis roster but does show an Orin Mason as a fullback on the team. See here. Different dates of birth, etc., but it seems likely that either PFR or PFA has an error as to which Mason played at the fullback position for the 1922 Marines. A standing ovation for whoever is able to resolve this mystery. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This is odd. In my newspapers.com search of the Marines in '22 the only other "Mason" mention besides listing in boxscores is about a player from Utah ([2]). PFR lists him from VMI, and PFA doesn't list any school at all. I've found both people in Ancestry.com with the info listed at the stats websites, but could not find which actually played in the NFL. (BTW I see a "Orin Mason" in Minneapolis who was a handball player here). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I found this mention of a Mason in a team photo. I find it interesting that they list whoever this Mason is as a utility back instead of a fullback. I'm still looking for more though. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. Nice photo too. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

FindAGrave for Samuel Anthony Mason and then there's the FindAGrave for Orin Harold Mason (other site listed his middle name as Harild). The FindAGrave link for Sam Mason shows a picture of him in football equipment. In Sam's bio on that site it mentioned he's in the VMI Hall of Fame so I went to look for their Hall. I found his inclusion in their Hall as a charter member (their Hall being founded in 1972). His inclusion helps to verify he did at least play football at VMI, and did so with distinction.

While not a smoking gun, I found this WW1 draft registration card which gives the proper birthday, location, employer & title (VMI as a student). I then found this draft card for WW2 for Sam Anthony Mason. Sam went to a military school so it wouldn't be a surprise if he registered to fight in WW2. The date of birth, birth place, and weight match up while the height is 1" difference (20 years since he had been in the NFL, people can shrink slightly). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice work, josh! Cbl62 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Any luck on Orin Mason? Are we hoping that it's a mistype by somebody? Are we satisfied that Sam Mason is the player that played professionally? It could be worth sending a message to VMI Athletics to see if they'd be able to share any type of record or reason as to why Sam Mason may have been inducted. Typically in inductions like that they'd often reference any type of professional career a player had. At least we were able to verify that Sam Mason was a real person and it's more likely than not him. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to follow up further as of yet. Will copy this discussion to the article talk page for future reference. Cbl62 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello everyone! I've noticed on several NFL players pages, specifically under infobox achievements, "USA Today High School All-American." There is no guidance on the guidelines that explicitly say this should or shouldn't be included, so I wanted to start a discussion here. It seems like generally, high school achievements shouldn't be included, but thought it would be worth bringing up for consensus. Thanks everyone! Spf121188 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess the threshold for inclusion would be, as per usual, did it get

WP:SIGCOV in high-quality reliable sources? If the verification of this is just their own or their school's website, or a line in their local paper, then presumably not. If this was Big News (or featured prominently in some other suitable source), then sure. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 14:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you on this. My only argument against

significant coverage, but still aren't to be included in players' infoboxes per the guidance. I started this discussion to try and gain a consensus before going through to remove. You do make a good point though, I'll wait to see if other users will chime in. Thanks for responding! -ps, you should make an account. You've contributed greatly to the project. Spf121188 (talk

) 15:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, I see your point more clearly now. Observation stands for inclusion at all, but as for the infobox, it should follow a standard format whenever it sensibly can, and should avoid creature feep that'd make it cluttered -- I think a number of articles are teetering over that line already, and not on this wikiproject alone. Unless there were some highly unusual case where someone is massively notable for this award -- somehow! -- and of little significance otherwise, sounds like a "generally not". And many thanks for the kind words! I've been deliberately refraining from getting an account (again) by way of a self-denying ordinance, but I'm not sure if that's proving a successful strategy... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Hey man im josh, BeanieFan11, and Frank Anchor for their thoughts on this. Spf121188 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

High school state championships are already supposed to be left off based on the players page format and I'd prefer that the rest of the high school achievements be left out completely as well (once they enter the NFL). Just about every player who makes it the NFL has a bunch of awards that could fill up their info box because they were in classic big fish small pond situations and just absolutely dominated in high school, which is how you get noticed and get scholarships or recruited. Some relatively unsuccessful players could fill their info box the same way, but that really doesn't tell us anything. I just don't see the value in having them there to clog up what's essentially a short highlight summary. Especially because there's so many different ones out there that people can win. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Hey man im josh. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with Hey man im josh and BeanieFan11. Cluttering infobox achievements with a HS All-America team that is only published by USA Today, when we already aren't supposed to have HS championships seems to just add fluff. It can be included in Early life sections in the players article perhaps, which should be sufficient. Spf121188 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what I usually do, include HS-related items in the "Early life"/"Early life and education" section. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If USA Today are the award-granters, then coverage there is necessarily not entirely "independent". Sorta like a primary-and-half-source, I suppose. Additional sources would really be needed to establish this as particularly notable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense. All things considered, it seems like this shouldn't be included in the infobox, but can be included in a subsection of the article. Spf121188 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Parade AA honors were mentioned in mainstream, print newspapers before. Not sure about recently.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did we land on this? It's been 2 weeks and nobody has opposed the removal of high school awards, in large part due to the clutter they create and the lack of notability. Are we okay to update the player page format to say that high school awards and championships should be excluded? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022‎ (UTC)

My vote would be yes, remove it from the player page format. Seems like that's the general consensus. Spf121188 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Use common sense if there's some weird edge-case where they're for some reason highly notable for that, relative to the rest of their career. Which would necessarily mean coverage of it in multiple sources, beyond USA Today just self-reporting it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright then. As there's been no opposition to the change and plenty of time to respond to it, I'll go ahead and update the the guideline for player pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we've been pushing this too far. Uncluttering the award section of Aaron Donald's infobox is one thing, but removing these high school awards for players whose only awards came from HS is absurd. --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned this in the other talk page, Bender235, this kind of guidance must remain consistent across the board, because it eliminates gray areas, which only causes problems and disputes. That's why I started this discussion and we came to a consensus. Spf121188 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Bender235, I'll add that I understand your thought process around this. I don't want to sound like I'm being patronizing or anything like that, I'm just under the thought process that something like this needs to remain consistent, so we don't open up the opportunity for arguments and side discussions when we already have a consensus. Spf121188 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem becomes subjectivity. As in, who's infobox should the honors stay in and how do you decide that? Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh and Spf121188: You're fixating on the letter of this guideline while losing sight of the intention. What we're aiming for is shorter infoboxes, by selecting the few outstanding awards and honors for superstar players. But for otherwise mediocre players, HS awards are worth mentioning. We can easily be consistent by saying "College and/or Pro honors receive precedence over HS honors, but if a player has no or very few collegiate honors, HS can be included". I mean, take for instance Lamont Green and Bryce Brown: those players were national celebrities as high school players, but also-ran in the NFL. If the purpose of any player's infobox is to summarize their career, and the high school awards should definitely be mentioned. Are those same awards career defining for Adrian Peterson and Jaylon Smith? Probably not. But for Green and Brown they are. --bender235 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for just jumping in here, but I fully disagree with this line of thinking. We should be consistent across all infoboxes for NFL players, whether you are Aaron Donald or Lamont Green. Natg 19 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, you can easily be consistent with a guideline such as "include no more than five of the most relevant/important awards in a player's career in the infobox". For Aaron Donald, those are All-Pro selections and Super Bowl MVPs. For Lamont Green, it's All-USA in high school. --bender235 (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with arbitrarily choosing a number of significant awards or putting some HS ones just to show them. If a player has no significant college or NFL awards / achievements, so be it. Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't be arbitrarily, and it shouldn't be "just to show them". It should be: a) according to independent notability, and b) due weight in the context of the person's other notability. Policies and guidelines are supposed to be our "editor-in-chief" -- trouble that people have to choose to follow that direction. If someone is wildly notable for a HS award for some idiosyncratic reason, then absolutely definitely include it. It shouldn't be excluded out of "foolish consistency" with it being -- correctly -- excluded from articles on subjects much more notable for other things, where this is some minimally sourced piece of minor trivia in the context of their overall bio. There's of course a degree of judgement required in such decisions, but a cookie-cutter project-sourced "rule" for this (include them all, exclude them all) would be a poor alternative. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is just for the infobox though. If they truly were an amazing enough high school athlete that it's worth discussing, well, that should be in the article itself anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I get that, but imagine what that makes that article look like. We now have a long, sparklingly written article -- let's imagine! -- with a postage-stamp infobox. As opposed to our many stubs-on-steroids where you can scroll for yards of infoboxage, often to little purpose. Not ideal. So yes, in this (as far as I know wildly hypothetical and maybe even highly unlikely) case, it should go in the infobox. If you really want a hard-and-fast 'objective' criteria for infobox inclusion, personally I'd construct one in size terms. Too many "top facts" in one, and "top" becomes meaningless. Too few and they're pointless. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Natg 19: absolutely nothing is arbitrary here. The guidelines of this Wikiproject aren't laws, they are guidelines. Their purpose is to keep infoboxes concise, not to clean them out entirely. The first and foremost reason why we have those infoboxes is to give a short summary of a player's career and importance. For some players, this is mainly their prep career. Plain and simple. --bender235 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly whether it stays or goes, but I agree it's best to be consistent. Ideally we could be subjective and an editor-in-chief could provide oversight. However, Wikipedia is crowd sourced. It's my experience, and even moreso with NFL pages, that driveby editors will always be making edits to be "consistent", and it'll be a churn with regulars in the "know" reverting.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that they should be included. If it is important to the player's career, then it can be included in the prose of the text. I would consider inclusion if there was some sort of official consensus team, but there are so many hs All-America teams and All-America bowl games. I also agree that whatever the outcome, this needs to be applied consistently per Bagumba. GPL93 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hence the need for multiple pieces of significant and independent coverage of such inclusions. If it's just at the level of each website or tabloid sports pages saying "there are many HS All-American lists, and here's ours!", then that fails to meet a sensible notability threshold. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

How other pro-sports WikiProjects are handling this

• For NBA players, high school recognitions are listed, see Kobe Bryant, Greg Oden, O. J. Mayo, Zion Williamson, ...
• For MLB players, high school recognitions are listed, see Bryce Harper, Stephen Strasburg, ...
• NHL players ... don't list any awards in infoboxes, so doesn't apply

But in any case: why are we doing it different than these other projects again? --bender235 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bender235, Those other projects have nothing to do with this one. We've already come to a consensus on this, so I'm not sure why you're so passionate about this particular topic. If you want the High School AA team in a players article, put it in their article body, just not the infobox. Spf121188 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: I don't see any consensus at all. NFL player biographies aren't isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. You're the only one pushing this issue, even to the point of applying NFL-player guidelines to non-NFL players. I mean, why not cite the above "discussion" and deleted Parade All-American and other HS awards from Kobe Bryant's and LeBron James' article? Clearly consistency trumps common sense at this point. To the very least, I'd ask you for a convincing explanation why WP:NFL should handle this issue different than these other projects. --bender235 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to offer any "convincing explanation" as to why WP:NFL does something different than other projects... Spf121188 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, Any thoughts on this? Apparently I'm the only one who "pushes" this issue. Spf121188 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

JFYI: two or three people don't suffice for "consensus". Not in a project with 160+ active members. --bender235 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So should we create an RfC or something to get a more consensus? Of the 160+ members, it is not always clear who is active on the project or who is following this talk page. Natg 19 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say so. Again, if the goal of this whole exercise here is to prevent entry #25 and #26 for the "Career highlights and awards" box on Peyton Manning or Emmitt Smith, I'm all for it; high school awards should be among the first entries to get the boot. But if a player's infobox is otherwise empty, I still fail to see the harm being done by keeping the All-USA honor. For quite a few players, these awards are essentially career defining (see Dan Kendra, Lamont Green, Bryce Brown, Tate Martell). --bender235 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Standardization. JFYI: Five standout cases aren't really a good enough reason to create exceptions to a standard which applies to thousands of players. And, as someone else pointed out, there is NOT consensus across sports either and the MLB example is flawed. It can't be that relevant if you're the first person to bring it up in the last two weeks. You likely only noticed because I nominated an article for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Before your input, there were zero objections with plenty of time for responses, so we came to the agreement we did. Again, this is only pertaining to inclusion in players' infoboxes. It can still be included in the article body. Spf121188 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't get consistency within WP:BASEBALL itself & within WP:NFL itself. Doubt you'll get consistency across different Sports WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need to include HS All-Americans for college players, either. Also, MLB does not recognize high school-specific honors and barely include college honors. Technically the Golden Spikes Award can be given to any amateur baseball player, which includes high school players, but no player has done so (Harper was playing junior college baseball at the College of Southern Nevada and Strasburg was at San Diego State). GPL93 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: answer me this: what, in your mind, is the purpose of having infoboxes in the first place? Is it to give a brief overview of a player's football career? To summarize briefly a player's main accomplishments? --bender235 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The purpose is to create a standard template that can be applied across thousand of players fairly and equally while also providing relevant information for the infobox subject. In this case, the subject is the NFL. High school awards are not relevant to that. College awards arguably are because college accolades are often relevant to where a player gets drafted and the expectations of said player. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What Hey man im josh said. Spf121188 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We're not synthesizing a scouting report. We include college awards not because of their impact on NFL draft stock, but because they are an achievement in their own right. Same is true for HS awards. The latter are less impressive, of course, but as I've mentioned for quite a few players blue chip status in high school is essentially what defined their career. --bender235 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So thus far, you're the only one who has objected to this not being included in players infoboxes. As I mentioned before, it can still be featured in the article body. But this kind of guideline has to be kept consistent, otherwise there will be gray area, which opens the door for arguments and edit warring. If you feel this strongly about it, open up an RfC. Spf121188 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You keep mentioning these specific players who only have blue chip status in high school but didn't pan out in the NFL or college. I don't believe an infobox needs to showcase minor awards just because a player has no other awards. Either we always use minor awards, or we don't use them at all. Natg 19 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Natg 19: well, no. Just because we list All-USA honors for Jimmy Clausen doesn't mean we have to list them for Peyton Manning. We don't have to be brainless robots about this. Some players accumulate hundreds of awards and honors over their career, others only a few. Of the former, we trim to include only the most important awards (your Heismans, MVPs, Super Bowls and so on), for the latter we can include the few (or the single one) they have. I don't understand this pseudo-mechanistic approach that is being pursued here, as if we have to necessarily define some machine-readable algorithm that either includes all high school awards for everyone, or none of them for no one. --bender235 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am sympathetic to bender's POV. There should be flexibility in determining what is a career highlight depending on the nature of the person's career accomplishments. HS AA is clearly not an infobox-worthy highlight for Tom Brady, but it sure is for Quinn Nordin. It was struck today from Nordin's article, and now Quinn is left with no highlights. Cbl62 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Nordin is barely even an NFL player. His primary notability was as Michigan's kicker from 2016-2020. Do his highlights suddenly not become highlights just because he played a game in the NFL? Cbl62 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic to that PoV, I can understand it. I've always understood that these types of guidelines must be enforced in a consistent manner, so as to not add these highlights to one persons infobox just for the sake of giving them something to fill their infobox with. It just seems a little disingenuous to me. Spf121188 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: "I've always understood that these types of guidelines must be enforced in a consistent manner" See, there's your mistake. At best, we're coming up with guidelines and rules-of-thumb here. WP:POLICY is made elsewhere. --bender235 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: my point exactly. According to the policy advocated here, we essentially have to clean out the infobox for Ken Hall entirely, even though his high school career is defining for him as a subject in the most literal sense. That just doesn't seem right. --bender235 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, Ken Hall would seem to be a notable exception to our guidelines. They created a high school award for him and he was honored by multiple HS HOFs. Though I would still clear out a lot of the things in that infobox, such as HS championships, and some of those records. Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The high school rushing record is actually Hall's most notable achievement. But we don't have to get hung up on his case. Lamont Green, as I've mentioned before, isn't notable because of the single NFL game he played for the Falcons in 1999, but for the fact that he was named high school DPOY by USA Today in 1993. Seantrel Henderson's most notable achievement is being named All-USA twice, and OPOY as a non-QB. I could go on. As Cbl62 said, those accomplishments aren't noteworthy for the Tom Bradys and Aaron Donalds of the world, but for many NFL journeymen they are. --bender235 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the solution?

We're going in circles here and, honestly, I don't see anybody take a hard stance on the issue aside from Bender235. I wanted to sum things up because there's a lot of back and forth and (in my opinion) a lot of the same argument being said over and over again.

So, in summation, keeping in mind this is strictly about the NFL infobox;

• Many people have thought that high school awards are not notable enough for inclusion, and a relative consensus was reached
• 2 weeks after the player page format was updated Bender235 wants to dispute the importance of high school awards
• Bender235 believes that if infoboxes are empty or have only a few awards you should be able to include high school accomplishments
• Others believe it's acceptable for the career highlights to be empty
• There is a disagreement about consistency and how important consistency is
• Some believe this leaves too much of a grey area subjectivity wise and will lead to further disputes down the line

Points that been brought up;

• Items in the infobox are already meant to be included in the article
• Subjectivity and consistency are important to most
• Driveby editors will always be making edits to be "consistent", and it'll be a churn with regulars in the "know" reverting
• There is no single authority on high school awards, so there are many out there with varying levels of value to different people
• MLB and NHL do not include high school awards in the infobox
• NBA does include high school awards in the infobox

Questions;

• How would one choose the arbitrary cutoff for who to list high school awards for?
• How many non high school awards does a player need before their high school awards are removed?
• What type of awards would then cause high school awards to be removed (ie. academic teams in college, All-Pro)?
• Do you assign some sort of weighted value in determine if 1 All-Pro and 1 All-Pac 12 is enough to remove a high school honors section?

@Bender235:, I want to know what your proposed solution is and how you write it out in a way that can be consistently and subjectively applied to thousands of NFL players. We can argue til we're blue in the face but if there's no properly outlined solution proposed to address the issue then we make no progress. It is my opinion that we should focus on the fact that the infobox is centered around professional sports. I don't believe the guidelines that apply to thousands of pages should be tweaked for a handful of players to have a few extra lines in their infoboxes. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Hey man im josh. Spf121188 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Would it make sense to list out specific levels of HS honors and as proposals and then get feedback? For instance, I would be okay with specific national awards (like the Gatorade Player of the Year) and maybe Mr. Football Awards that are notable (the one's with articles currently appear to be), but I'd be against any HS All-America honor because there are no "major selectors" like there are in college. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It might, but even on an individual basis I'm not sure I'd vote for any of them. The Mr. Football awards are regional based and I'm only finding that there's 10 states that have them. That leads me to want to not include those because not everybody actually has a chance to win one. There doesn't seem to be many high school awards that are national based on the Category:High school football trophies and awards in the United States. For the few national awards that do exist I take issue with the notability of an award sponsored and determined by a selection committee of Gatorade's choosing. They aren't football experts, what gives this award credibility or prestige beyond it being national? Even if that one was okay there's so few national awards that I'd think it easier to leave all HS accolades out altogether instead of focusing on, let's say, 3 awards being the exception to the no HS awards in infobox rule. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's pretty important to keep in mind, that the HS All-America team is only published by USA Today. Like Hey man im josh said, the Gatorade Player of the Year doesn't (in my opinion) carry much weight/notability. For College Football All-America teams, there are multiple reputable publications that select players, which inherently provides some objectivity. Maybe I don't totally understand how it all works, but that's my $.02 for that. Spf121188 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I need to amend one thing I said; I do know that Parade also has an All-America High School team, but rarely is it specified on players pages, and I think Parade is less reputable than USA Today. Again, jut my opinion. Spf121188 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the fundamental disconnect among us is that you are hoping to carve out a comprehensive thirty-point list of awards that may be listed, vs. all the others that shouldn't. That's not what I'm aiming for, and quite frankly this isn't how WP guidelines are designed in general. Just to pick a random example:

MOS:FURTHER doesn't tell you which sources to list and which not to, but it does tell you to only include a "reasonable number" of references, and that the section is "not intended as a repository for general references." And Wikipedia:Further reading additionally tells you to give preference "to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect." Similarly, we should phrase this infobox award section guideline as to "limit the listed awards and honors to a reasonable number", and to "give preference to awards at the professional level, over collegiate and high school", because "the award section is not intended to list every award a player received." My point is that we avoid the senseless deletion that occurred over the past two weeks, where high school awards were deleted from infoboxes that are now entirely empty. Again, the one and only thing we should be aiming for here is to reduce the clutter and fancruft in infoboxes. --bender235 (talk

) 19:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Bender235, I don't think you're being unreasonable in what you're asking. And you do bring up valid points. In order to make that work, I do think we would need to have concrete-ish answers to Hey man im josh's questions above. To me, the biggest concern is that with new guidelines across the board, it does open up the possibility for further disputes on individual players pages and what should/shouldn't be included (I know that on WP we have the capacity to discuss this on an individual basis on talk pages, but that could get cumbersome.) I'm still on the side of consistency with this, but I didn't want to dismiss your points. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 20:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The blanket removal of all high school accomplishments from the infobox is what I'm in favour of, not creating a detailed list of high school accomplishments that we pick and choose from. The goal of removing those accomplishments is to reduce the clutter and fancruft, as high school awards are typically only listed for individuals who lack notable achievements. I also don't see how the WP guidelines you linked would apply or relate to an NFL infobox.

It seems as though you're now advocating to limit the number of entries in an infobox as opposed to keeping high school awards for select individuals lacking notable achievements. Has your stance changed? If you want to discuss limiting the overall amount of items in the infobox you may be better off starting a new section, as that's an entirely different discussion when compared to whether or not high school accomplishments belong in the infobox and should be treated as such.

Lastly, why is it a problem if players don't have something listed under their accomplishments in the infobox? You keep calling the removal of these accomplishments senseless or harmful, but you haven't justified your stance on how it brings harm. Several of us have stated why we believe they're relatively meaningless to include. If they haven't done anything that rises to a certain level of notability we shouldn't be adding fluff for the sake of it. There's plenty of NFL players who have played for 10 years but never won an award outside of high school, or where the only thing in their infobox is a Super bowl win. That doesn't mean we should be looking for additional content to add so that their infobox is fuller. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

And if I can add to what Hey man im josh said, don't forget that this is only regarding the infobox. All this High School information can still be included in the article body. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 20:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: "The goal of removing those accomplishments is to reduce the clutter and fancruft, as high school awards are typically only listed for individuals who lack notable achievements." I think this is the crux of the matter. In my opinion, we should list HS awards especially for those players who lack any higher-level (ie. professional) achievements. Just like we'd list minor awards for scientists who don't win the Nobel, or actors who don't win the Oscars. The purpose of the "awards" section in the infobox is, in my opinion, to point out the greatest achievements in a player's career; for some players, who peaked early and never lived up to expectations, those are high school awards. And remember, we're talking about All-USA selections, not "Texas UIL Division 3A defensive lineman of the month." --bender235 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

) 15:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I plan on nominating George Floyd (American football) for featured article status but it still needs a good review by someone not involved, to put the sports wars aside for a period, due to a Wikibreak being taken by the reviewer who couldn't finish the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Floyd (American football)/archive2 (and I can't wait forever). Feel free to review/edit as you see fit. I am really hoping to get this to featured article status. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

An RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to this Wiki Project. The RfC will add language to the

) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Jamie Fitzgerald (American football), a former NFL player, has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in the discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Beanie. Anyone who does !vote or contribute, good luck trying to reason with the nominator. IMO, this AfD was nominated in poor faith. Perhaps this isn't the place to mention it, but I did anyway. Spf121188 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I made a similar comment to this in the AfD, but Fitzgerald only played in the NFL as a replacement player during the

WP:NGRIDIRON. They weren't really playing at the top level of football, since the top-level players were mostly on strike. If you read articles from the time of the strike, most of the players had no shot at a NFL career if the strike hadn't happened, and the quality of play dropped considerably during the strike. Some of the replacement players played in other pro leagues or had notable college careers, but GNG would theoretically cover those players anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation}

01:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, I recently expanded Casey Tiumalu, a stub I created 10+ years ago. He was a replacement player. Tiumalu meets GNG with enough coverage from his college days, and had some draft and tryout tidbits to boot. A misconception with NSPORTS is that playing the one NFL game itself generated enough significant coverage, as opposed to the journey to the pros and and that one game. I'm not sure if this is necesarily the case with all replacement players or not.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188:@TheCatalyst31:@Bagumba: I saw this ended up being the longest AFD of February(!), and it was written about in The Signpost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, That is actually fascinating! It still amazes me that an article like this could create such controversy and division. Thanks for the note! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 17:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Today's football challenge: Maurice Dubofsky. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 20:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do NFL conference championships not have their own pages but irrelevant college football bowls do?

Something called the 2021 LendingTree Bowl, a bowl between the 7-5 Liberty Flames and the 7-5 Eastern Michigan Eagles that 15,000 people attended, has its own Wikipedia article, but the NFL's conference championship games do not. Why is this? I don't think it needs to be stated how popular and impactful these championship games are. They're watched by tens of millions of people and rivers of ink are written about them afterwards. Does this not count as being noteworthy? --Somarain (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly because the Super Bowl overshadows the AFC & NFC championship games. There's a bit of inconsistency concerning playoff rounds, in professional sports leagues. Example: We've got articles for every annual MLB playoff series, but not every annual NHL playoff series. I guess, it's up to each respective WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should test the consensus. I would support having stand-alone articles for the NFC and AFC championship games. They are pretty big deals. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside the

other stuff exists argument, I would support individual articles for AFC/NFC Championship games as well. I would generally be in favor of articles for an entire NFL seasons playoff (minus the Super Bowl which keeps its own article,) but AFC/NFC championship games are notable enough to have their own articles I would say. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)}

21:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, bowl games used to be a big deal when there were only a few of them. But now that nearly every "successful" team gets a bowl game, they have become quite watered down. But yeah I would support having AFC/NFC championship games as well. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the NFL? I've no objections to the creation of Year AFC Championship Game & Year NFC Championship Game articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there anywhere we're landing on this topic? If anybody wants to work with me on creating some of these articles, let me know. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 14:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding to what Natg 19 stated, not only have the Bowl games become watered down, but even the major Bowls now get upstaged by the College Football Playoff (that is, unless they are hosting one of the CFP semifinals). So even the Rose Bowl for example generates less interest now, outside of the Big 10 region. DB1729 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: I think there is agreement that creation of NFL conference championship games is a good idea and I agree with that as well. Regarding your mention of articles of entire NFL season playoffs in your first post, we already have those don't we? At Category:National Football League playoffs? DB1729 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

DB1729, Yeah, we do, for sure! I think I was referring to Wild Card/Divisional games (which I should have clarified better, that's my bad.) I absolutely support standalone conference championship game articles, and would be happy to help in their creation if needed. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 16:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: Ahh, of course, and that did finally occur to me shortly before your reply. Thanks for clarifying. I'm less so in favor of articles for WC and divisional games. While writing large amounts of prose is not exactly my strong suit, I would be willing help out where I can, if/when those championship articles are created. DB1729 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll note that several conference championships did have pages last year (e.g.

1974 AFC Championship Game), but they were all redirected by Onel5969. BeanieFan11 (talk

) 16:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

See my previous November 2021 post on

) 00:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's marginal either way. If someone Thanos-snapped the entire AFC (#arbitrarily #actuallynotarbitrarily) out of existence, would the NFC championship be independently notable, with or without a halftime show? Clearly (indeed vastly) so. But in reality it's a Superbowl Semi with a fancy title. The proportionate (as opposed to the necessarily strictly procedurally and policy correct) thing to do would likely be to have an article per playoff weekend. That actually would work fairly well for the Wildcard Round and the Divisional Round, especially as they have a pretty recognisable common name (or two, each). But we don't really have a Championship Weekend in the same way, and it'd look a little uncomfortably like two half-lemons welded together. So that's not entirely satisfactory either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think they are mostly fine in the respective season's general playoff page at Category:National Football League playoffs. Per Wikipedia:Notability:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

That's not a viable option for all the college bowl games.—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

See Talk:Dick Pierce#Mystery and possible AfD

Which for reference... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Pierce. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Someone's added a redlink wide back to the Deebo Samuel article a couple of times. I've reverted as it doesn't make much sense in the context, and I don't anticipate we'll be getting a standalone article on the subject anytime in the foreseeable future. (Not that we couldn't source such an article: prominent NFL player makes one possibly fairly offhand comment, and it naturally gets reported all over.) Their other related edits look perfectly reasonable. But I thought I'd mention it here to see if it needs any treatment beyond that one player's self-descriptor (maybe even category of one), or any more comprehensive discussion within it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, "wide back" isn't a thing. Deebo Samuel can play either wide receiver or running back on any given play, but he can't play both. It's a cute portmanteau, but it's not worthy of its own article, I'd just mention it in Deebo's article and have done with it. Besides, this isn't a new phenomenon. Cordarrelle Patterson is another player who does it right now, and he wasn't the first. – PeeJay 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That last kinda argues that it is a thing. And you could critique edge rusher on the same basis -- can't play OLB and DE at the same time! Or even WR if you go back far enough. "What is this, some new-fangled combination of split end and slot-back?! It'll never catch on." But it's a fairly marginal one, and this seems the most fresh-minted and one-off of neologisms as of the present. I could see a case for a redirect from WB to Samuel's article (above my pay grade as a mere IP editor, of course), but I don't think it'd make the grade for being an alt-title for it. The other additions that editor made seem to cover it for me, I think. At least until it starts being used much more "wide"-ly (yes). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My point was that while the term "wide back" is new, the idea of players playing in multiple skill positions is not. Ty Montgomery is another who could be said to be equally adept at both running back and wide receiver. Samuel – and the others – don't play some hybrid position, they play running back on some plays and wide receiver on others. "Wide back" isn't a thing. – PeeJay 16:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tavon Austin is another example to go along with Patterson.

I think it's important to consider that most positions are named based off where you start the play. For edge rushers, you can consistently say they are on the edge with the intent to rush. Deebo starts at a different position on the field depending on if he's lining up for a pass or for a rush play, so it makes it hard to apply a name to a position like that. The term wide back makes me picture someone starting each play where a fullback typically would.

Also, what would you do with players like Christian McCaffrey, Darren Sproles, and John Williams? Here is the list of runningbacks with the most receiving yards. I don't want to reclassify them or refer to players as a wide back, but we would need to nail down what makes a player a wide back if we were to consider using it as a term. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

For those interested in participating, please see

@ 22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

For those interested in participating, please see

@ 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Watchlist

Is there anything available for a WikiProject watchlist? I noticed that the link from the main page (WikiProject Watchlist - WikiProject National Football League) comes up with "Not found". Looks like someone allowed their domain to expire. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a preference for handling references to teams that have since moved or have new names e.g. Washington Commanders. For example, The New York Times referenced the San Diego Chargers as:

James used his speed and darting moves with the San Diego (now Los Angeles) Chargers during the 1985 season...[3]

Pinging Pyrofromtf2, who had been editing in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I disagree with the edits being made, in which they're removing the "(now Los Angeles)" part of articles for players or pages that have to do with the Chargers. Wikipedia is for casual readers as well, and when that note is only mentioned once in an article I don't see an issue with it. I think it's helpful and it doesn't make the articles any better to remove it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the Chargers moved to Los Angeles has nothing to do with the James article, who exclusively played for them while they were in San Diego. If a reader is confused, it's the first sentence in the History of the San Diego Chargers article, which I feel does the job just as well as the parentheses. Pyrofromtf2 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The new team's name should be referenced for casual readers who don't keep up with the NFL, so I'd say it is relevant to the James article. I also disagree with your assessment of it doing the job "just as well", one requires you to navigate to another page to learn that information whereas the other is a quick note in parenthesis. A reader may just assume that the team still goes by San Diego Changers, which is why the parentheses are beneficial to include. What would make them follow the link to a separate page if they aren't aware that the team's name has changed? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the spirit is captured by

MOS:LINK:

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.

Sure, it's not a technical science term, but the editorial decision is whether a casual fan should have to click a link for this.—Bagumba (talk

) 15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was today years old when I learned the Commanders were now such. (I'd missed the memo that "RedWolves" had been name-squatted.) And I get a little dizzy trying to recall the actual details of the history of the Paul Brown Division of the AFC. So I likely qualify as the casual and/or confused reader for this purpose (with too many tabs open already). I think such parentheticals are generally helpful. Clearly we should avoid them being themselves unduly tortuous, and certainly they shouldn't be repeated in the same article. Other than that, good thing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there specific edit diffs that are involved that can be presented? At this point getting rid of "the (now Los Angeles)" portion just makes sense when discussing the 1985 season. Why not link 1985 San Diego Chargers season?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Any of Pyrofromtf2's "deleted unnecessary info" edits. In some cases they're rather shortly before the franchise move concerned: for example on 2016 Houston Texans season. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In that instance it's especially relevant to include the (now Los Angeles) part. The trade happened when the team was named St. Louis, but the pick that was traded occurred when the team was named Los Angeles. I reverted that one because it felt too egregious. I do still believe the rest should be reverted, but I'm not chasing those down to do the same without further discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, on the 2016 Houston Texans article I agree. However, on articles such as Louie Kelcher I would strongly argue that it is unneccessary to include (now Los Angeles). It just clutters the article. Is it really necessary to note that they are now in LA? They are not separate franchises. Do we change all instances of head coach to "then head coach" "then current." President XXX (now Joe Biden)?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In some cases, is it even worth mentioning the team's location? Sometimes you just need to mention the franchise's name, especially when franchises are known to move around a bit. – PeeJay 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, I don't follow the logic of your examples at all. Those seem wildly different. If President XXX had changed their name and was currently better-known under the new one, then you'd supply that, sure. A different entity filling the same office is an entirely incomparable case. The very fact that they're not different franchises is what argues for mentioning the rename. PeeJay, it's pretty standard to mention the location, as it's part of the franchise name. In a way it's the "most official" part of the name, as officials only ever refer to them by location, not by "nickname". (When they're not just saying "Offense", "Defense", "Kicking Team", etc. Someone must have decided it has superior Seriousness, or something.) Plus in some cases the "theme" part of the name changes too. There's been deletion of those too. (For example from "Houston Oilers (now the Tennessee Titans)".) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is that location is that we should call things as they are at the time. To do anything else would just make things convoluted and silly. The president line mention was just to express how absurd I find the whole situation. In CFB articles (of which I made the majority of my energy on WP.) I cannot off the top of my head think of many uses of things like Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State), Northeast Louisiana State (now Louisiana–Monroe), or Memphis State (now Memphis). I am sure that they occur in some instance but a link to the modern program would suffice. I suppose a link to the LA Chargers would too. But I prefer the specific seasons if applicable.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

But the absurdity isn't in any way comparable. If you see a reference to a past president of some country, and find yourself wondering, "but who's president now?", that's a bit of a tangent, and you can reasonably be expected to do so on your own initiative. But if an article refers to "Cassius Clay" or "the Decatur Staleys", the reader might not necessarily or instantly realize what entity is being referred to, or even that they later existed under some other title. Omitting such information is rather contrary to the very purpose of an encyclopedia, especially an online one. The 'they can chase the link if they need to' option is preferable to offering no such information, but as Bagumba points out, is expressly contrary to the MOS on this. Such links might also be criticised as easter-egging, and they're rather fragile solution, as the 'overlinking' police might swoop by at any moment and remove them, much as these textual clarifications were mass-removed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning players' bios? I'd stick with using only the team location at the time of the players' tenure. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning any and all of these edits. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Fragment.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, NGRIDIRON has now been repealed and excised from NSPORTS. Playing in the NFL, AFL, CFL, and AAFC no longer give rise to a presumption of notability. If we wish to propose a new guideline for American football, it will need to be more strict. Here are some discussion points for a new, stricter NGRIDIRON:

• Increase the number of games required to trigger a presumption of notability. Maybe three games? Five games? Ten games?
• Limit the years (e.g., post-1930, post-World War II, post-1960) as to which playing in specified leagues would trigger a presumption of notability.
• Shift from a "game played" standard to a "game started" standard.
• Limit the leagues in which playing would give rise to a presumption
• Adopt a series of performance-based markers. Examples might include:

(1) Inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Canadian Football Hall of Fame, or College Football Hall of Fame;

(2) Chosen for Pro Bowl or All-Pro honors (or equivalents in Canadian Football League?)

(3) Ranked among the leaders in a major statistical category in any given year or on a career basis

(4) Won a significant award (including those specified at Template:NFL awards)

(5) Named to a franchise's ring of honor

I'm not advocating at this point for one particular approach, but this is a discussion that needs to happen. Cbl62 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Or just use GNG. There seems to be an admin or two at AfD and DRV closes that side with a few deleters who say that GNG is not met, even when the majority say NSPORTS is sufficient to keep. I'm not saying all bios meeting NSPORTS should be blindly kept, but it should be up to the !voters. Invest your time in NSPORTS at your own risk. Maybe things would change if NSPORTS is tightened. As an editor in the last few years, I generally have tried not to rely on it to create pages.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be right ... but having NSPORTS continue to exist with detailed guidance on curlers, cyclers, and even badminton players, but without guidance for players of American football, basketball, and baseball strikes me as pretty bizarre. Cbl62 (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That might mark the end of my wiki career, for I don't feel like editing much anymore with the chaos this is likely to cause :( BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Based on my experience, I'd say that 99% of all NFL players pass GNG in any event. The ones that don't pass GNG are typically from the 1920s when coverage of the NFL was not as extensive. Accordingly, the repeal of NGRIDIRON will have little impact on articles relating to NFL players. The repeal simply means that we need to take greater care to include SIGCOV in our NFL bio articles. Hopefully, you will continue to use your talents to develop football articles and to continue to defend our legitimate football content from those editors who are likely to continue their campaign to radically reduce sport content on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that close after looking at it, as I did not see a "consensus" (though I'm not even sure what that means anymore) in favor. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Despite the protestations, "consensus" in practice tends to mean "just count the votes!". And the "!" in "!votes" is largely silent. It's an abuse of the word, but when you bear in mind how it works at AfD ("Keep, IAR, you'd better not discount this or I'll complain the closer is a SUPERVOTER!"), and the narrowness by which many guidelines were even adopted in the first place -- this one very much included -- it'd hardly be reasonable to have more sort of supermajority threshold requirement. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to review the village pump closure like we do with AFDs at

DRV? BeanieFan11 (talk

) 19:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can request a close review at

WP:AN. I don't think that would be very helpful. Mackensen (talk)

20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think some kind of close review must be done, for in my opinion that closure was ridiculous. I do not see at all how that was a "consensus." Plus I feel that this is just going to cause chaos and even more confusion related to notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The vote count on sub 3 was roughly 27 to 21 in favor. I think the closes of subproposals 5 and 8 (eliminating the presumption of notability) are even more problematic. See User talk:Wugapodes#Subproposal 5 regarding that close. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a "no consensus," not a "consensus in favor" IMO (on sub 3). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the logic of the 'blocking minority'. If consistently applied, NSPORT would never have been adopted in the first place. Kinda hard to try to argue that both ways. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In the (very) modern period, three is a nice threshold because it'd screen out the 'flexed from the practice squad' people, some of whom are rather lacking in any real "in a hundred years time, will this matter to anyone?" inherent notability. But that's pretty moot, as they'll get a ton of "significant" coverage long then at present, and it doesn't have any broader meaning outside the particularities of the current roster rules. As we've seen, people can have played more games than that in The Olden Days(TM) and have so little coverage we don't know their name or their DoB -- actual identity confusion, basically. A series of tiers by era and number of games would likely work, but might be too faffy to be worth bothering with. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that moving the games played criteria to somewhere between three and ten is probably the best criteria, especially for players in the modern era, probably works best. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if we do make a new NGRIDIRON with, say, three games as the criteria, the deletionist editors will find a three-gamer they don't like, so then we'll have to make it four games, then five, then six, and it could go on and on indefinitely, until we reach some absurd criteria that is worthless. Plus, I'd say probably every person to play in the NFL in the 2000s (whether its one game or 318) has sufficient coverage to warrant a page (probably 99% of prior players as well), so I see it unnecessary to increase the mark. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Response to proposed criteria

Here are my thoughts about some of the new criteria Cbl62 has proposed, in order:

• On increasing the participation ceiling: This would likely attract the ire of the anti-NSPORTS editors that dedicated so many bytes to excising the one-game participation presumption of notability. Personally, I see it as a slippery slope to continually being challenged on the given number and potentially needing to continue to raise it.
• Limiting the years: I support this, but I'm not sure when to draw the cutoff myself. Perhaps post-1935 (when the league mandated a fixed number of games per season)? I don't think we really need to draw it any later.
• Switching to a games started standard: This could be helpful as well, but given how the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Mungavin went, I'm not entirely optimistic. Though setting a cutoff date of 1935 or later could potentially assuage that. I support this more than I don't.
• Limiting the leagues: I agree with this. Keeping it to the NFL, AFL, and CFL is good. This isn't like soccer or basketball, where there are numerous fully professional leagues.
• I broadly support the award-based criteria, with provisions for similar awards in the CFL or AFL. "Major awards" are integral to just about every biographical notability guideline we have.

Thanks to Cbl62 for taking the initiative here. Whatever happens, we move forward. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the key concept to grasp here is that a subject-notability guideline never trumps the GNG. For an article to stand on its own, you will eventually need significant coverage in reliable sources. The idea behind an SNG is that given certain criteria, these sources may be presumed to exist. That presumption generally pans out for players in the current era, but it doesn't for a player in the 1920s or 1930s. I think if you were trying to guide an editor, you'd say that anyone who played in multiple seasons in the Super Bowl era is presumptively notable. That doesn't foreclose writing about people who didn't, or who played earlier. Again, for an article written from multiple sources with significant coverage, this inquiry never comes up. It's when you're defending a sub-stub written from a database that you wander into the presumption question. For players who played in only one season, writing about them in the team article is a good compromise (and might be more relevant than a potted biography). Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A SNG can "trump" the GNG. Or more precisely, provide an alternative path to being deemed notable. Example,

WP:PROF, where if someone is a widely cited academic amongst their peers, they don't necessarily need to be getting repeatedly namechecked in USA Today. But there needs to be community consensus for such a measure, which in practice is going to mean that it looks like a similarly high one, not just 'this can't make GNG, but we want to keep it anyway, and a few hundred thousand just like it'. Broadly speaking I very much concur with the 'smoosh 'em together to make one good one' approach, though it'll require care in identifying suitable upmerger targets, case-by-case. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

How about having a series of pages along the lines of "NFL one-season players: year xxxx" where all the stubs of one-season players from that year could be collected together. For players with enough coverage to pass notability requirements, they could be moved into their own pages, and a link left on the "one-season player" page. Then articles that would otherwise be deleted would have a safe haven (I'm assuming that any player with 2+ seasons would pass notability without issue. BeanieFan11 proposed something similar in the discussion over Fitzgerald, and critics of NGRIDIRON seemed amenable. If you're curious as to how many single season NFL players there have been, the number was 56 in 1970, and 81 in 2015. Most years the number is somewhere in that range, with the obvious exception of 1987, which produced 986 such players.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get those statistics on single-season players from? BTW, I'll note that I've gotten to start-class or better nearly every NFL player I've tried making since Dec. 21 (with the exception of Bill LaFitte), most of which were one season players (and several of which only have played in just a single game). My suggestion at the AFD was only for the replacement players, the ones who would have most likely never played if the 1987 NFLPA strike did not happen. I'd say we should have a standalone page for each "real" NFL player, though that's just my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to find those stats using the PFR's stathead tool, though only for seasons from 1970 onwards I think. Using Player Game Finder, set career game number to 1 and filter to the last year of the player's career. Unfortunately, career game number is only available from 1970, and there doesn't seem to be a way to filter to first year and last year at the same time. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I've found a workaround that lets you do the same thing as far back as 1950. I can share the list if there's any years you're interested in.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

For the one-season wonders, I'd argue that upmerger to

MOS:LIST in a way that 1868 one-season players might. But I think that does leave in either case a possible issue of 'jobbing' players that might have had a small amount of involvement in more than one season without being hugely prominent in either. In theory that's also a possible issue for modern such players, but in reality they'll have a ton of coverage regardless. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

For an article to stand on its own, you will eventually need significant coverage in reliable sources.: That was how NSPORTS was intended to read before—that sources were eventually expected. That option has now been removed, and a minority claiming "does not meet GNG" will now prevail over a majority saying "meets NSPORTS, keep for now, as sources will likely surface".—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Does anyone think that being drafted (or being drafted in the first x rounds (3? 4?) should be a criteria for the new NGRIDIRON? Some of the other current guidelines at NSPORTS mention being a draft selection, e.g. Are a first-round draft pick of the NHL Entry Draft or Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Natg 19 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at the 1936 draft, we're already articleless as soon as the first second-round pick, one John McCauley. Obviously in the modern era, "was ever mentioned in the same sentence as the NFL draft" will produce an amount of coverage, so actual likelihood will vary a lot across the decades. Certainly a promising line of advance, with that admittedly huge proviso. Likely the record-holder/league-leader in a significant stat model would work too. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I personally think the previous NGRIDIRON was perfectly fine, as I could write a start-class or better article on 99% of people passing it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I wrote what I think NGRIDIRON should look like here, and believe that 95-99% of people passing it meet GNG (probably the same with the current criteria as well, though). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, having taken a while to take all of this in and digest everything, here are my thoughts on this entire mess. The recent proposed changes to NSPORTS have effectively gutted the current guideline, at least as far as gridiron football is concerned. The impetus behind this change comes largely from opposition to the guideline for international sports, and NGRIDIRON has been caught in the crossfire of this opposition. The soccer guideline had a ridiculous list of leagues (including third and fourth-tier minor leagues granting 1-game auto-notability), and the cricket guideline was deliberately written as an end-run around GNG. As a result of the refusal of those two projects to clean up their acts, the current version of NGRIDIRON now faces the likely prospect of being wiped off the map completely. The flavor of the month for the anti-sports editors is currently railing against "participation only" notability criteria (i.e. "1 game=notable"), which led directly to the attempted demise of the current version of NGIRDIRON.

With that said, I have a few ideas for further development of a new gridiron football notability criteria. First, I think any new gridiron notability criteria needs to include the

"). The draft system is unique to Anglophone North American sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA), and sports leagues in other parts of the world do not have any type of system remotely close to it. Therefore, if international sports like soccer and cricket continue to refuse to clan up their act moving forward, a draft-based gridiron notability criteria should manage to avoid being caught up in sweeping changes that are aimed primarily at international sports.

The other option I can think of would involve granting notability on statistical based achievements (in terms of recording touchdowns, completions, receptions, rushing yardage, sacks, tackles, interceptions, etc.) Obviously, we should include significant NFL honors as well (Pro Bowl and All-Pro selections, Coach of the Year, Player of the Year, election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, College Football Hall of Fame, etc.) One obvious problem with statistical based achievements would involve offensive lineman, most of whom don't record any significant statistics other than games started. Another would involve historical defensive players, as I know that the NFL did not officially keep many defensive statistics (like sacks) until relatively recently in NFL history. Ultimately, I think that a guideline that includes both draft-based, statistics-based, and honors-based notability measures is probably the way to go moving forward for any potential new gridiron football notability criteria. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• What are everyone's thoughts on the NGRIDIRON I designed here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not the time to propose expanding NGRIDIRON to include GMs and coordinators (particularly without a statistical showing that > 90% pass GNG). We should keep it simple. Your proposed five-game threshold (roughly half a season in early years) for leagues below the NFL sounds good, but it should also govern the AAFC and early NFL. I agree that a one-game threshold should remain for the modern NFL/AFL. Your intro re-inserts presumption of notability language which would likely be shot down in light of the RfC close. A more sell-able NGRIDIRON would be along these lines:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for gridiron football players and head coaches (excluding interim head coaches) if they:

1. Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in the National Football League (1935–present) or American Football League (1960–1969).
2. Have appeared in at least five regular season or post-season games in the National Football League (1920–1934), All-America Football Conference (1944–1949), Canadian Football League (1956–present), or United States Football League (1983–1985).
3. Interim head coaches, assistant coaches, players, and others who do not meet the above criteria may still be notable if they meet
   WP:NCOLLATH
   , or another notability criteria.

Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The strictest I could support I list below:

Gridiron football players and head coaches are presumed notable (saying "Significant coverage is likely to exist" is worthless IMO) if they:

1. Have appeared in at least one game in the National Football League (1930–present), All-America Football Conference (1946–1949), or American Football League (1960–1969).
2. Have appeared in at least two games in the National Football League (1920–1929).
3. Have appeared in at least five games in the Canadian Football League (1956–present) or United States Football League (1983–1985)
4. Have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame or Canadian Football Hall of Fame.
5. Players and coaches who do not meet the above may still be notable through WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or another notability criteria.

Anything stricter I will oppose. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Does #4 need to be included in your list? It stands to reason that if they make either the Canadian or or Pro Football Hall of Fame that they should be considered notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't need to, but I think it should be part of NGRIDIRON as probably 99-100% of inductees pass GNG and I thought NSPORT was supposed to have criteria where a high percentage of those meeting it are GNG passes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't help, at all, for one editor to lay down lines in the sand like, "Anything stricter I will oppose." Any proposal needs to be approved by a broader audience beyond football fans. And the reality is that I've encountered plenty of two-, three- and four-gamers in the 1920s NFL that don't pass GNG. It's also totally out of whack to impose a two-game threshold for NFL players in the 1920s and five games for modern Canadian Football League players. If we want to get this approved by a broader audience (and not invite in-fighting between American and Canadian football fans), we should have two simple thresholds: one game for the tippy top tier (i.e., NFL from and after 1935 and AFL in the 1960s) and five games (perhaps even more) for the infant NFL, AAFC, CFL, and USFL. Also, the HOF mentions seem redundant and thus unnecessary. As for "presumed notable", you're just asking for your proposal to be defeated when presented to a broader audience given the RfC close explicitly says to strike all references to presumptions of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I selected 1935 as the NFL cutoff per Etzedek's suggestion that 1935 was the year when the NFL went to a standardized schedule. It also makes senses as the NFL continued to include small-city teams until at least 1933. E.g., Providence Steamrollers, Staten Island Stapletons, Portsmouth Spartans (Portsmouth had population of 42,560 in 1930). Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on what has gone on over the past couple of months, I don't think having any type of new criteria that is based on games played is a good idea right now. I think we need to get creative and find other ways to say essentially the same thing (see my comment above) or else we'll end up having to fight this same battle over and over again at some point in the future. I do like prong #5 of BeanieFan11's new criteria, and I think that it should be included in any future new NGRIDIRON guideline. Also, I'd include the Halls of Fame in the guideline, too. One thing I've learned in 10+ years of editing Wikipedia is that you can't possibly be too obvious. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

NGRIDIRON is back!

At least temporarily :) After it was restored, reverted, restored, reverted, restored, reverted, restored, reverted, and restored again, NSPORT has been protected from editing. So as of 23:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC), it is still standing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Closure review

A review of the close has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#NSPORTS closure review. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

More review

A review of whether to have NGRIDIRON is being held at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#American football/Canadian football. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:23, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

) 17:38, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Feels like I may have jumped the gun based off your responses to my nominations. Oh well, at the very least it'll be a learning experience for me and may cause a couple of neglected articles to be improved a bit. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:52, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, no reason to beat yourself up, I did the same thing several times, before another user suggested I gain access to newspapers.com through the WP Library. If that's something you'd be interested in, I'd be happy to point you in the right direction. It's been very helpful to me. Thanks! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 17:58, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

As has been said before -- and taken amiss before, so no one bite my head off, please! -- AfD can be a little like 'stub of the week task force'. Not exactly how it's supposed to work, but not an entirely wasted effort either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:27, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the crux of the issue is that we all may have different thresholds for what we think is notable. Personally I don't believe a player with a single carry and under a thousand scrimmage yards in college should have a 3 sentence article about them. I'm of the opinion an article of that size and quality doesn't add anything of value. But, what's "fun" in a way, is that Wikipedia is lead by consensus. It just means I need a better understanding of what the consensus may be before I make those types of nominations instead of going based on my opinion, which I guess errs towards deletionist from what I'm reading. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:02, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, I wouldn't avoid putting forward an AfD for those reasons. The point of nominating an article for AfD is to in fact to come to a consensus about it, and the ones you put forward in this case (in my opinion) were worth at least a discussion. Many users share your opinion, so I wouldn't base your decision on anything in particular. Trust me, I've nominated plenty of articles that were eventually kept. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 13:11, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

I guess you're right. Shouldn't feel stupid for not being successful on every AfD nomination, thanks. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:16, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely. If they were all clearcut, we wouldn't need that entire wikibureaucracy. Identifying the cases that aren't clearcut either way and bringing them to the community's attention is kinda the point. Ideally make a reasonable stab at

WP:BEFORE, but there's no point in second-guessing yourself forever. 109.255.211.6 (talk

) 18:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

RFC

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Hey! I have been editing on Wikipedia for quite a long time on both baseball and football articles mainly baseball but also help out over here as well. I have noticed that there seems to be a disagreement on the time frame to list a player as retired. For baseball articles we typically use a 2 year rule of thumb as I would say form my experience 95% of players that have not been turned up in any sort of league in 2 years don't return again. Plenty of players sit a year out whether it is for personal reasons, rehabbing, just not a lot of interest at the time but then turn back up later on just using one example Eli Harold turned up in the CFL after sitting out a whole season. I believe one year just is not enough time to judge as there are plenty of leagues a player could hold out hoping to get an NFL opportunity then realize that isn't coming and jump ship into another league after a season. I believe two years makes for the most effective and time saving move for everyone as that rule of thumb has worked very well in baseball articles I think would work just as well over here. These guys are 25-30 years old most of these guys have plenty of time to get another chance. Please let me know your opinions below and see if we can't come to an agreement so that everyone can be referenced to this spot. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly common for players to sit out a season to get healthy or train and make a comeback. For what it's worth, most major websites (such as Pro Football Reference) still consider players "active" even if they're inactive for one year. There are exceptions, but I would agree that 2 years would be a good starting point. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I do see the argument for there being one year but like I said you can go through multiple players pages I just used one as an example of a player who last played in 2019, sat out 2020 then played in 21 credited that 2020 was a covid year but the two year rule in baseball articles is working well I just feel that is the most reasonable option as I feel a lot of factors can keep a player from signing for a year that isn't public. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd just keep it simple and leave it as "former". They may be retired from playing, but most are likely still working in some other field. I don't think you'd be able to reliably source for many that they are truly just living off savings and playing golf everyday.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it's not about the wording former is totally fine it's just about the timeframe to list a player as a "former" player some believe after not playing for one season should be listed as a "former" player and myself believe it should be 2 years like with baseball players on here Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that there seems to be a disagreement on the time frame to list a player as retired: Oops, i was too focused on "retired" there instead of "former" in the section header.—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

All good! Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if a player says they're retiring, there's no reason to assume they're going to come back. We obviously shouldn't be surprised if they unretire, it's not uncommon, but if they retire, there's nothing wrong with describing them as "former" immediately. – PeeJay 10:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is more about the players that don't say anything. If they announce it then yeah list it right away but this is more about the players that have nothing new about them for a season or two what is the best time frame to list them as a former player after either one year or two years of inactivity. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 18:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've said this several times and will continue to do so. We should just be skipping "is a free agent" and just say "is an American football quarterback". No more and no less unless they have died, officially retired (in which case we'd add former), or are under contract with a professional team. "is a free agent" is fancruft from the early days of Wikipedia that we've somehow kept as a standard. I've yet to hear any argument for this that is convincing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, not to mention there is a window where they are on the waiver wire and not free agents yet.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would definitely support this. Free agent should be called out in infobox (team history + current team fields) but not in the lead. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think we could say it if there's SIGCOV banging on repeatedly about someone's free agency. Presumably this will generally be a very temporary thing though, so is rarely going to be of long-term value to document on a 'this just in' basis. If we're using it as a polite term for "they're looking for a new gig" or "actually we have not the slightest idea", then no, let's not say that. On sourcing retirement, I in principle agree: after all, we're supposed to be sourcing any claim of fact. But this gets awkward when someone's pretty obviously not an active player, but we have no actual announcement. We can't say "was a football player" (makes it sound like they're dead), can't really say "is a football player" if they're 70, so "former" might be the least-worst option, even if we only have very low-grade sources or some degree of inference. (Like they didn't make the news for being the oldest ever pro, etc.) If there's any reasonable doubt then certainly, just "is a professional football player" or similar is fine. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  If they are 70 then we should just apply

  WP:COMMONSENSE and could easily say they were a former player... ~ Dissident93 ^(talk

  ) 15:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Having started with this high bid of 70, I'm now going to propose radically lowering it to 48. Or maybe a little higher in a few years. Granted this isn't a completely water-tight test either, as we have tons of coverage of practice-squad players that are technically "professional football players", but that we shouldn't be ordinarily be regarding them as notably so, IMO. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• While this doesn't help with the opening sentence -- "[Entity] is/was a [descriptor]" -- one thing that I think would be helpful on this is adequate career summaries in lead sections. No, 'two sentence paragraph and done, next section', should not be any sort of "standard"! Shorter articles may not merit especially long opening paras, but it'd not be excessive on even the most marginally post-stub to mention the teams they've been contracted to, including when the most recent such was. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Basically,

  MOS:OPENPARABIO.—Bagumba (talk

  ) 08:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Moreso

  WP:SUMMARY. Unless I'm missing some subtle nuance in this detailed interjection. 109.255.211.6 (talk

  ) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SUMMARY is more related to

  National Football League Draft.—Bagumba (talk

  ) 09:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  From the lead sentence (teh irony!): "the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points". Though more to point still

  WP:LEAD, which says the same thing at greater length. A lot of articles suffer from not having an adequate such summary. I don't know if NFL articles are worse than average in this, but we have a lot of otherwise quite decent and substantial bios that have a "standard" lead section that's much too short, and is more like an infobox with some verbs and prepositions: "Hingle McCringleberry (born July 4, 1990) is an American football utility player for the City Franchisename of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football at Sporty Party College, and was drafted by the in the Nth round of Someyear's NFL Draft." Which is a great start and an essential minimum, and SOFIXIT very much applies, but I continue be bemused by evident opposition from some quarters to more appropriately informative lead, apparently according to the rationale that key information is better in infoboxes, or confined to later sections. Not good style at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk

  ) 20:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: remove "free agent" from infoboxes permanently

Per the above discussion, I am proposing that we eliminate "free agent" from appearing in

18:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support – It's annoying to deal with and it very often doesn't last long. I'd love this change. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but would this also apply to the lead sentence? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Not for this specific proposal, but at a minimum I think removing "free agent" from the infoboxes will reduce the number of leads that include it as well. Maybe under a separate proposal/enactment we could have a bot change all articles tagged under the WP:NFL banner to replace the string "a former American football" with "an American football"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough but it would be inconsistent if we still write it in prose. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Showing no team is sufficient. "Free agent" is pedantic.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal as auto-populating. Candidly, we have a lot of box-creep on many of these articles, and sometimes something of a paucity of text in the lead paragraph that would put such (purported) facts in a more helpful contexts. Infoboxes are for summarising key features of the subject. If you cram every possible detail in there, it's progressively degraded both visually and in utility. Especially if you have to keep scrolling, and there's more and more infobox "below the fold". But for this in particular, given that it often seems to be poorly sourced, and has little significance or even meaning, especially so. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I have implemented this change at

19:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

@Eagles247 An issue with the current implementation is that it lists the players' position just dangling without a section e.g. here. Perhaps move it to "Career information" in these situations?---- —Bagumba (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba I played around with the infobox for a while, but couldn't get it to work. Maybe Wikipedia:Requested templates would know how to do this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Paging @Frietjes: Any ideas here? Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:52, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Ejgreen77, done? I think I moved it where you asked, but let me know if more logic is needed. Frietjes (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Looks good, thank you so much! Ejgreen77 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

As it appears

, I propose rewriting it to say the following:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for gridiron football figures if they:

1. Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any of the following leagues: the National Football League, All-America Football Conference, or American Football League (1960–1969).
2. Have appeared in at least five regular season or post-season games in the Canadian Football League (1956–present) or United States Football League (1983–1985).
3. Have served as a full-time head coach in any of the above mentioned leagues.
4. Have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, College Football Hall of Fame or Canadian Football Hall of Fame.
5. Players and coaches who do not meet the above criteria may still be notable if they meet
   WP:NCOLLATH
   ).

BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

• One game in the early NFL has been shown to be too lenient. The NFL (1920-1934) and AAFC should be moved to the five-game prong. Also, the HOF criterion is redundant and unnecessary. Finally, we need to make it clear that the participation criteria apply only to permanent head coaches (not interim) and to games played in the regular season or post-season, not pre-season games. Cbl62 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I re-wrote some of it (clarified what type of games, wrote that it excludes interims) based on two of your suggestions. I however do not support your other two suggestions (moving NFL and AAFC to five-game, removing HOF). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
• I would favor the following rewrite:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for gridiron football players and head coaches (excluding interim head coaches) if they:

1. Have appeared or coached in at least one regular season or post-season game in the National Football League (1935–present) or American Football League (1960–1969).
2. Have appeared or coached in at least five regular season or post-season games in the National Football League (1920–1934), All-America Football Conference (1944–1949), Canadian Football League (1956–present), or United States Football League (1983–1985).
3. Players and coaches who do not meet the above criteria may still be notable if they meet
   WP:NCOLLATH
   ).

Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this proposal really solves. The crux of the issue is what happens if significant coverage can't be found for the people who meet

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk)

@ 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

An SNG is supposedly supposed to afford some layer of presumption of notability. Otherwise, what is the point of having one? I think it's reasonable to pass a 1st round of an AfD with NSPORTS alone, but I'd expect GNG to be demonstrated in any subsequent AfD, if contested again. (For the record, I have voted delete on a page that met NSPORTS here.) It's a separate issue that some sports have really flimsy guidelines with 1-game requirements for seemingly every league on the planet. Those are two separate issues. Some appear to want no SNG for sports, period—not sure how many of that group are OK with SNGs for other domains.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

As I'm sure you recall being mentioned a time or twenty, not all SNGs are equal or equivalent in that respect. Some explicitly depend on the GNG, some explicitly replace it. Some talk about presumption, some just that notability is "likely" or "may" be the case. So I can't agree that it must work in one particular way, because clearly they don't. But if we're indeed ending up with the "intermediate layer of presumption" model -- I'm kinda exhausted by the whole RfC and its (non-)implementation at this point, so I might be behind in my memos as to where we're at with that right now, much less where we might end up -- in a way that a non-SIGCOV subject escapes deletion or merger for a significant or indefinite period, they have to be rare exceptions in the category. And not in an excessively time-travelly way, either, where we excuse huge holes in the 1920s players on the basis that if a player in the 2020s once thought about playing in the NFL, it's covered. Cbl62's cut at it seems plausible on the face of it, but I'm sure others will know much better than I what their GNG 'hit rate' is likely to be. And are the misses likely to be few enough that we can mop them up with upmergers to some list article, if push comes to shove? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you suggesting something like

WP:NACTOR, with subjective criteria like significant roles in multiple notable films?—Bagumba (talk

) 20:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting, nor did I even have in mind, some particular model. Just pointing out the range of variation in what the SNGs say and do. While I appreciate subjective judgements leave room for tis-tisn't arguments in evaluating them, I'm not even sure what an analogue of that for the NFL would be. I think the crux of it is ultimately going to rest on something GNG-like, and as I've said before, what we can maybe most usefully do it is to particularise what 'SIGCOV' looks like for a gridiron player. If we'd rough agreement on what the least-notable "notable" person looked like, and likewise the most-notable "not notable" one, we'd be getting someplace. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, would these criteria not be shot down as "participation only" criteria? Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you need to make an exception for the 1987 strike games.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the USFL should be on the list. A handful of star players (Walker, Young, Kelly etc.) had the bulk of the coverage, and they all went on to play in the NFL. A rank-and-file USFL player who never made the NFL isn't likely to have gained much coverage. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: @Cbl62: @Bagumba: Any thoughts on whether 1987 strike games should be discounted, and whether the USFL should count as notable? Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

(Although I love doing articles on replacement players) I'd say that not enough are GNG passes for them to be included in NGRIDIRON. However, I do believe that the USFL players get enough coverage to be included. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

On reflection, there have been whole books written about the USFL players, often delving into the less glamorous details, so I guess there is a decent chance of coverage even for the more obscure ones. For the strike players, if they were excluded from the new NGRIDIRON there would still be the option to create articles with the citations already in place, to avoid targeting for deletion as a stub. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I doubt that the replacement players got much covg for the replacement games themselves. When I expanded Casey Tiumalu, who played for the LA Rams, all I could find for him were roster listings or transaction blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

All,

Looking over the discussion on the recent NSPORT changes, it seems that any new notability criteria aren't allowed to be participation-only, so our current proposal would presumably be rejected (and would still be rejected even if the limit was set to 100 NFL games). In that case, it seems like we need a "non-participation" element. A requirement that the player must have been drafted by one of the listed leagues is the best I've been able to come up with.

Any thoughts?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

See my previous comment here for my thoughts on this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

The hardest part about this guideline is figuring out what to do with offensive linemen and pre-stat count players. I don't love the idea of being drafted as the threshold, a component of it sure, but there's a lot of players who get drafted but never take a snap in the NFL. When they say a non-participation element, is the intent to remove players who may have taken fewer than 5 snaps in the NFL? Or does that disallow us from using, let's say, 3-5 games played in as a threshold? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that raising the threshold number of games isn't enough, because proposal 4 in the Village Pump discussion concerned that and was ruled to have no consensus. I agree that being drafted alone isn't enough - the games played limit should be met as well. I hadn't thought about a statistical limit. We could have a participation limit for offensive linemen and pre-merger defensive players, and statistical limits for everyone else. I think that would be allowed. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

What about pre-1932 players (for which there was no draft and no statistics recorded)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

There again, it could be a five appearance limit. My only worry would be that the rule might end up being too complicated, with too many clauses. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

My worry about that is a deletionist might find a five-gamer they don't like, so then they say the criteria needs to be upped to six, seven, eight, etc., until its something ridiculous that makes the whole criteria worthless. Though its not like a new NGRIDIRON would have much value, as it now can only be the "sigcov could exist" nonsense that is not helpful, as articles meeting it can still be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

So no articles for offensive linemen who haven't received a large amount of significant coverage, Pro Bowl, or All-Pro. That makes sense! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

• If we limit the "participation" to the NFL in the modern era and the AFL during the 1960s, I believe that will be approved. The key IMO is to keep focused on moderr era and eliminate the leagues that are less reliable indicators of notability (e.g, CFL, USFL, etc.) Cbl62 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

  I guess we could try that, and then think about modifications if it doesn't pass? I can't really think of good options for the pre-draft players. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

I have nominated

20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

User script to detect unreliable sources

I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to

. The idea is that it takes something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.)

and turns it into something like

• John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.

It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.

The script is mostly based on

and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.

Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.

-

}

This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Hello,

I'm not sure how to edit this, but I noticed that there is an error on both the 2021 Buffalo Bills season and 2022 Buffalo Bills season pages. The Bills switched to a white facemask starting in the 2021 season (<ref><https://news.sportslogos.net/2021/04/08/buffalo-bills-to-wear-white-facemask-on-full-time-basis/football/>), yet there are grey facemasks on the helmets shown at the top of both of these pages.

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.125.251 (talk) 01:01, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been established. But in the lede for NFL player articles, should it say "played for X University" and link the overall college or "played at X/for the X Mascot name" and link the team article. Personally, I'd support linking the team article as it is more relevant to the player and the school name is included. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:43, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I typically mention and link the college team in the lead. They are notable as players, despite the NCAA's marketing of "student-athletes". I usually mention the university in the body.—Bagumba (talk) 01:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

The only exceptions where the actual college might be more appropriate is if the player was a two-sport athlete at the school or if the article is at GA length and the lede is multiple paragraphs. Currently, and editor is switching out all the team articles with college ones for articles of recent draft picks (and full official name, eg: Oklahoma State University-Stillwater) and I have invited them to share their opinion in hopes of a broader consensus being reached. GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Why should the length of the lead impact the decision?—Bagumba (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

I went through and reduced over-capitalization at a number of articles, most recently on team records and statistics. Some, like List of Kansas City Chiefs records, were almost perfect already, while others, like Los Angeles Rams statistics, capitalized every term related to football, and then some. Please check me on these, and point me at other clusters of style fixes needed if you find this kind of work helpful. Dicklyon (talk) 23:33, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for your contributions, as they always annoyed me whenever I saw a ton on a single article or list. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Following up on this discussion, I am proposing that "is a free agent" be removed from NFL player article lead sections. Dissident93 argued We should just be skipping "is a free agent" and just say "is an American football quarterback". No more and no less unless they have died, officially retired (in which case we'd add former), or are under contract with a professional team. "is a free agent" is fancruft from the early days of Wikipedia that we've somehow kept as a standard. Bagumba said not to mention there is a window where they are on the waiver wire and not free agents yet. As I said in the proposal to eliminate "free agent" from infoboxes, this will also help eliminate the gray area for players who are on waivers, have not played in a long time but haven't officially announced their retirement, etc. This is a change that will help reduce the endless "former or free agent" debates and future-proof articles. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per my comment. This ties in well with the previous discussion. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  01:03, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

I have an alternative proposal as well just to throw out. This is how NBA wiki has done it in the past, by just saying “who last played for the ___”. that way it is easier to know what level of football they play at, and just a little extra information for the reader. Bears247 (talk) 23:33, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that would have avoided all the fuss at Talk:Jamie Collins (American football)#NFL needs to be identified. about "NFL draft" being mentioned in the lead without National Football League having been alreadt expanded from the abbrev.—Bagumba (talk) 13:38, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

• Support common sense proposal. Clearer and easier to maintain.
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk)
  @ 14:32, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support This just makes sense, and would lead to less maintenance needed to keep the verbiage updated and accurate. —  dainomite   15:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
• Support per nom. It's annoying having to deal with players being free agents and this will lessen the burden. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Usually, we group listings by the selector and the type of award, e.g

.

However, I see that the UPI awards are grouped by conference instead e.g. UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year has both OPOY and DPOY for the AFC, and UPI NFC Player of the Year has similar for NFC.

I assume this UPI model is the "wrong" one, or is this a valid one-off?—Bagumba (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Based on

WP:NFLINFOBOX, I'd say it's a one off, though it's not one that I personally agree with. I'd much rather leave out the NFC and AFC player of the year outside of 1960-1969 since we already leave out conference specific awards/achievements outside of this one example. I'm off topic. Hey man im josh (talk

) 11:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, my question wasn't about player infoboxes, it was about the organization and naming of the actual award pages. —Bagumba (talk) 11:54, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh my mistake, sorry. My head just goes one place since that's what I work on most lol. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:17, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd just merge them to UPI NFL Player of the Year and have either 2 separate tables or a larger merged one. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:23, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

So I sorted this out some more. UPI was handing out:

• NFL Player of the Year (1948–1969) (United Press International NFL Most Valuable Player Award)
• AFL Player of the Year (1960–1969) (UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year)
• NFC Player of the Year (1970–1984) (UPI NFC Player of the Year)
• AFC Player of the Year (1970–1984) (UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year)
• NFC Defensive Player of the Year (1975–1996) (UPI NFC Player of the Year)
• AFC Defensive Player of the Year (1975–1996) (UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year)
• NFC Defensive Player of the Year (1985–1996) (UPI NFC Player of the Year)
• AFC Defensive Player of the Year (1985–1996) (UPI AFL-AFC Player of the Year)

Source: Total Football II, pp. 387–389

After the NFL–AFL merger, there's really four lists here: separate offensive POYs and defensive POYs for each of the NFC and AFC. It might be more consistent with the other selectors (like AP) to combine the offensive POY in one page and defensive in another: United Press International NFL Offensive Player of the Year and United Press International NFL Defensive Player of the Year.

From 1970–1984, there was no offensive award, per se, it was just an overall "Player of the Year" that was always won by an offensive player, with the exception of DT Alan Page winning the NFC POY in 1971. We could combine these POYs into United Press International NFL Most Valuable Player Award, like how Pro Football Reference does.—Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I am considering bringing this article to nomination sometime in the future, but I feel it could use work on the prose (I feel some of it is jargony/not up to FA standard). If anyone has a few minutes to gloss over it and give me pointers it would be much appreciated. NSNW (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

@NSNW:, I've put together a few suggested amendments for the career section in my Sandbox here [4]. Mostly minor rewording for flow. The phrase "off of" feels a little colloquial for Wikipedia. As various organizations name All-Pro teams, I think you need to specify the Associated Press, though perhaps only the first time it comes up. I'm sure the FAC people would have more suggestions. Good luck with the nomination! Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! I wouldn't mind any suggestions for the other sections of the article as well. NSNW (talk) 23:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll try and take a look. By the way, I see you've changed Sanders' to Sander's in quite a few places, but I think it was actually correct before the change. Sanders's would also be correct, but Sander's would indicate the possessions of someone called Sander. Here's a link on possessive apostrophes for names ending in s.[5] Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried to make the apostrophes consistent throughout. Most of them were 's, so I picked that one to make it the entire article. But I see your point with "Sander's" being different than "Sanders's". I guess I'll change them back to Sanders' now. NSNW (talk) 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

A few more suggestions here, from the opening third of the article.[6] I'll try and do the end part tomorrow. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Last lot of suggestions here.[7] Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:03, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks :). NSNW (talk) 18:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)