Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 9

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

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 15

I have a question about which link to use for 1st round draft picks as reference. eagles site link or nfl site link? both of them, for some of the players have different positions listed. So does one use the position the player were at when they were drafted and one uses the position they actuaaly played, since maybe they changed it. so which one of these is the correct for draft picks. Gman124 ^talk 12:17, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Depends. Trent Cole was drafted as a linebacker but was converted to defensive end during his rookie season. I think the positions listed right now are accurate. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated

) 20:38, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Dallas Texans template

I was going through the defunct NFL team pages and came across Template:Dallas Texans seasons. that team only played 1 season, so is a template really necessary for 1 season, i think Template:Dallas Texans (NFL), could be placed instead of the other one. Gman124 ^talk 14:20, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

same with Template:Chicago Tigers seasons, Template:New York Brickley Giants seasons, Template:Cincinnati Celts seasons, Template:Tonawanda Kardex seasons, Template:Washington Senators seasons, Template:St. Louis All-Stars seasons,Template:Kenosha Maroons seasons, Template:Brooklyn Lions seasons, Template:Hartford Blues seasons, Template:Los Angeles Buccaneers seasons, Template:Cleveland Indians (NFL) seasons, Template:St. Louis Gunners seasons. Gman124 ^talk 14:30, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

nominated for deletion. see Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion#March_10 Gman124 ^talk 14:51, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

) related to your project. , so it is important that these articles are referenced.

The unreferenced articles related to your project can be found at >>>Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs<<<

If you do not want this wikiproject to participate, please add your project name to this list.

Thank you.

Update: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 9/Unreferenced BLPs has been created. This list, which is updated by User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects daily, will allow your wikiproject to quickly identify unreferenced living person articles.

There maybe no or few articles on this new Unreferenced BLPs page. To increase the overall number of articles in your project with another bot, you can sign up for User:Xenobot_Mk_V#Instructions.

If you have any questions or concerns, visit User talk:DASHBot/Wikiprojects. Okip 00:27, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I've noticed a lot of articles have re-directed or broken links to playoff articles. I've created a new template ({{NFL playoff year}} to create links to these articles. It's very similar to the {{NFL Year}} template, but it has some additional optional parameters. The simplest usage is via the shortened alias {{nflpy|2009}}, which generates this link: 2009. Please check it out and use it.— DeeJayK (talk) 17:07, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been debating with folks at

) 17:26, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

There is discussion ongoing at

03:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)

This template needs to be fixed.

15:25, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Done. If the parameter is blank, this line doesn't display. — Timneu22 · talk 15:53, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't understand the complaint here. Just because the term was apparently coined in 1976, why can it not be applied retroactively? Obviously every draft has a final selection. It appears in looking at the

1936 NFL Draft article (or for that matter any WP article) is meant to be a snapshot of a moment in time with no reference to any events that happened subsequently. After all, the page lists which players selected eventually selected to the Hall of Fame — something which could not have been known at that time of the draft. — DeeJayK (talk

) 17:01, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't see that the list goes all the way back to 1936, but in the article it says "The first Mr. Irrelevant was Kelvin Kirk, picked number 487 of the 1976 draft." This led me to believe that Mr. Irrelevant is only 1976-present. Also, the official website only goes from 1976 onwards. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:06, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I see that article now. My template change doesn't hurt, but it's probably not really needed, either. — Timneu22 · talk 17:46, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

The template change is perfectly fine. I guess what we need to define is whether "Mr. Irrelevant" is simply an intellectual concept (which is what I was thinking) or whether it's an actual "honor" which is bestowed by the group from Newport Beach. If we determine it's the former, then it seems appropriate to list it in the infobox for pre-1976 drafts — if it's the latter, then the article should be updated to remove selections prior to 1976. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I've made an additional change to the

Infobox template so that the verbiage and link to Mr. Irrelevant only appear on drafts after 1975. Earlier drafts will now show the text Last Selection: instead. Given this we should probably change the name of the parameter from "mr_irrelevant" to "last", but that's not a high priority for me. I'd still like to resolve the earlier question and will post a comment on the Mr. Irrelevant article to attempt to spark further discussion. — DeeJayK (talk

) 15:28, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons

The

and have been tagged by a WikiProject. Note that the bot does NOT place unreferenced tags or assign articles to projects - this has been done by others previously - it just compiles a list.

Your Project's list can be found at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Unreferenced BLPs. Currently you have approximately 210 articles to be referenced. Other project lists can be found at User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects/Templates and User:DASHBot/Wikiprojects.

Your assistance in reviewing and referencing these articles is greatly appreciated. If you have any questions, please don't hestitate to ask either at

) 17:06, 4 May 2010 (UTC)

Cross-sport uniform template policy discussion

Please come discuss at

WP:FOUR

) 23:57, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

RfC on "Safety" article titles

Hello. I recently opened an RfC on sorting out the titles of the "Safety" articles, both for the position and the scoring play. Since no one has yet responded, I am notifying potentially interested WikiProjects and inviting comment in order to build consensus. Please go here: Talk:Safety_(American_football)#RfC:_.22Safety.22_article_titles to comment. –Grondemar 21:05, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

I have just come across a series of users called XXXX(Madden). Other than the link to John Madden or the games, can anyone understand why? One of the "userspace drafts" has been moved to mainspace and I CSD#G3'd it Markael James (Madden), but there are a heap more out there - all false as far as I can tell.

1. User:Markael James (Madden)
2. User:Marcus Robertson (Madden)
3. User:Jervis Santana (Madden)
4. User:Thomas Harris (Madden)
5. User:Albert Ramos, Jr (Madden)
6. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL)
7. User:Albert Ramos, Jr. (Madden NFL)
8. User:Albert Ramos (Madden NFL series)

Can someone work out what's going on and if need be clean out all of the false info from the user pages.The-Pope (talk) 16:04, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take this to

WP:UP. Eagles 24/7 (C)

22:32, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move of banner template

See Template talk:NFLproject#Requested move. –xeno^talk 14:21, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Anyone feel like helping

00:23, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Infobox switchover

Please see User talk:Eagles247#Better idea. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Every team has a "History of" article except the Lions and the Texans. In the latter case, it's totally understandable... but the Lions have been around for 81 years. I'm trying to find books to source the history section on the Lions article, and I'm wondering if it might be okay to just move the entire section to it's own article and link to it, like the Arizona Cardinals article does? Any help with this from the project would be awesome. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 22:11, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

This is a copy of what I put on Pats1's talk page. Can some one who is a moderator help clear this up? Despite giving a clear reason there is still an ongoing edit dispute on the Colts, Vikings, and Raiders team pages.

What is now considered a conference championship was then still a league championship. to quote the superbowl wiki, "It was agreed that the two leagues' champion teams would play in an AFL–NFL World Championship Game until the merger was consummated in 1970. After the merger, each league became a "conference", and the game was then played between conference champions.", but that's after the merger. You could argue that we didn't win the Superbowl that year, but then you would have to negate the Colts '68 and the Vikings '69 league championship for the same reason. Zoro1234 (talk) 15:02, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I just noticed the Chiefs and the Jets have the same asterisk. I haven't bothered changing anything on their pages as this dispute is yet to be resolved. It's just contradictory to allow the Vikings to list a league championship and the Colts to list 5 but then withhold some from 3 other teams. It's essentially saying that the AFL Championship didn't count but the NFL Championship did even though they were both stepping stones to the Superbowl. If we aren't going to recognize the AFL Championships from that time as league championships then the same has to go for the Vikings and Colts NFL Championships. Zoro1234 (talk) 16:00, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

IMO, let's be consistent and just copy what an official site does, like the Pro Football Hall of Fame.[1][2][3][4][5][6] Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:18, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

My point exactly. We can't acknowledge one and ignore the other. Fair is fair.Zoro1234 (talk) 03:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I think I misunderstood your dispute: I believe you are referring to the "no_league_champs" parameter in the infobox, and to whether to add a footnote like "Does not include the AFL or NFL Championships won during the same seasons as the AFL-NFL Super Bowl Championships prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger". Unfortunately, that was a result of a dispute several years ago on the Green Bay Packers article. As you may know, the Packers won twelve league championships, and both they and the league like to tout that figure. The problem is that in order to make that infobox consistent with that fact, we had to have "12" in the infobox and have that footnote.

So I understand the other party wanting to make the infoboxes in the other articles consistent and have that same footnote. So how about inverting the footnotes to read, "Does not include the AFL-NFL Super Bowl Championships won during the same seasons as the AFL or NFL Championships prior to the 1970 AFL-NFL Merger." Zzyzx11 (talk) 03:37, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It really only applies to the teams that you linked HoF pages for. While all championships are accounted for some would like to recognize the '66 - '69 NFL championships as league championships yet not the '66-'69 AFL championships. But if we do count them as league championships, then we would have to bump the Pack up to 14, the Chiefs to 4, and the Jets up to a redundant 2 league championships. No one wants that. If the edits I have made remain then all is uniform. Zoro 1234 17:11, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

It sure would have been easier if the Colts and Vikes had just won thoses SB ;) or once the merger was done in 1970 the NFL just kept the title "NFL championship game" Smith03 (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

This article about the former USC coach's son should not have "Jr." in the title, he is not a "Jr." because his middle name differs from his fathers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.162.0.46 (talk) 13:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

But they are both John McKay, and if they are not known by their middle names then including the "Jr." is entirely appropriate. –

Jay

17:03, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Why do we have

20:06, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Anyone got an answer? –

Jay

14:24, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Trying to get some people involved with this. Anyone interested here's the link Oakland Raiders. Zoro 1234 00:24, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

At the risk of looking like a Baltimore homer (not to mention, a change would affect other franchise's articles), I wanted to propose renaming several lists regarding Colts topics to reflect their content—that of both Baltimore and Indianapolis history. Titles such as

17:40, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I think it is more appropriate to have the article title reflect the franchise's current name. Any explanation of former names/locations should be mentioned in the lead section. –

Jay

21:09, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

As someone who was in a probowl and part of a superbowl winning squad, this guys article really could use some improvement! Active Banana ( ^bananaphone 01:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Please come comment on the talk of

) 04:54, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I believe it is time to remove the permenant As player: in the infoboxes. 95 percent (if not more) of the players do not need the "As player" section and we can just add it manually like we currently do for the MLB and NBA infoboxes. Beast from da East (talk) 19:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

For once, I actually agree with you on this. I find it unnecessary to have--Yankees10 20:04, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, unneeded. — Timneu22 · talk 20:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Look at what Dat Nguyen looks like now after the change under career history. This still needs work. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:01, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Why does it need work? The permenant "As Player" feature just did not need to be there and I have no idea why no one else took the time to get rid of it. To do it manually takes five seconds and I've already done it for Dat Nguyen. Are you that lazy that can't type As player or As coach manually? Beast from da East (talk) 21:34, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

"As player" is only "permanent" until you change the |pastteams field to |pastcoaching. Why is it necessary to have to add the text manually when it can be automatically added? Why do the NFL infoboxes have to be similar to other sports infoboxes? I don't understand your side at all. I also think the two users above who supported your idea may have been confused about what you meant (I didn't understand until I saw the changes take effect). Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:42, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

What difference does it make? The fact of the matter is over 95 percent of players, past and present, needlessly has As player in the infoboxes and I was sick of it so I took it here. User:LOL, who is the undisputed king of infoboxes, was kind enough to remove it for all of us so please stop complaining because this is a gift that many have been waiting for. Beast from da East (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

95 percent? Undisputed king of infoboxes? Where are you coming up with this? If the current version of the infobox does stay, are you going to fix all of the player-coach infoboxes? If you do, I will be okay with it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:03, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello, i'm looking for input from the Wikiprojects on all the Football codes so we can get a standardized wording for each brand of the sport. Doc Quintana (talk) 18:47, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes on

19:52, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Helmets

I noticed that many of the helmet graphics used here (enwiki) are PNGs. The German Wikipedia seems to have all the helmets as vector files. Someone here might want to look into moving the vectors over from the German wiki to here. §hep^Talk 23:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the National Football League articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Monday, October 11th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of October, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team,

SelectionBot 23:22, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

I'll look into it. Secret ^account 02:11, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Hi, I'm looking for some expertise from Football fans in the United States to help explain what the sport is called within the United States. Doc Quintana (talk) 17:12, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're asking. In the US we call football, football. §hep^Talk 18:35, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I know this, but there are few editors at Houston Texans that don't understand this, and I was wondering if you could help. Doc Quintana (talk) 21:01, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Ah, you're referring to Talk:Football#Naming Standardization In Different Codes (RFC). Seems like the community is working towards something palatable. I personally don't see an issue with calling it American football, but that's just me. Shep^Talk 23:24, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm fine with it too as long as soccer is called association football to make sure it's standardized and to avoid national biases. I don't understand the logic otherwise.

If it's not done that way, then it's an

Hank Williams, Jr. asks "Are you ready for some football?", not "Are you ready for some American football?". Doc Quintana (talk

) 01:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Remember, though, that the English Wikipedia is not limited to the United States. The articles have to reflect world-wide views on naming, so just saying "football" even though it may be implied to be American football based on the team, may not cut it, regardless of what it is called in the specific country. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Last time I checked, the United States was part of the world, as was countries that call Association football just football as well. Either it's ENGVAR or it's not; if it is, then it is, and if it's not, it's not. Bias towards one particular code is an NPOV issue. Doc Quintana (talk) 02:35, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The United States is part of the world, but other English-speaking countries (some people in the US, as well) consider what is called in the US "football" as "American football." The purpose of ENGVAR is to set a guideline for spelling variations such "color" and "colour", "favorite" and "favourite", and "flavor" and "flavour"; each is correct, but one spelling is used in the US, the other in England. This has nothing to do with codes. NPOV has nothing to do with this either, it is for tone and neutrality of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Unless specific names of codes are used (I don't mind if all football articles use the term American football as long as all soccer articles use the term Association football), it's an ENGVAR issue because within the United States, the term football refers to American football, not Association football. It's also an NPOV issue because if one code is called "football" and the other isn't, then that shows favoritism to a non-US POV, no POV should be given preference over any other under NPOV.

Under your logic, then the

Manchester United article should use the term soccer, since U.S users will be reading it. This doesn't make sense because English users will be reading it as well, and in Manchester, the sport Manchester United plays is called football by its fans there. Doc Quintana (talk

) 14:08, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

If you don't have a problem with using American football and Association football when describing the sports, then what's the issue? I'm fine with that, too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:48, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the editors of

Jay

20:07, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, i'd prefer Association and American football since they are fairly neutral, but I don't mind the ENGVAR option either. All i'm saying is that there shouldn't be two sets of rules here for differing codes. I think it's fair to ask that to ensure NPOV. Doc Quintana (talk) 22:38, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

There's a mild edit war on the

17:53, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm having some problems verifying data on the

) 20:57, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

NFL.com recently changed their ID system, and Loucks' bio is at http://www.nfl.com/players/edloucks/profile?id=LOU346073. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Apparently, the NFL and PFD have conflicting birth date data, neither of which match the SSDI. Thanks!--GrapedApe (talk) 22:10, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

You're welcome. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:13, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

If anyone more familiar with this particular policy can clear things up at Shaun Alexander‎, I'd appreciate another opinion. Raider Duck has changed Alexander's status from "free agent" to "former" player, based on his rationale here [7]. Other editors (including myself) have reverted him based on the fact that Alexander is not retired, however, no one else has commented on RD's section on the talk page, and Raider Duck sees this as consensus and reverted the page again. Regardless of the result, more eyes and opinions on this matter would be appreciated. Thanks in advance. Dayewalker (talk) 19:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, I posted proposed changes on the DeAngelo Hall talk page yesterday, but have not received a response, since the article's talk page does not get much activity. Is it possible that someone could weigh in and let me know if my changes are taking the article in the right direction? Cheers, Willowsan (talk) 21:58, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks to

Quadzilla99 and Eagles247 for the assistance on the DeAngelo Hall talkpage. It's much appreciated and I'll be going forward with the change. Thanks again, Willowsan (talk

) 21:16, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

Players subject to waivers listed as free agents

Every time a player is waived by his team, his WP article lists him as a free agent. This is only true if he is a vested veteran and it is before the trade deadline. Until the player clears waivers or is claimed, he is not a member of any team or a free agent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bhirsch (talk • contribs) 16:51, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

I have nominated

) 22:31, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Just a heads up, the whole thing is copy/pasted from Johnny Unitas' autobiography (apparently, it says it right on the page).

) 18:21, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I have removed the text that was straight from Unitas' autobiography. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:08, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, we're on the third uniform template now in the past two years. If we're going to use a template, we need to settle on one design long-term. Jgera5 (talk) 12:45, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not three separate templates. It's one that has been improved over the course of a few years. Pats1 ^T/C 13:39, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Still, though, none of the other templates for the NHL or MLB have changed in that time period. I just feel we need to settle on one template, and stick with it for a while. Again, we're on the third different template design in two years. Jgera5 (talk) 13:51, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Why is this an issue or am I missing something? Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 00:28, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't notice that new one. Thankfully Pats1 fixed it. No offense to Silent, but that new one is awful. The one we've been using since the 2009 season works perfectly. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 00:32, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see whats wrong with the current template. The new one looks worse, in my opinion. Why fix it if it's not broken? ~ Richmond96 t • c 22:02, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

First off, the MLB template has gone through numerous revisions, whether big or small. There was the original version, which was changed the the earliest version of the current template, due to complaints about basing the images on the HOF's Dressed to the Nines templates. That version was changed numerous times, the inclusion of the buttons on the top of the caps, the change of the placks to a lighter color, the addition of socks and then shoes. I am currently working on what will hopefully be the final revision of the MLB template, as I include undershirts and refine the plack. The NHL uniforms went through a quick second run-through, which came later than I expected, as making the uniforms in time necessitated that I essentiall copy the logos and change the size without redrawing it.

JohnnySeoul took over, updating the uniform images, and I enjoyed having someone else taking on the workload. However, there were some issues with it, which compounded when I went to edit the images. My first reason for feeling wary was because my first thought about it was that it was an edit of this template (every other uniform has been changed to a new template), although going back to Chris Creamer's page I saw there were great differences. I had worried about a similar problem as what I just mentioned with the MLB images. I haven't gotten a chance to do anything about it until I formed this template last year while watching the Jets. However, I was unable to continue the work, as it would require recreating the entire league. About a month ago I finally got to work, worrying that another season would slip through my fingers before I got it done. I don't knock JohnnySeoul at all and thank him for his work, but there were just some things that I felt needed to be changed. Here's a list of changes I made:

• The outline lines are all one-pixel wide.
• The logo is redrawn rather than pasted in. I don't know if JS pasted in the logos or not, but examination showed that they were blurred and bled into the surrounding area.
• The perspective was fixed. Like the Chris Creamer template (which I'm unsure is just his, as I believe I've seen it used other places) the shoulders are shown in a strange perspective, almost like the player is leaning forward. The television numbers are either on the side or the top of the jersey, but they were shown as being skewed, and they were being shown with one and a half on the front. Same thing for the stripes. For instance, as I mentioned, I was watching the Jets when I formed this. The Jets' stripes go over the shoulder straight, and when viewed from the front are vertical. I don't know what the deal is with these stripes. Well, actually, that's not true. I do. It's based on a template with a clearly defined shoulder, and JS is just trying to make the stripes look as they would with that shoulder. Creamer did the same, but these issues are simply not what the uniform looks like. I made the stripes and television numbers look the way they do in real life.
• The television numbers were made more... correct. Speaking of the television numbers, those shown on the side of the shoulders were drawn very round, lopsided, and doughy. I made them more to the look of the uniform, usually a reproduction of the front and back numbers.
• The collars were varied. I did not realize until I did this template how varied the collars are. There are at least five different collars I can think of off the top of my head. However, the current template only uses one color for every team. I made sure that each collar matched up to the ones the team wore.
• The pants and socks were reconfigured. I found that players seem to wear something more akin to knickerbockers, the pants only go to the knees. Thus, I made the socks longer and the pants shorter. I also included the smaller white area of the socks, the sanitaries, if you will. The current template more looks like the pants are long and the striping is on the ankles, whereas the striping is actually featured most prominantly on the bulge of the calf. By the bulb on the socks, it looks like that was the idea, but with the long pants and short socks it doesn't come through in the image.

Those are the only issues I can think of, but there were so many little issues that I ended up creating a new template rather than editing the old one, especially since the shoulder would have to be completely reconstructed. Again, I don't knock Johnny Seoul's work at all, but there were some issues that I wanted to fix. I can't count how many improvements or realizations I've had over the course of working on Wikipedia's uniform images. Overall, I did what I've always striven to do: create an image that is as accurate a portrayal as possible of what's on the field. --The Silent Wind of Doom (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

My suggestion

I've created a template that addresses some of the problems with the original template and covers a lot of the problems mentioned above while leaving more room for detail that SWD's template doesn't, since mine is bigger. It's a modification of JohnnySeoul's template, but due to some design features, it's currently college-exclusive since I use it to illustrate the schools that use Nike's Pro Combat uniforms. Here's an example: File:ACC-Uniform-FSUSEMINOLES-Pro Combat.PNG. However, it should be easy enough to modify for the pro uniforms and the schools that don't use the Pro Combat template. The only thing I'm concerned about is that it's somewhat large, especially when used to illustrate multiple uniforms in one image. That's because I'm not sure how to illustrate the side views of the uniforms in a smaller manner, since the front view doesn't allow for viewing of pants stripes and logos on the sleeves (such as the Razorback on Arkansas' uniforms). I've also put in two views of the helmet so helmet stripes can be properly illustrated, and I've flipped the side view to the right, since it would be incredibly difficult to modify some college logos to face left like in JohnnySeoul's template, but all of them can face to the right. Despite the size issues, I've also made them as small as possible by eliminating the unnecessary white space in the images by putting the "Color/White/Alternate" only one pixel below the socks and putting only one pixel of width between the uniforms. Once I've finished a redesigned college uniform to my satisfaction, I'll upload it to demonstrate. I will definitely take into account the changes mentioned above and see about integrating them into my template so it can be presented as a possible compromise. --Kevin W. 09:01, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Ok, I think this one sufficiently demonstrates my template. Your thoughts? --Kevin W. 01:14, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm... I like it, but I think it's a bit too detailed... I'm not even sure all uniforms have all those panels. And they're pretty invisible on most jerseys, as well. Also, the side view, while helpful for uniforms like Boise State or Miami with "butt stripes," many teams, like Oregon, as you showed, really don't need it. Plus, if you add a side view, soon you'll need to add a back view, and that could just be too much. Tgypwya (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, of course those panels wouldn't be on every uniform. They're just for schools that wear the Nike Pro Combat template. Also, on several of the uniforms, the panels are actually quite visible. As for the back view, I think that'd be taking things a bit too far and I think we can all agree that it'd be unnecessary. It's just that a lot of teams have pants stripes or sleeve designs that a front view-only template can't illustrate. --Kevin W. 08:01, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with pretty much everything you just said. Thanks for clearing everything up, I'm definitely in total support of this template now. Though, of course, I'd still like to see a left-side view of the helmet as well... But I can live without it. I'm not sure there's quite enough space, anyway.

Oh, I looked at the Oregon page, with the new template, and I'm not sure about having five different designs as shown, because not only does the image end up so small that it's hard to see any detail at all, but Oregon never wears the same uniform twice in one year (so anything, really, is not very effective). I personally think that because of the larger size and the detail that is in the new template, teams should be limited to two or three uniforms displayed. (A more diverse selection of Oregon's uni choices would be placed in the aptly named "Uniforms" section, which already exists.) Thoughts on this? (These are all just helpful suggestions, of course, you have full veto power.)

On a completely different note, if you want me to help adapt other college teams to the newer template (if it's definitely the one we're gonna use), I can get started almost immediately. -- Tgypwya (talk) 23:02, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Left-side views of the helmets can easily be added if necessary, but I don't believe there are many cases in which it'd be necessary. As for Oregon, I think that all of the uniforms are necessary since they wear every possible jersey/helmet/pants during the year, and have done so this year. Other pages show all of the uniforms (see San Diego Padres) and I think that they're necessary. There are only two other schools that I can think of (TCU and Virginia Tech) that would have as many. Also, while a "diverse" selection of Oregon's uniforms would be good in theory, it's just not feasible, seeing as though Oregon has 160 possible combinations (4 helmets, 5 jerseys, 4 pants and 2 socks). Furthermore, I've started phasing out the combination images, since they're unnecessary and no other sport's teams have them. --Kevin W. 23:15, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree that left-facing helmets aren't always necessary, but as long as there's space if one needs to be added, I'm good. I see your point about Oregon, but the main issue is that the image ends up almost too small to see anything. Maybe splitting it into two rows would help, it'd take up more space, but you could actually see the uniforms beyond basic color. -- Tgypwya (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried that, and two rows doesn't really improve the level of detail all that much. I think it's best to just leave it at one row so it's a smaller file size. --Kevin W. 05:26, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Alright, I'm okay with that, as long as it's been tried. I just used converted the USF Bulls' unis to the new template because a.) It seems we're going to gradually switch to this new template, so we should start somewhere, b.) The current image isn't right anyway, c.) They're the local team, so I know their unis well. I had to experiment with the panels (I left the majority in, only removed or edited them where I needed to to make the design of the uni work), the TV numbers (I couldn't find anything with this template that had numbers on the sleeves), and the helmet stripe (again, couldn't find any with a helmet stripe). I think it looks great, though; those panels that I was opposed to before really make it look realistic. How should I go about uploading it? (And should I update the rest of the Big East?) -- Tgypwya (talk) 21:17, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can you send me the USF images before you upload them? I'd like to see what you've done. My email is [email protected]. Also, the panels are going to need to be removed anyway since they're for Nike uniforms and USF is an Under Armour school. Also, if you need TV numbers for the template, the Arizona and Oregon throwback uniforms have them. If you need shoulder TV numbers instead of sleeves, I'm working on Florida's uniforms right now (though they're incomplete and not ready for uploading) and I can send you what I've got. --Kevin W. 00:09, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello. There is currently a

21:26, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

draftyear= problem

Hello everyone. While surfing

) 01:39, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

POV OR edits to NFL

AN IP user has just added some highly POV OR to the National Football League article, this diff being the first of 2 major ones so far. I've noted it here in case this is part of a parrtern of POV edits by a sigle user in the past using socks/IPs. Thanks. - BilCat (talk) 07:24, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

I've created Template:NFL roster, which consists of the coding used for the roster templates. It's based on Template:MLB roster and is much more efficient than repeating all of the code in each individual roster template. I employed it in Template:New York Jets roster so you can see that it doesn't change the appearance at all. I'm open to any changes you have to suggest. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:45, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I like it. I never understood why we had to type out all of those codes for every player. You'll have to win over Pats1 and Chrisjnelson though. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I didn't understand it either. I hope convincing them won't be too difficult. Template:NFL roster is 1,535 bytes. Template:NFL IR, Template:NFLplayer and Template:NFLrookie, which are used in the template, are tiny. Employing it on Template:New York Jets roster reduced the size from 6,594 to 3,563 bytes. I'm waiting on the blessing of the project before converting all of the other rosters. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

One more thing. What template do you use for rookies who were placed on IR? And will there be a template for other reserve designations such as PUP list, Exempt list, Military list, etc? I think the latter could be added into Template:NFL IR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:07, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that will take a couple more templates. I'm thinking about the rookie on IR thing... maybe we could just use the old italics in there rather than making a new template. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I have added to Template:NFL IR to include other reserve designations. Since NFLplayer was basically the same template as NFL IR, I moved NFL IR to NFLplayer. See what I have done here. I'm thinking we don't really need Template:NFLrookie, as we can just add italics to NFLplayer. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Ah that's excellent work! Streamlines things nicely. I can take or leave the rookie one. Whatever everyone thinks is best. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:42, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It will take some getting used to, and there will be kinks to be worked out, but I think I like it. Hopefully it will help prevent some of the formatting errors that IPs inevitably introduce. Pats1 ^T/C 01:56, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I have added the rookie parameter to Template:NFLplayer and deleted Template:NFLrookie. The NFLplayer template looks good now and, with Pats' approval above, we can start converting the other roster templates. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:59, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Think you can figure out a fix for the positions now being after the injury icon and reserve type? I was thinking maybe a pos= parameter, but that would require some if-coding because not all players (QBs, RBs, WRs, TEs) have that. Pats1 ^T/C 02:50, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know if it was better to figure a way to code that or to just put the position afterwards like I did. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I tried to change the template to add the positions, but I couldn't figure it out. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:06, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, then that's something that will have to be worked on. The order doesn't make sense the way it is. I reverted the template from the five rosters that had it, but it's easy to change it back so I wouldn't worry about it too much. Maybe we can ask for help on the code, try to get the kinks worked out so that we can just implement it on every team in one fell swoop. Better that way when we're mid-season and everything is moving quickly. Might even be a good project for the offseason. Pats1 ^T/C 23:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Can't we just add another place to input a position, like {{NFLplayer|number|name|position|needed qualifiers}}? That way you can type in some of the odd combinations that happen, like "WR/PR", "G/T", "OLB/DE", etc. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh Eagles tried what I was thinking about yesterday and it didn't work. Why didn't it work? --Muboshgu (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Dunno, can't figure out how to add an optional parameter to the template. I'll test some stuff later today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:21, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Go for it. Like the changes. Pats1 ^T/C 02:01, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I added a BDC1 parameter for border color; Jets didn't have third color for border, so that's why it was overlooked. Pats1 ^T/C 02:08, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

What's wrong with the NFL roster pages? I notice that at least one team doesn't have a depth chart on its website; its template links to the 2009 depth chart. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

They're generally inaccurate, or at least less accurate and less frequently updated than team pages. ...Which team is that? Pats1 ^T/C 03:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Giants. (I'm a New Yorker, I think the world revolves around my local teams :) ) I haven't checked them all yet. It would be easier to simply input the three letter abbreviation to get the NFL roster pages, but if they're less accurate, that's an issue. --Muboshgu (talk) 03:40, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Okay, so the template is not on about half of the rosters, and I'll keep going until I'm finished. But, we need to put the {{NFLplayer}} template on all of the individual season pages. That's a huge undertaking. Does anyone here know how to write a script that will do it so I don't have to edit every page individually? --Muboshgu (talk) 20:33, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I have requested a bot here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Should we have it put the whole NFL roster template in place, or keep the shell as it is? --Muboshgu (talk) 21:35, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

What do you mean by "the whole NFL roster template" and the "shell"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:44, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I mean all the stuff that {{NFL roster}} includes, like all of the links and formatting. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:08, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

I guess we should have it have the whole NFL roster template, because if we need to make a change to the template in the future, we won't have to change all of the roster templates across the wiki again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:22, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

The NFL roster template is now on every current roster template. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:38, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Think anyone can help with the template now? I am trying to add fields so that we can do free agents, future contracts, and get rid of the practice squad section at the end of the season. The biggest issue I'm having is with the spacing - all of those possible sections, when not used, are still taking up a large chunk of space in the template. Also, I need to have it coded somehow that if any of the (three) FA sections are in use, then the FA= count activates. Pats1 ^T/C 01:56, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

 Done Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:15, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

We have

) 22:53, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree, great idea. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:03, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Content merged and TFD here. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Would someone be able to take a look at this edit request, because I'm not familiar with the styling? See: Talk:Green Bay Packers#Edit request from Notacynic, 17 December 2010. Thanks, --Funandtrvl (talk) 21:11, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm considering an AfD for

) 23:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't a policy against strength and conditioning coaches having pages, but you can arguably say that it is the highest form of strength coaching for American football, meeting

WP:NSPORT. This one particular S&C coach has gained national attention, so I don't see why it should be deleted as opposed to the rest of the blue-linked ones that have no media attention whatsoever. Eagles 24/7 (C)

23:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, if he didn't meet

WP:BLP1E. His page was a red link until his 1E. If that's the consensus here, I'll leave it be. I just wanted some input. --Muboshgu (talk

) 00:25, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There really isn't any consensus here, though input from other editors could help determine it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:38, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

And that's why I posed here in the first place, to form a consensus if their wasn't one. If there are no objections, my plan is a smashing success :) --Muboshgu (talk) 00:56, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi there I was wondering if anyone from this project can tell be if databasefootball.com is reliable source? I've been assuming it is but I thought I'd come here and ask to make sure. A simple yes or no answer is fine. Cheers, Jenks24 (talk) 21:49, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Yep. As is NFL.com and pro-football-reference.com. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:35, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Jenks24 (talk) 22:55, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

So we don't have a problem last year when updates and edits to the playoff bracket on 2009 NFL season#Playoffs were not made in a timely matter in relation to the one on 2009–10 NFL playoffs, I have created Template:2010–11 NFL playoffs, which I modeled after Template:2010 NBA Playoffs. Please feel free to make any adjustments to the new template as warranted. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:13, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I was wondering if someone would look at the

20:16, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Nav boxes and succession boxes for coaches

Happy new year, everyone. I'm an active editor at WikiProject College football and I wanted to let you know about some recent changes the college football project has made regarding nav boxes and succession boxes for college football coaches. Succession boxes have long been a bane for many editors. They are clumsy, static, present a challenge for consistent formatting, and can take up a lot of room in the footer of articles. They also seem to present a lot of redundancy in the presence of nav boxes. For some time, I argued in favor of keeping the succession boxes in addition to the nav boxes because 1) they offered more detail, e.g. full names and dates of tenure, than the nav boxes, and 2) because well-developed and mature areas of Wikipedia such as baseball and politics use both elements in tandem. However, in recent weeks, User:Dirtlawyer1 has spearheaded an effort to upgrade the nav boxes for college football coaches by team, such that now they display full names and dates and tenure. These improvements, which have been rolled out to the all nav boxes for all the program in NCAA Division I FBS and some lower division programs (see: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Coach Navboxes), have effectively obviated the need for attendant succession boxes. As such, we've purged those succession boxes for all articles for NCAA Division I FBS coaches and are working on cleaning out any that might reside in the lower divisions. These efforts have gone a long way toward reducing clutter and combating linkcrisis. For a good example, check out Lou Holtz now and compare to before these changes: [8].

So, what are everyone's thoughts about rolling out this new policy to NFL coaches? WikiProject College football would love to see that happen given the overlap between the NFL and college football (e.g. Holtz) and the consistency that adoption would garner. WikiProject College Basketball has already signed on and is working on rolling out the nav boxes upgrades. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm in complete support of deleting every single succession box on Wikipedia, TBH, especially if the function of the succession box can be suitably performed by a navbox instead. However, I'm not a fan of including full names, as this can greatly increase the amount of space a navbox takes up if it's not collapsed. The surname only should be enough, unless there are two or more people with the same surname in the navbox, in which case a first initial should be added. First names only need to be included if two or more people have the same surname and first initial. –

Jay

21:27, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Regarding full names versus last names, I like the full names. User:Dirtlawyer1 has been going around and making college football coach navboxes as "state = collapsed", so the problem you point out of navboxes being too large when expanded is a moot point. It also provides a more comprehensive overview of all the coaching history, which is reason why names and tenures were agreed upon to begin with (to eliminate the need for succession boxes). The succession boxes were in place because of full name and tenure, now they're obsolete because of the new navbox consensus. Jrcla2 (talk) 01:47, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

I support the deletion of succession boxes (especially when they lead to dead-end red-links on both sides, yuck), and I like having full names in the navboxes. I'm not sure that this is a good example since it is not a navbox for head coaches who automatically meet

WP:N, but I recently created Template:MrIrrelevant, which includes several players who will never be notable. If "Kirk" was listed instead of "Kelvin Kirk," the reader would have no idea which Kirk it was. Eagles 24/7 (C)

22:59, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

My two cents' worth: I hate succession boxes. They're hideous to look at, and they take up too much space at the bottom of the page, but until the navboxes are upgraded, they still serve a purpose of providing the reader with the ability to place the subject coach in the line of succession as well as in time. The enhanced navboxes are clearly superior, though, as the reader can place the subject coach in the succession, in time, and by name, and can also see the whole succession in one place.

BTW, it's relatively rare that any of the enhanced CFB coach navboxes are over four lines, but we are collapsing them all in accordance with PeeJay and Jrcla's comments above. Personally, I think all navboxes over two lines should be collapsed, but we are collapsing all of the CFB navboxes, regardless of line content, for the sake of uniformity. We've got 122 FBS examples now, so take a gander. 23:11, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

New two-period game box score template

• Template:AFB Game Box Start 2 periods

This template was created for use in early American football game articles up until the mid-1900's, where scores were recorded and time kept according to two periods instead of four. An example using information from a college game is below. Many thanks to cmadler (talk) for his quick work. Fjbfour (talk) 21:26, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Nebraska at Michigan

1 2 Total Nebraska 0 0 0 • Michigan 0 31 31 Date: October 21, 1905 Location: Regents Field • Ann Arbor, Michigan

Generally, the NFL regular season Division standings templates are nice. However, there are certain annotations in the various regular season Division standings templates designating certain top teams as x, y, or z followed by a small integer number in parentheses, which are not explained in the templates or any other place in Wikipedia I can find. I suggest the meanings of these annotations be explained in the templates or next to the templates wherever they are presented. You football experts may know their meaning, but not everyone reading Wikipedia is a football expert able to figure them out. After investigating various football pages, I've come to the following conclusions about the meanings of these designations:

z = division title with first-round bye in the playoffs
y = division title but to play in the first-round playoffs
x = wild card berth to play in the first-round playoffs
(integer) = (playoff seed ranking within NFC or AFC)

To my knowledge, there are 8 such templates for every football season, 4 for AFC and 4 for NFC (1 for each division). H Padleckas (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

New to the NFL WikiProject but the

article was flagged as needing updating. I have done some updating work and it seems to be up to date and I intend to keep it up to date with the head coach hirings for the rest of the offseason and playoff outcomes.

I'm not sure what I should do to get it removed from the "Articles with cleanup tags" section. Should I submit it for comment? Peer review?

Any guidance for a new editor to the project group would be greatly appreciated. TommyALong (talk) 05:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

You guys might want to keep a very close eye on

) 04:03, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Invitation to join the

College Football Hall of Fame Cleanup Drive

Hello! The

and ask for assistance from not only sports enthusiasts, but also anyone interested in academics, biographies, and history (to simply name a few). Working together, we can make Wikipedia even better! (

pls

}})

DRIVE COMPLETED Thank you, the cleanup drive is completed.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC) --Paul McDonald (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

How can you put all of the Baltimore Ravens history, from when they were the Cleveland Browns, under the current team of the same name? Its no different than the Oakland/Los Angles/Oakland Raiders or the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts, or the Los Angles/St. Louis Rams, or the Houston Oilers/Tennessee Titans. Each move did not create a brand new team, with no prior history for these other teams, why should it do so with the team now known as the Raven?

The main objection that I have to this, is when you talk about Conference/League championships. The current Cleveland Browns haven't even been to one, and yet in the list of AFC championships, it shows that they have been to 3 and lost all 3, while Baltimore has been to only 2, in which they've won 1 and lost 1. In FACT, the team now known as the Baltimore Ravens has been to the AFC Championship game 5 times, winning 1 and losing 4, while the current Cleveland Browns, like the Houston Texans, have never been to the championship game.

Reducing the Ravens to having just a 14 year history and in that time having been to 2 championships gives them a 50% win ratio, and more appearances than most other teams during that 14 year stretch, when in fact, they have been in the AFC since the 1st AFC Championship game, and having lost 4 of 5 games, really only have a 20% win record. At the same time, the current Browns have never been, and that too should show.

Neil —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.199.133.240 (talk) 15:05, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

The NFL treats this differently than other teams. The Browns franchise is considered to be the two nonconsecutive tenures in Cleveland while the Ravens franchise is just that. I don't necessarily agree with that, but that's what it is. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

This issue has been debated extensively on Talk:Cleveland Browns#Article should be split into Cleveland Browns (1946-1995) and Cleveland Browns. The bottom line is that the consensus is to follow what the official NFL record books and the result of the legal settlement say. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:51, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Many of the

) 17:56, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

Umm, I'm not a member of this project, but I did clear out a majority of the 100 or so unrefed BLPs it had about a month ago. Have you looked at

SNGs (such as the sports notabilty guideline) to be of equal importance to the GNG and will !vote to keep the article whether it meets the GNG or not. I apologise if this discouraged you at all, but it really is great that you are concerned about unreferenced BLPs and your enthusiasm is to be applauded. Happy editing, Jenks24 (talk

) 01:15, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Þ:Only NFL players that are of interest are QB anyway according Pete Prisco of CBS. DoctorHver (talk) 20:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

The current infobox employed on many NFL players, coaches, and other personnel is

23:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Eagles this has already discussed this several months ago. The fact remains that most of the players do not need this permanent "As Player" in the infobox. As was discussed last time, all "As Player" and "As Coach" can be done manually if needed.Beast from da East (talk) 00:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"[T]his has already [been] discussed" = This is exactly why I am bringing this up here. I agree with you that there is a minority of players that need the "As player:" text in their infoboxes, but that is not what I am saying above. We need to get the infobox code so that when |pastcoaching= or |pastexecutive= are used, the "As player:" text will automatically be added back. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Eagles. The Matt Millen infobox looks odd like that.--Yankees10 01:26, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

File:AFCN-UNIFORM-CLE-V3.png

I've created a brand new NFL uniform template that, in my opinion, allows for a better overall view of the uniform from the front and side. Also, this new template allows us to remove the uniform combination pictures as well. I think having the entire uniform kit displayed in this fashion will make future adjustments a lot easier. Please let me know if anyone objects to this change. Thank you. Johnny "Seoul" Factor (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Are the sides of the uniform really that important? Sure, it's "nice" to see what the sides look like, but is it encyclopaedic? –

Jay

17:27, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

It might be worth someone having previous season articles on their watchlist. on the 1999 NFL season season article, someone made I change 1 week ago that I only just spotted today. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 11:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Simple question: how specific do we describe a player's position in the

) 12:27, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Let's narrow the facts. To put this in context, I had written (with RS sourcing) that a football player is a left tackle. Which is the only position he has played for his four years of college. My colleague thought that inappropriate. And felt it necessary to revise that language to the less precise designation "offensive tackle".

We face the same issue across the board in sports. "Guard" or "Point Guard" in basketball? "Outfielder" or "Center Fielder" in baseball. In general, the wikipedia approach is to follow the RS approach. The RSs treat different players differently. An outfielder who plays more than one outfield position is termed an outfielder by the RS press, and by wp in turn. A center fielder who only plays center field is called a center fielder. Same in basketball, with guards.

What we don't do is take a fellow who is a college player, and who in the past four years has only, ever, played left tackle, and roll that up to the less precise terms of "tackle" or "offensive line". Why would we? We give the more precise information, where that is the only position the fellow has played. It takes up less room. Is more precise. And most importantly, it mirrors the RSs, something wp is sort of religious about. --Epeefleche (talk) 13:04, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Left guards and tackles protect the right-handed quarterback's blind side and are thus more valuable than their counterparts on the right side. I think left offensive tackle would be good in many instances (because of the encyclopedic content wrapped up on the word left in this context).--

WP:FOUR

) 00:58, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

But why make it that specific in the

first sentence? Can't this be explained in the article? --bender235 (talk

) 18:06, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Epeefleche and TonyTheTiger here. Some football and baseball players are specialists, and stick to a single position during most or all of their careers. Others are generalists who switch around to several related positions as the coach or manager perceives the team's needs. We should use the description - narrow or broad - that is used in the reliable sources. Cullen328 (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, agreed to the fact when a player sticks to a single position his entire career, it should be mentioned. But in most cases, they don't. So for example in Gabe Carimi's case, who will likely be a right tackle in the NFL, will we write "Carimi is a left and right tackle", or just "Carimi is a tackle"? --bender235 (talk) 14:28, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I would add, in response to Bender -- why would we want to obscure that fact in the first sentence, and deny readers of the first sentence of that information? Where is the benefit? Not in number of letters used. If fuzziness is the goal, by that logic why not in the first sentence just say they are a football player? Or an athlete? Or a large person? And explain further in the article? The answer it that it has to do with what is relevant and precise, and sprinkling those two factors with a measure of common sense. IMHO, of course. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:05, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated

09:01, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Ice Bowl

Is the 1967 NFL Championship Game part of the NFL project? I was told the Green Bay Packer project was inactive. 66.234.33.8 (talk) 10:43, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Any and every article related to the National Football League falls under the purview of this project, so the article you mentioned definitely qualifies. That said, I'm not sure why it matters to you if this particular article is part of any particular project. If you think this article can be improved, please feel free to do so. If you need assistance regarding this article, you can post your specific question or request here. As far as the GBP project, it's only inactive because no users are actively working on it. If you have an interest in this franchise, you can perhaps jump-start this project.— DeeJayK (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Hi, what is the best practice for dealing with win loss records w respect to exhibition games/preseason games? I have the resources at my disposal to do every game he ever coached. Things were different back then in that he tried to win all his preseason games (I have no idea if the coaches on the other sideline felt the same way). 66.234.33.8 (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

There is a discussion currently underway in regards to content at

03:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

NFL Year

The NFL Year template was just placed up for deletion at TfD. I figure that some members of this Wikiproject will have an opinion on whether or not this template should be kept or deleted.--Giants27(T|C) 01:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Please see this in regards to information about Mendenhall's tweets about bin Laden. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:49, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

I have nominated

) 22:34, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Hello ! I'm a french contributor ! I don't know but I have a problem with the infobox. Excuse for my english ! Supporterhéninois (talk) 13:16, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Can you elaborate? On first glance, I don't see any glaring issues with the infobox on the Ben Tate article. I don't really see the value of having two very similar photographs which appear to have been taken seconds apart included in the same short article, but that's a minor concern. If you have a specific concern with this article, then please feel free to try fixing it. If you need assistance then the article's talk page is probably the best place to start the discussion. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:14, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Jack Gotta coached Birmingham in 1974 and Marvin Bass in 1975 not Jack Pardee. Bill Putnam owned the team in 1974 and Pee Wee Burgess in 1975. Larry Matson (I was the radio play-by-play man both seasons). Matson15 (talk) 18:20, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

I've renamed and upgraded Template:Tampa Bay Buccaneers coach navbox to conform to standards that came out of a collaboration between Wikipedia:WikiProject College football and Wikipedia:WikiProject College Basketball a few months ago. I idea is to enhance the navboxes and obviate the need for cumbersome succession boxes, thereby reducing the clutter in the footers of coaching biography articles. This form has been rolled out to every college basketball and college baseball coach navbox and the majority of college football coach navboxes; there are still a few navboxes for NAIA and defunct programs that need to be upgraded. I first brought up the idea of rolling this form out to the NFL here: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 9#Nav boxes and succession boxes for coaches, toward which there was positive feedback. If anyone has any issues or comments now, please let me know. And if anyone would like to help out upgrading the other NFL coach navboxes, or promoting this form to the NBA or MLB projects, don't be bashful! Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Jweiss11, I support both propositions: (1) first, the enhancement of the coach navboxes for NFL teams on the pattern now used for all Division I college football, basketball and baseball coach navboxes; and (2) the subsequent deletion of all NFL coaching succession boxes on the footers of the coaches' articles. Good work----this is long overdue. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:08, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

I've finished upgrading all of the NFL coach nav boxes and have deleted all relevant succession boxes. Next up I aim to tackle the NFL executive (GM/president/owner) nav boxes and treat them in like kind. If anyone has some history liaising with the NBA or MLB projects, don't by shy. I'd love to get them on board with this formatting. Thanks. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Currenly the Colts, Jets, Chargers, Bears and Vikings have their orginal schedule incoprated into the articles. I think it would nice if we got the other 23 teams schedules as well. Smith03 (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi, I recently just made the category "Category:Articles using Infobox NFL retired" to help with moving over the old infoboxes to the newer ones. I hope this helps out somehow! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.96.102.74 (talk) 18:13, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I have moved the category to the correct area of the infobox documentation. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:33, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:American football offensive guards, which is under the purview of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you.--Giants27(T|C) 01:19, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I noticed that NFL Teams don't seem to have roster navbox templates. All 8 CFL teams have them (Template:Saskatchewan Roughriders roster navbox) and I was curious was this a project decision not to have ones on NFL players' pages? If not I will put together a 49ers one and as time progresses I might get around to it for the other 30 teams or perhaps others will take up the cause. My rationale for them is that it makes it easier to check out the pages for each player on the team quickly, instead of having to go back to the roster template. With the link I found on the MLB templates (and is at the bottom of the Riders' navbox), it is very easy to make sure that only players on the current roster have the template. I realize this causes a little extra work for those who update the roster with the transactions. With the CFL ones, it seems like I am the only one updating them, but for that matter it seems like I am the only one who removes/adds the team and requisite info from the Infobox on the players anyway. Any way, does this project have a policy against these navboxes? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:30, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Some Bengals fan vandalized the 2011 nfl draft article and I don't know to fix it. Someone, please fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Snitor (talk • contribs) 20:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

In 1971, Nixon visited Redskins Park, and I was able to get an image of this from the Nixon Library, here. I could use some help identifying the other people in the image, other than Nixon and Allen. Results will be sent to the image people at the Nixon Library as well as leading to a more complete image description. Many thanks.--Wehwalt (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

That looks like Marv Levy on the right wearing the baseball cap. He was an assistant coach with the Redskins in 1971 and 1972. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:09, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Billy Kilmer in the front wearing the #8 jersey. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:17, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks like Larry Brown in the hooded sweatshirt between Allen and Levy. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:19, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Could be Sonny Jurgensen on the lower right, looking downward and wearing the wool hat. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:23, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Anyone else? The Nixon Library was quite pleased. Identifying who is in the picture with Nixon, any picture, can be hard.--Wehwalt (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't know how prevelant this is, but at

) 20:55, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Because it is

crystal balling to keep these articles in the hope that they may one day meet one of our notability guidelines (either GNG or NSPORTS). If they do end up playing an NFL match, then they can easily be recreated. Jenks24 (talk

) 21:00, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

By the way, if the three AfDs for WP:CHICAGO are concerning, I would advise you not to look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/American football :) Jenks24 (talk) 21:04, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I have created {{

) 22:37, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

I just noticed that above

WP:FOUR

) 22:40, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

In the thread above I noted the creation of navbox footers. I had originally introduced the project to the footer idea a long time ago with

) 12:15, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

All the NFL Roster template list does is break the format of the NFL roster templates. It should aslo be removed from NFL roster templates because its need is nullified by the more rosters link. It is completely unneeded for NFL roster templates. RevanFan (talk) 13:09, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

You are saying it is nullified by a terrible form of wikification. I don't think we should be endorsing list articles formed by stacking 32 navboxes. I think it is the link that should be removed.--

WP:FOUR

) 13:40, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Personally, I don't have a problem with the roster list page. I find it useful. Anyway, I have a solution that would fix the broken roster templates. Remove Template:NFL Roster template list from Template:NFL roster, and instead place it on the roster template's page as a non-included template. Whenever you are looking at the roster template, the NFL roster template list will be on the page, but not in the roster template, thus the roster template format will not be broken. RevanFan (talk) 15:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Oh I see. I have opened it and it is fine in Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera, but it is broken in MSIE. Let's check at the help desk and see if there is a fix.--

WP:FOUR

) 16:34, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I just posted at

WP:FOUR

) 16:47, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Agree with RevanFan and support his suggested solution. Remove the footers and change the "→ More rosters" link on

List of current NFL team rosters to Template:NFL roster navbox. Same goes for the staff templates: Change the "→ More staffs" link from List of current National Football League staffs to Template:NFL staff navbox. Armchair QB (talk

) 17:00, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Where is

WP:FOUR

) 17:30, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, my bad. I should have been more detailed. I supported his solution to remove the footers from the templates, due to the existing "more rosters" link. Since you don't like the "more rosters" link the way it is, it was my suggestion to change it how I descriped it. If that's not the way how it's done and against any wikipedia guidelines then pardon me. Armchair QB (talk) 19:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It looks like you figured out how to fix 3 of the 4 problematic templates. Thanks.--

WP:FOUR

) 04:28, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

They all seem fixed now. Let me know if anyone still has a problem.--

) 15:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I stumbled across a bad (autogenerated?) link to NFL player profile page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Brown_%28American_football%29 incorrectly links "Stats at NFL.com" to http://www.nfl.com/player/markbrown/2499857/profile when it should actually link to http://www.nfl.com/player/ronbrown/2510437/profile. I tried to edit the page but I believe that link is autogenerated. DuckMaestro (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I have added a color option to the recently created footers Template:NFL Roster navbox template list and Template:NFL staff footer. Now it is possible to use the team colors on these two templates. For example I have changed the colors on both Template:Atlanta Falcons roster navbox and Template:Atlanta Falcons staff. I went with the AltPrimary colors since they are already used in the groupstyle of the NFL roster navbox templates and also the belowstyle of the draft navbox templates. A similar change can be made for Template:NFL roster, but since the footer is integrated into the template it seems a bit more tricky. So before making further changes I think there should be a discussion about it. So please voice your opinion. Thanks. Armchair QB (talk) 00:22, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

If we're keeping the footers, I'm all for a color scheme change on a team-by-team basis. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:26, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

I've now done the same for Template:NFL roster and the changes are live. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:39, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

What about

WP:FOUR

) 05:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The categories on almost of the 2011 season articles are screwed up. Tampa Bay is okay and I fixed Arizona. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

 Done. Zzyzx11 (talk) 16:41, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! Jweiss11 (talk) 18:36, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello. This WikiProject may be interested in an ongoing discussion at Talk:Brandon Marshall#Infobox images. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:08, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at

) 09:19, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

I am unable to get the NFL infobox link to work for Winston Venable.--

) 10:03, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Looks like

Template:Infobox NFL player needs some tweaking. Jweiss11 (talk

) 16:42, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

|nflnew=winstonvenable/2530549 should do the trick. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:49, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, looks like it's simpler than I thought. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:12, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks.--

WP:FOUR

) 02:33, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

The article has him listed as the current starter of the Eagles and even names an "era" after his name. He is however the backup quarterback to Michael Vick. I hope this is the right place to get this fixed. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.253.47 (talk) 04:11, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I've already reverted it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:14, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

I have just created

) 06:56, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

After a recent request, I added WikiProject National Football League to the list of projects to compile monthly pageview stats for. The data is the same used by http://stats.grok.se/en/ but the program is different, and includes the aggregate views from all redirects to each page. The stats are at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Popular pages.

The page will be updated monthly with new data. The edits aren't marked as bot edits, so they will show up in watchlists. You can view more results, request a new project be added to the list, or request a configuration change for this project using the toolserver tool. If you have any comments or suggestions, please let me know. Thanks! Mr.Z-man 22:54, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

I made one change; Heidi Game was promoted.--Wehwalt (talk) 01:55, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

) 02:46, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

NFLPA - Bringing article up to GA standards

Hey guys, I'm new to

) 21:42, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't think the project is particularly active, other than The Writer 2.0 and myself improving coverage of the Jets and a few others doing good work elsewhere. I will look over your edits if you want, drop me a line on my talk. Can you expand on the COI situation without outing yourself?--Wehwalt (talk) 21:54, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Rather sad this project isn't more active. I do think eventually I'll have to expand my repertoire beyond the Jets—even if it means I have to write about, of all people, Tom Brady. Anyway, I'd be more than willing to help as well if you wish. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 23:01, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the update, and I appreciate the offer to help. I should have the draft completed by the end of the day, and I will be sure to post it here, as well as to your user page. With regard to the COI situation, I work for a company called

NFLPA. Although I do have a COI, my goal is to advance Wikipedia as a reliable, neutral-toned, and free encyclopedia. I am mindful of Wikipedia's guidelines, but I do realize that there is naturally a challenge when editing articles with a COI. I feel that the best way to alleviate any bias is to seek feedback from the community before implementing edits. I want to make sure that my edits are a product of community consensus, and I by being open about my situation, I hope that my edits are appreciated. If you have any other questions about my COI, I would be happy to answer them. Thanks, and I look forward to working with you guys. --TravisBernard (talk

) 19:05, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

That's definitely a COI. However, I'm an uninvolved admin with knowledge in this subject area (that is, I'm an informed fan who has read a fair number of books about the NFL and its history) and I can certainly look over your shoulder and make any necessary calls. To be blunt, if you are being upfront about things, unlike those who jump in like a bull in a china shop, that's a good sign.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:15, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Also, rather than posting to my user page (I think you mean my user TALK page, it is more usual for other users to talk there, it is where you get by clicking the "Talk" link in my signature), simply post a link. That is much preferred, given the volume that some user talk pages see.--Wehwalt (talk) 19:23, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I finished my first draft of the article, which can be found

here. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated. Thanks again for the help, and I look forward to hearing from you. --TravisBernard (talk

) 21:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Discussion for this has moved to the

NFLPA talk page. Thanks to everyone for the help.--TravisBernard (talk

) 19:10, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers infobox navbox color

I propose that all the infoboxes navboxes for the Carolina Panthers should use Panther Blue as seen here:

Even though Black is listed as the "primary" color and Panther Blue as "secondary", the black boxes and white lettering give the impression that the Panthers' color scheme is monochromatic, when it definitely not the case. There is also precedent in the Cincinnati Bengals, which use orange in all their infoboxes navboxes, even though like the Panthers, their jerseys are primarily black. Richiekim (talk) 14:53, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

These are navboxes, not infoboxes, we're talking about here. :) Jweiss11 (talk) 16:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this article notable, needing to be salvaged, or should I put it up for AfD? – Muboshgu (talk) 02:49, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

• Nominate for deletion. Not exactly promotional, but doesn't satisfy notability regardless. Jrcla2 (talk) 22:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Agreed, it could be handled with two paragraphs of the Super Bowl article.--Wehwalt (talk) 22:37, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

I think the peach colors should be removed from all of these navboxes. Peach has nothing to do with the NFL, and according to

) 18:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and this would also apply to Template:NFL (and any others of this ilk that I may have missed). Jrcla2 (talk) 18:48, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Given the lack of response and inability to reasonably justify peach as the color, I am going to be bold and set them all to default blue. It will align with NBA and WNBA draft templates, too, providing more consistency across the North American professional sports projects. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:06, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

You've got my blessing. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I myself has always been neutral on the peach color. At one time, all four navboxes, {{

MLB}} is the only one currently left with the peach color. Zzyzx11 (talk

) 02:30, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Not anymore, I just removed peach from that one too. Jrcla2 (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

I've nominated those two templates for discussion. Please see here for the discussion. Thanks. Jrcla2 (talk) 02:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Hi all – The next phase in head coaching navbox standardization has come to fruition. Please visit

) 01:22, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Does being an "alternate" in the Pro Bowl count as being selected for the Pro Bowl?

Just came across this issue while looking at

Chad Ochocinco. It says he is a 6-time pro-bowler, but in the 2009 season (2010 Pro Bowl} he was merely an alternate. I looked at several other players who were alternates in the 2010 Pro Bowl and they all said they were pro-bowlers that year. I then looked at several players who were listed as alternates for the 2011 Pro Bowl, and none of them were listed as a Pro-Bowler for that year. I assumed that alternates would not be considered Pro-Bowlers unless they actually ended up playing (due to injury/superbowl trip for a player listed ahead of them), no? I didn't check to see if all the 2009 players I looked at actually played and the 2011 players I looked at didn't play, but I looked at 3 or 4 random players each and it would have been a hell of a coincidence that it turned out that way by the luck of the draw, so I'm thinking there is an inconsistency for how this is treated between seasons. VegaDark (talk

) 05:58, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

• Actually, I see now that I was getting confused with the year (the 2009 link on players' pages would go to the 2010 Pro Bowl, etc) so the 2011 Pro Bowl players are all listed as having gone to the Pro Bowl that year on their page after all. That doesn't sort the problem of if we should actually consider them pro-bowlers as merely alternates, however. The way I've always though it worked was that you are initially labeled an alternate, and if someone ahead of you can't make the Pro Bowl for whatever reason, then you are considered "in". If the players in front of you show up at the pro bowl and play and you end up not doing anything, then you are not considered a pro-bowler. Someone correct my if I am mistaken. VegaDark (talk) 06:08, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Mariposa sails from LA to Honolulu on Dec 25, 1932 with several Green Bay Packer football players

Hello,

My grandfather, Roger Grove, was a Green Bay Packer in 1932. The SS Mariposa sailed from LA to Honolulu on Dec 25, 1932. It was common practice in those days to play exhibition games in addition to their regular schedule. I have a partial passenger list obtained from ancestry.com that lists several Packers: Henry "Hank" Bruder, Lavern "Lavvie" Dilweg, Wuert Englemann, Milton "Milt" Gantenbein, Roger Grove, Arnold "Arnie" Herber, William "Clarke" Hinkle, Earl "Curly" Lambeau, John "Johnny Blood" McNally, August "Mike" Michalske.

D'Nel Grove Stucki — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.164.103.47 (talk) 20:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Brooks Reed

Hi! This user sent me an email about getting himself blocked for copyright violations. He seems like a perfectly nice guy, the father of Brooks Reed, who was simply trying to update some information about his son. I've advised him that this is probably not the best idea, due to conflict of interest issues, not to mention the copyright issues he was running into. I'm sure he'd appreciate it if some folks here at Wikiproject National Football League could take a look at the Brooks Reed article and see if it can be improved based on the information he was trying to add.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:01, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

David Carr

Please see Talk:David Carr#POV pushing by User:Edday1051. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:35, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Is this noted?

Is this noted some where? If not, can it be?

Head90 | ^{We Believe!}

03:57, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox for NFL athletes who become assistant coaches

What kind of infoboxes should former NFL athletes have if they are assistant coaches in college or in the NFL? I see

WP:FOUR

) 00:31, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

{{

Infobox NFL player}} can be used for anyone who has any affiliation with the NFL, whether it be as a player, coach, executive, or administrator. Eagles 24/7 (C)

01:35, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So is one infobox preferable to the other for NFL athletes turned Assistant coaches.--

WP:FOUR

) 03:17, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, probably {{

Infobox NFL player}}. Eagles 24/7 (C)

03:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

I have swapped the

WP:FOUR

) 00:36, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Use |nflnew=tyronewheatley/2503605 for Wheatley and |nflnew=stevemorrison/2502209 for Morrison. NFL.com updated its player page link URLs and this is the only way (for now) we can work around it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

McAdoos

How is NFL athlete and Tar Heel

WP:FOUR

) 13:23, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Not at all as far as I can tell. In a web search, the only mentions of

James McAdoo mentions Bob. (forgot to sign) Niceguyedc ^{Go Huskies!}

01:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

I am shocked that with the name and college, he is not related to either of the other two.--

WP:FOUR

) 14:24, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

NFLPA Presidents

Hey, I'm still doing some work on the

NFLPA article, and I noticed that two individuals are missing from the Leadership section (post-merger), Jeff Van Note and Tom Condon. The NFL website states that they were Presidents, but I can't find a reliable sources for this. Does anyone have a good reference I can use for this? Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk

) 00:36, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

JaMarcus Russell

Can someone with patience please attempt to explain to the IP at Talk:JaMarcus Russell#Response to Claim of Vandalism: Requesting Review by Moderator why individual seasons are in fact notable and should not be trimmed down to a mere sentence? Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:47, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Massive page move of 1920 and 1921 NFL season articles

I have noticed that someone recently did a massive page move of all articles and templates related to the

WP:COMMONNAME (i.e. use the most common name that is used retroactively now in 2011 regardless of what used back in 1920-21). Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk

) 04:16, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Unreferenced biographies of living people

(Cross-posted at WikiProject NFL) Hi. I recently noticed that American football players are over-represented in backlogs relating to unreferenced biographies of living people (BLP). In particular, the database reports show an almost absurd situation. The percentage of football players in Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people (oldest) is well over 90% and probably over 95%. In Wikipedia:Database reports/Completely unreferenced biographies of living people (newest), it's probably closer to 75% but that's still mind boggling. I'm not sure I understand how this came about but the project should make this a priority. Unreferenced BLPs are against policy and susceptible of being deleted through the Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people process. Cheers, Pichpich (talk) 00:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't the infobox link to NFL.com count as a reference? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:32, 30 November 2011 (UTC)

Waived players always listed as free agents

Not that I have the desire to enforce this, but every time a player is rumored to have been cut, his article is immediately edited to indicate he is a free agent. This is only the case in the following instances:

1. The player is a vested veteran (four years) and is waived before the trade deadline.
2. The player is a vested veteran and is waived after the trade deadline and clears waivers (24 hours after 4PM ET the day he was waived).
3. The player is not a vested veteran and clears waivers.

Claiming players are "free agents" when they are most certainly not is a flagrant factual inaccuracy. Editors would be better off leaving the articles alone until a player is claimed, clears waivers, or the player is a vested veteran waived before the trade deadline. Bhirsch (talk) 04:38, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Nick Novak

Please comment at Talk:Nick Novak#Novak Urination Incident to discuss whether Novak's article should include his recent sideline faux pas or not. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:15, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Lions Legends

I removed the list of "Lions Legends" from the Detroit Lions articles, because I was looking for a full list online and I could not find any mention of it outside of one reference, http://www.sportsnewsconnection.com/detroit_lions.php and that only gives a brief description, not a full list of members or anything really about it that we didn't have on Wikipedia. The Detroit Lions website has no mention of this program, so I went ahead and removed the content. Go ahead and re-add it if you can reference it, but without a reference, we can't update or manage the list or even prove its existence. What the article said is below. — Moe ε 12:45, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

The Lions have a special program called "Lions Legends" that honors noteworthy former players. The current list of legends includes not only the hall of famers listed above, but also the following players, who according to the Lions, "...Created special moments and added to the lore of football in the Motor City.":

Charley Ane, C/T Al Baker, DE Jerry Ball, DT Terry Barr, WR/DB Les Bingaman, DT Bennie Blades, S Cloyce Box, RB/TE/QB Lomas Brown, T Dexter Bussey, RB Gail Cogdill, E James David, DB Keith Dorney, T/G

Doug English, DT Jim Gibbons , TE Kevin Glover, C/G Mel Gray, WR/KR Robert Hoernschemeyer, RB James Hunter, DB Alex Karras, DT Greg Landry, QB Dick LeBeau, DB Mike Lucci, LB Darris McCord, DE

Scott Mitchell, QB Herman Moore, WR Eddie Murray, K Brett Perriman, WR Rodney Peete, QB Tobin Rote, QB Barry Sanders, RB Harley Sewell, G Billy Sims, RB Chris Spielman, LB Wayne Walker, LB

1920 Akron Pros

Hello WP:NFL, currently an IP and I have been working the 1920 Akron Pros season article and believe it is somewhat close to GA. Since we have been (pretty much) the only two people editing it, is there anyone out there who would be interested in helping this article? Thanks in advance!
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:20, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Help me identify unknown Patriots player

At the Denver Broncos / New England Patriots game in Denver on 2011-12-18, I shot a picture of a guy in a Patriots uniform, on the field with the players, with player number 92. I am not seeing this number on the official Patriots roster and am wondering if anybody knows who he is. I have placed the picture on my Flickr account here. Please let me know if you can identify this guy. Thanks.

(talk)

16:25, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

It would appear to be

TC

16:29, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much.

(talk)

02:16, 23 December 2011 (UTC).

NFLPA - Good Article?

Hi, myself and a few other editors have been working on the

NFLPA article over the last month or so. It seems that editing on the page has calmed down, and I wanted to see if it qualified as a GA article. I've never submitted an article for GA review, so I'm not sure what's involved in the process. Could someone point me in the right direction? Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk

) 17:32, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Check out

Jay

17:41, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I would say from a quick glance at this article and having reviewed some articles at GAN that this could pass, as long as those citation needed tags are dealt with. Nominate it and see what happens. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

Great, thanks for the help. If you need assistance with any articles, feel free to reach out to me. I'd be happy to help. I work mostly with film articles, but I'm trying to get more involved with this WikiProject. --TravisBernard (talk) 18:44, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

starting quarterback navboxs

Some editors are insisting that any quarterback who starts a single game should be listed for the team on the starting quarterback navbox. The specific example in question is for

Brett Farve? It seems trivial and giving undue weight to a single start, whereas I see the template as a place to gather all of the regular starters a team has had. If a single game is not enough, I suggest we set some sort of benchmark: 6 games perhaps?--TM

20:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Definitely no benchmark. If you start a game you should be in the template. 1 game, 150 games doesn't matter.--Yankees10 20:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Care to explain your opinion a bit? Why should a player who started one game in four year be listed among players who started dozens? How does it help navigation? It seems trivial.--TM 20:20, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Theres nothing else to really explain...I just personally don't think it matters if how many games a guy starts.--Yankees10 20:23, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

The discussion is about how it helps navigation, not what you "personally" feel. If you can't explain how it improves Wikipedia, it's not very important what your feelings are about it. Sounds like

WP:ILIKEIT.--TM

20:25, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Fine, it helps Wikipedia because it makes it easy to navigate through every quarterback that has started a game for the franchise. Is that a good enough response for you?--Yankees10 20:27, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Right now the cutoff for inclusion is one started game. That's as objective and comprehensive as it could possibly be. TM, it sounds like you'd like the cutoff to be higher than one. How high exactly? Jweiss11 (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I'd suggest 6 or 8 games, but I'd be open to other ideas.--TM 21:03, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

What would you do about the Panthers in 2007 then? Vinny Testaverde started 6 games, David Carr started 4, Matt Moore started 3, and Jake Delhomme started 3. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:15, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

This is exactly why I have always hated these starting position templates and succession boxes. In order to be accurate, you must include every player who ever started at the position. Otherwise the information in the navbox is misleading and unreliable. To properly prepare these navboxes requires a great deal of homework that most editors aren't willing to do, the years given for each starter inevitably overlap and can be confusing to readers, and it is conceivable that there could be two, three, four or more starters at quarterback for a given team in a given season, with the same players making non-consecutive starts at different times during the same season. For other positions, say for instance running backs, the succession becomes hopelessly confused with multiple running backs in different offensive schemes, as well as the presence of tailbacks and fullbacks in some schemes. If I had my preference, I would suggest we delete the damn QB navboxes as inherently unworkable. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:49, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. If you really want to do this properly, I suggest you create a "list of starting quarterbacks" article that you can include in a "see also" section in the bio of all of the relevant players. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:28, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

We have those already (i.e. List of Philadelphia Eagles starting quarterbacks). Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:39, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Excellent. Why do we need the hopelessly confused navbox that contributes to bottom-of-the-page cruft? Include a "see also" link on every quarterback's page. Problem solved. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think a season by season approach is essential. If I am curious who started for the 2003 Bengals, I can go there. If I am curious who was the regular starter after Dan Marino, I can use these navboxes. However, including Tyler Thigpen (1 career start with Miami) and Trent Green (5 starts in Miami) only adds to link clutter and does not ease navigation, as these templates are supposed to do.--TM 23:43, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

TM, if you're going to call the navbox "Philadelphia Eagles starting quarterbacks," then you need to include the starting quarterbacks. Otherwise, it's incomplete, inaccurate and misleading. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Then perhaps we should rename it to make it meaningful. As it stands, it is cruft. Either rename it to make it meaningful with a standard (Philadelphia Eagles with at least 6 starts) or delete it. The information is elsewhere.--TM 00:02, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

"6 starts or delete it" is a subjective benchmark set by yourself to re-define a starter. If they are a starter, I don't see why they shouldn't be listed on the template. How is having Matt Flynn's name there cruft exactly? I beg you actually read what

WP:CRUFT is. It's misleading to say they did not start. In some cases, like Brett Favre, a time of 1992 to 2007 would indicate that no one else had started, and this is correct until the next starter took the field. In the case of someone like Drew Brees though, however, he sat out a game and Mark Brunell was the starter. If you have Drew Brees 2006 to present, without even indicating Brunell's start, that is making an incorrect implication that it was consecutive with no other quarterback starting during that time. No one had a problem with Flynn's name being on the template prior to the dates being added, so what is your problem now, exactly? — Moe ε

00:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree completely with Moe Epsilon here. Any number other than one is completely arbitrary. It's not as if the NFL or some definitive third-party source has a standard where only those who start X games (where X is greater than one) counts as a real, legit starting QB. If the notion of an NFL starting QB isn't "cruft" itself, then it isn't cruft to list guys who started merely one game. I appreciate DirtLawyer's concerns above and think we should probably shy away from other starting position navboxes as the research and methodology involved promises to be tricky and complex. In the case of NFL QBs though, where the position receives significantly more coverage than any other, the needed information is well documented and the needed navbox work already done here. Jweiss11 (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Dirtlawyer1 and Yankees10. The only objective rule for inclusions is whether they have started. An arbitrary minimum is not proper.--

WP:FOUR

) 16:52, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Most, if not all team web sites list a depth chart. Why not either have the navbox reflect that, or get rid of it altogether? Bhirsch (talk) 17:53, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

How about we change the list to "[Team] Opening Day Starters" or "[Team] Week One Starters" infoboxes, which would not only keep the list to one per season, but also would give a better barometer of each QB's significance. It would also include most of the QBs that the head coach intended to have be their starting QB throughout that year (with the exception of QBs that get injured in the preseason or released part way through the season). That way we don't have to include Curtis Painter's week 17 start in 2009, or Matt Flynn in Week 17 of 2011. This gives a definitive guy for every team for every year, while removing capricious starts. Bill shannon (talk) 08:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Darnell McDonald (American football)

page needed

Tyler Lockett was one of two 2011 Consensus All-Americans without an article. So I created his article. I noticed that his uncle, Aaron Lockett (gridiron football) probably deserved a page and created it. Then, I cleaned up his father's (Kevin Lockett's) page. For the father and the uncle I spent a lot of time with the Kansas State Wildcats record books (football and track & field). It turned out that a Darnell McDonald had broken a record or two of the father's and had led the team in receiving yards and receptions in his uncle's 1997 true freshman (redshirt), and 1998 redshirt freshman season as well as All-purpose yards in 1998. McDonald formerly held the following K State records that are now held by Jordy Nelson: Single-season 100-yard games, single-season receptions, single-game yardage, and single-season receiving yardage (broken by Quincy Morgan).

It turns out that there is a pro baseball

WP:FOUR

) 13:50, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

NFL All-Rookie team

I've been trying to find a site or resource that has a list of all the NFL All-Rookie teams since it's inception sometime in the 70's (?), but haven't had any luck. Neither pro-football-reference.com nor databasefootball.com have it. I'm having difficulty using the archives section of Google news. Does anyone have a resource with all the teams? Thanks! Patken4 (talk) 21:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

I think that part of the issue is that there are SO many All-Rookie lists (ESPN, PFWA, Pro Football Weekly, etc.) that there is no one "canon" for all-rookie teams. I did the same Google search you did and came up with nada. Bill shannon (talk) 07:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I actually found a lot of the teams by looking at the media guides for each team, found here. About half the teams list them. Patken4 (talk) 20:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

All Pro templates

This project has a long way to go on its templates at Category:All-Pro Teams. I have created templates to represent the players from my favorite years of Buffalo Bills fandom. Before I put these in articles, I wanted to check in and make sure they are Kosher. I just added all first team selections listed in the article for each year to create the following templates:

{{1973 All-Pro Team}}

{{1974 All-Pro Team}}

{{1975 All-Pro Team}}

{{1988 All-Pro Team}}

{{1990 All-Pro Team}}

{{1991 All-Pro Team}}

--

WP:FOUR

) 07:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

In a couple of weeks, I will just start adding these to articles, if no one gives me any further feedback.--

WP:FOUR

) 08:14, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

I think these templates should also be added to the bottom of each corresponding season. I'd be willing to do it if you'd like. (I'm a long-suffering Bills fan too.) Send me a direct message if you want me to do it. Bill shannon (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll add them this week.--

WP:FOUR

) 23:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

NFL helmet images

A user has tagged every single one of them for deletion as replaceable fair use. Tampa Bay's has already been deleted and I have filed for it to be undone.

Head90 | ^{We Believe!}

03:16, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Cardinals, Falcons, Ravens, Bills, Panthers, Bears, Bengals, Browns, Cowboys, Broncos, Packers, Giants, Saints, Rams, Titans and the Redskins are also gone. The rest are tagged for deletion.

Head90 | ^{We Believe!}

03:30, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The issue is with the website(s) that creates all of these files, they use a template helmet file that is copyrighted to them which they do not release in a CC-BY-SA compatible way and then add a logo to it. As a picture of a helmet can be taken at any game and released CC-BY-SA and a FUR (if needed) made for the element of the image that comprises the logo the images as taken from the helmet websites are replaceable and we cant make a FUR for there use.(for more information see

Mtking ^(edits)

04:05, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

The problem, is that any image of the helmet will still be copyrighted to the team.

Head90 | ^{We Believe!}

06:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Not true, the logo and only the logo might be for some teams, but for example the

Mtking ^(edits)

06:59, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

What you have on West Virginia is a rare case where an image properly shows a helmet's details as well as the template did. The problem is also that that IMO makes the infobox look a little messy, but that's my OCD. The point of showing the helmet is to accurately show the detail of the helmet and a photo doesn't always do that, in fact a fan-taken free-use alternative rarely does because 90% of fans have low resolution cameras.

Head90 | ^{We Believe!}

07:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Somehow because "90% of fans have low resolution cameras" that is supposed to justify using a copyright file come on !

Mtking ^(edits)

07:15, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I think you missed my point, anyway, I have done what you should have done and emailed for permission to use the template.

Head90 | ^{We Believe!}

07:25, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Has been done at least twice by others.

Mtking ^(edits)

07:47, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I have replacement helmet graphics on a free-use template on the way.

Head90 | ^{We Believe!}

00:20, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Good, that is what should have been used from the start, please also remember

Mtking ^(edits)

01:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

That would be determined on a case-by-case basis for each article.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:12, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Roger Goodell and DeMaurice Smith

Hey guys, I'm planning on doing a little "scrubbing" of Roger Goodell and Demaurice Smith's articles, and I wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions. They are obviously pretty big names in the NFL today, and I thought it might be good to make a few improvements. If anyone wants to give me a hand, I'd appreciate it. With regard to Demaurice Smith's article, I'll need some additional oversight because the NFLPA is the client of my employer (see

WP:COI). Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk

) 16:57, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

I made several suggestions for the DeMaurice Smith article (see talk page). Any feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. --TravisBernard (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Decertification vs. Disclaiming CBA rights

I started a discussion on my

2011 NFL Season article. The decision is either between using the word "decertify" or "disclaiming CBA rights." My argument is that it should be "disclaim" or the "renunciation of CBA rights." The key here is that decertification occurs when the NLRB holds an election. Renunciation does not require the NLRB election. There was no election here, so technically there's no decertfication. It's essentially the difference between a legal term and how it was reported. Technically the union didn't decertify, but news outlets were using the word "decertify" as a blanket statement to cover both the renunciation or disclaiming of CBA rights and decertification. Do we go with what is legally true or what was more popularly reported? --TravisBernard (talk

) 22:59, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

This article does a great job summarizing the technical/legal differences between the terminology; however, we didn't see this type of language and explanation used nearly as much. The author here is a legal sports professor, which is a little different than an ESPN reporter. --TravisBernard (talk) 23:13, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Which article? Did you forget to provide the link? My contention is that the players voted to decertify the NFLPA. The elections were held by each team. The open question in my mind is whether the NLRB actually confirmed the decertification, and if they did not, then is the union not decertified. One of the key legal questions that was being discussed in the various courtrooms during the lockout was management's contention that the decertification was a "sham". My understanding is that a union and it's members are barred from filing a lawsuit against the league, which "Brady, et. al." did. How were they able to file a lawsuit if the union was not first decertified? Again, I'm not a legal scholar or labor lawyer, but if it looks like a duck, and it quacks like a duck... — DeeJayK (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

My bad, here's the link. Start reading at the title "What is decertification? And, what is a disclaimer of interest." The next few paragraphs explain it. --TravisBernard (talk) 14:06, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I'm convinced after reading that article that the NFLPA may not have "decertified" from a legal standpoint. That said, "decertification" was the term that was used almost exclusively in the vast majority of media reports, so I feel like if we don't use that term in the WP article(s) regarding the subject, then we should very clearly explain the distinction between "decertification" and "disclaiming interest" in at least the

2011 NFL Lockout article. I feel that if this distinction is not specifically addressed in the article, then another editor will come along and "correct" the article by re-adding the "decertification" terminology. Anyone else care to share their opinion on that? — DeeJayK (talk

) 18:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

American high school football underclass POY templates

Join the discussion at

WP:FOUR

) 14:22, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Progress on Pro Bowl articles

I just wanted to announce that I've just made a pass through all of the individual Pro Bowl game articles. I've added infoboxes and references to all of the articles which had none (which was the vast bulk of them). What the articles need now is for someone to spend some time expanding each of them. Ideally every article would at a minimum include the rosters and a game summary. Most or all of the roster information should be available on Pro Football Reference, it's just a matter of incorporating that information into a WP format. As far as game recaps, every article now has a link to some source that contains that information. 1976 Pro Bowl might be a good article upon which to model articles, particularly for the games from the 1980's back. If you're interested in joining this effort, please feel free to choose and article and take a pass at it. Thanks! — DeeJayK (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Tai Streets POV

I novice editor keeps tagging

WP:FOUR

) 07:29, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Houston Texans Team MVP

Template:Houston Texans Team MVP has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Houston Texans Rookie of the Year

Template:Houston Texans Rookie of the Year has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Jrcla2 (talk) 21:36, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Request for comments

For at least the past two years, an anonymous IP user has continually inserted the word "selection" following All-Pro and Pro Bowl honors in NFL player infoboxes. This sometimes includes college "All-American" honors, too. I provide the following examples:

• Consensus All-American (1984)
• All-Pro (1985, 1986, 1988, 1990)
• Pro Bowl (1985, 1986)

• Consensus All-American selection (1984)
• All-Pro selection (1985, 1986, 1988, 1990)
• Pro Bowl selection (1985, 1986)

The use of the word "selection" in the context of space-limited infoboxes is superfluous and unnecessary, adds no additional meaning, substance or value for the reader, and often has the practical effect of forcing a line-wrap of an honor that would otherwise fill a single line of text into two lines of text, thus unnecessarily increasing the length of many infoboxes. I would ask my fellow football editors to express their opinion on this topic, for and against, so that we can end the ridiculous practice of reverting infobox formatting when we should be focused on improving the substantive content of these articles. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 14:00, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Omit the word "selection" from all NFL infoboxes per comment above. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:41, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Strongly favor omission I believe some are elected rather than selected.--

WP:FOUR

) 15:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Omit superfluous wording in infoboxes. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:27, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Support ommission not needed to get point across.—Bagumba (talk) 19:16, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah get rid of that word. --Jayron32 04:31, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Support ommission. Also, I wish the user in question would describe the edits he or she makes, instead of leaving that space blank.

(talk)

17:35, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Disagree with ommission I think you should keep the word selection. I does make no sense to change it now!! It's traditon for years! When you watch NFL Network and Let's just say for an example Josh Cribbs under his name it's say 2 time Pro Bowl Selection not just 2 time Pro Bowl. That doesn't make any sense to me what so ever.

Support omission I don't feel there is a likelihood for confusion by omitting the word "selection" from the infoboxes. Obviously in the article text the phrase "Pro Bowl selection" is clearer and would be considered preferable, but it's not needed in the infobox where space is at a premium. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

For the Major league profiles you have just put all-star in their profiles!! I understand selection for Major League Baseball players is odd but At least put MLB All-Star instead!! I think that's more appropriate. Just for in Blake Griffin's profile it says NBA All-Star not just typical All-Star. You know what I mean?

All I'm saying is why change it now!!! Putting Pro Bowl selection it's been on there for years and now all of a sudden it's to tacky to put the word selection now!! You see what I'm saying?

Now you are trying to take out the word selection now!! To me to take out selection and just putting typical Pro Bowl on theses NFL players Wikipedia profiles make's it tacky and weird. It doesn't fit well with the concept.

Pro Bowl selection is a traditional way!! When they put Deion Sanders info on NFL Network it says 8 time Pro Bowl Selection not 8 time Pro Bowl!!.

I think you should keep the word selection. Why change it now?!! 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

When they put the Pro Bowl Ballots out there, they are selecting the players not electing!! This is not politics there's big difference. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Just because we are using a concise version of the All-Pro and Pro Bowl honors in the infobox does not mean that you can't use the word "selection" in the article text. It would be entirely appropriate to continue top refer to a noted played as a "nine-time Pro Bowl selection" in the article text. Heck, I use the word "selection" in text when I am referring to the individual honor received from a particular "selector" (e.g. AP, PFWA, SI, ESPN, etc.). Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I can't help saying or putting the word selection also but I think it's Just no reason to take away selection from their info boxes. Because that's the term or word the business use NFL Network, ESPN, ESPNEWS, and all those stations use the word selection. When NFL Network announced the Pro Bowl Rosters these year and every player they brought up like Tom Brady underneath is name it's 7 time Pro Bowl Selection. Scott Hansen of NFL Network would say it's Tom Brady's 7 Pro Bowl Selection of his career.71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with using the word Selection because people in the sports business use the word all the time. Next to their names. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:35, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• If we remove the word "selection" after Pro Bowl, we'll have to remove the "n" in "All-American" as well for parallelism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:30, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

Eagles, I intimately understand the concepts of parallelism and parallel construction, but I think that strict parallelism is trumped in this context by the need to be as concise as possible in these player infoboxes. An "All-American" is a college football player who has been recognized as a member of an "All-America team" by one or more selectors (it's also far and away the most common form of reference to this honor, not "All-America"). Likewise, an "All-Pro" is a professional football player who has been recognized as a member of an "All-Pro Team" by one or more selectors. Both terms can be used as either an adjective (e.g. "a first-team All-Pro selection") or as a noun (e.g. "he was recognized as an All-American"). The Pro Bowl, of course, is the NFL's all-star game, and including "Pro Bowl" with the year or years picked is simply recognition of the player's invitation/participation in the event. The word "selection" is no more necessary for "Pro Bowl" honors in NFL player infoboxes than it is in MLB player infoboxes for participation in MLB's All-Star Game. IMO, the goal should be to strive for the most concise statement of these honors possible; like "selection," the words "honors," "winner," "accolades," etc., are also unnecessary embellishments in the space-limited infobox. In prose, I would readily accept your advocacy of parallelism and parallel construction, but in the context of space-limited infoboxes, I would suggest that the strict application of parallelism is the hobgoblin of misplaced priorities. The word selection is redundant, unnecessary, and redundant. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 05:24, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

"An "All-American" is a college football player..." A player cannot be "a Pro Bowl" so I am against the change unless we also remove the "n" in "All-American" or add an "er" to the word "Pro Bowl." Further, I don't see how there is a sudden space limitation for these infoboxes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 05:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

And by the same logic a player cannot be a "Heisman Trophy," either. Does that mean that we also have also have to include the word "winner" after every trophy or award? The only reason to include the word "champion" after "Super Bowl" in the infobox honors is that it's ambiguous without the additional; otherwise it's unclear whether the player was a member of the winning team or merely a participant. There is zero ambiguity in "Pro Bowl (2002, 2003)." I also note that nine days into this discussion that the opinions expressed are 3-to-1 against including the word "selection." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Is "Pro Bowler (2002, 2003)" rather than "Pro Bowl (2002, 2003)" really that much of a difference? Eagles 24/7 (C) 06:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well All I know It's a business term 71.180.203.153 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is that doesn't make any sense to me. Now all of a sudden Y'ALL WANT TO CHANGE IT.71.180.203.153 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm sticking to what I said. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 06:58, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

All of this mumbo jumbo doesn't fit the door what so ever!. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to put it like this, It's like giving "a toddler his bottle without the pacifier or Giving somebody a brand new car without the car keys to the car." 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

That's how I think about the situation. I don't know who came up with this issue or problem or whatever but I think it's an excuse to change or to take out the selection. No offense. All of you guys good I got nothing against Y'all or nothing of that. To me The Word selection is part of the business. It's a word that reader including my self reads or say. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:24, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

It looks like I'm by myself on this one but that's O.K.!! I thought somebody what agree to what I'm saying or understand to what I'm saying but that's part of the business. I'm going to stand to what I feel deserves to be said or what should be right. I stand alone on this one and I stand on my behave. You guys don't have to understand it as long as I said it. That's all!!. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:28, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

"Champion"

That same person is also rewording the league statistical leaders at the end of the season as "Champions" and using All Initial Capitals When Describing Those Stats. See Special:Contributions/71.180.203.153. I have started combing through his contribs trying to fix all of the bad wording he has created. Any help from other users in fixing this would be most helpful! --Jayron32 14:59, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, I saw that, too, but unfortunately he's not the only would-be editor who needs a capitalization clue or over-uses the word "champion" to describe statistical leaders or record holders. I also note that the year of many honors inappropriately precedes the award, and that this has become a trend among those editors completing the infoboxes for current college football players. There are also many other unnecessary and superfluous words that have been added to NFL player infobox honors descriptions like "honors" (e.g., "First-team All-American honors"), and "winner" (e.g. "Heisman Trophy winner"). Many of these descriptions are entirely appropriate in article text, but are unnecessary in the infobox where space is limited. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:39, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. I'm trying to hack through as many as I can, from this user and from anyone else. There are thousands of football players to weed through, so any help in standardizing the infobox would be awesome. --Jayron32 16:07, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Jayron, I'm working my way through the consensus All-Americans as part of a WP:CFB effort to create year-by-year navboxes for the All-Americans. I've thoroughly purged most of this infobox honors and awards verbiage from player articles listed in the All-American navboxes from 2006 through 2010, and I'm currently working through 2005 and headed backwards in time after that. I would suggest you attack the 1,300 or 1,400 currently active NFL players in any order you want. The infobox honors cruft wasn't added overnight, and no one, even with help, is going to clean it up in a day or two. This particular IP user hasn't been that active, but others have been over an extended period of time. That's why I raised the issue here on the talk page. Glad you were listening. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:10, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Number of Pro Bowl selections

I do not believe this should be removed. The number of Pro Bowl selections is notable, and in cases of 9 or more selections, readers should not have to count the years to find this number. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:25, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Query for Eagles247. Nine ("9x") or more, eh? Does that mean you would support doing away with "1x," 2x" or "3x" for infobox honors where the years for multiple awards of the same honor are already listed in a parenthetical following the descriptions of the honor? Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

I would only support doing away with "1x" as redundant, and 9 or more was just an example for my position. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:02, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Now y'all are taking the number of pro bowl selections out to!! I don't even recognize Wikipedia anymore!!! 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:31, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Now what's wrong with number of Pro Bowl selections, last time I check reader like myself wants to how many pro bowl they have that's more appropriate. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

For example Just putting Pro Bowl (2009, 2010) and All-Pro (2008, 2010), That does not fit. I don't understand who come up with all of this now and just say you know what it's time to change it and let's take the number of selections out!!. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That's not being specific at all!!. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:40, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I support both number of times and enumeration of years.--

WP:FOUR

) 16:18, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I also support continuing to include the number of selections, as that is one of the most notable points when looking back on a player's career (e.g. "Jack Ham was a six-time first-team All-Pro"). I could be convinced to support dropping "1x" designations, but in that case I feel it would be more appropriate to list it as, for example, "1977 All-Pro" as opposed to "All-Pro (1977)" or "1x All-Pro (1977). — DeeJayK (talk) 16:35, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

DeeJayK, consistency in formatting requires that either the award years follow all awards in parentheticals or none of them do. The current format allows for multiple awards of the same honor represented by the years in the parenthetical, thus presenting more information in a smaller space. The alternative, to restate the full award of every year, like "1977 All-Pro, 1978 All-Pro, 1979 All-Pro, 1980 All-Pro," etc., instead of "3x All-Pro (1977, 1978, 1979, 1980)," is an amazing waste of space, and adds unnecessary lines of text, in a space-limited infobox. IMO, the object is not to see who can create the longest infobox, but to present the most significant biographical information in a concise, coherent and easily understood manner. Any proposed change that unnecessarily increases the length of these infoboxes should be treated with great skepticism. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:47, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Dirtlawyer1, I believe Deejayk is only referring to instances in which a player has received only one Pro Bowl selection for that format. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Either way, it's problematic. If, as you suggest, the date-first format (e.g., "1977 All-Pro") is only for instances where the player has received only one All-Pro honor or only one Pro Bowl selection, then those honors will be inconsistently formatted from every other honor that follows the date-last parenthetical format (e.g., "First-team All-American (1975, 1976)"). On the other hand, if we want to consistently employ the date-first format for all honors, then we will have ridiculously long infoboxes because even repeating awards of the same honor will require their own line of text. Like I said, either way, it's a problem. I would rather live with the unnecessary "1x" designators. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Why do somebody create more space for the info box so information can fit then to fix the problem. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm used to seeing the date to last format on Pro Bowl and All-Pro or other awards and stuff 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Please stop repeating the same "argument" over and over again. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:59, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Who?!!!!!! 71.180.203.153 (talk) 00:10, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:31, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

So what you trying to tell me?!!!!!!71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm going to say what I need to say!!. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:16, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

WHoa wait a minute first of all I'm not repeating an argument so called over and over again!!.71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

How is making a case or a point is repeating an argument!!!.71.180.203.153 (talk)

I don't see where you are come.71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

YOU ARE coming from way OUT of left field. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:20, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You trying to call me out or something!!? 71.180.203.153 (talk) 07:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not even repeating myself, Repeating WHAT!!? C'mon man. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 08:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You've now made my point. Please stop. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:31, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

STOP WHAT?!!! YOU STILL Have not answer my question? 71.180.203.153 (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

WHAT POINT YOU WAS MAKING!!!? 71.180.203.153 (talk) 09:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I've asked this IP user to please keep this discussion civil. Hopefully we will not have any future outbursts from him/her. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"Pro Bowler"

I am proposing a change in the infobox from "Pro Bowl" to "Pro Bowler," as "Pro Bowl" seems awkward by itself in the infobox above "All-American." Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:55, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

That's a good idea not bad. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 22:34, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Don't like it, because the term "pro bowler" reads like he professionally plays the sport of bowling. Instead, the existing practice of just leaving it as "Pro Bowl" in the infobox seems fine. The infobox is supposed to be a quick snapshot; more comprehensive explanation including the proper use of the word "selection" can be used in the article text. --Jayron32 01:11, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Good point, didn't realize that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:15, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree that in the context of an article on a football player that a reasonable reader would be thrown off by the term "Pro Bowler" and assume that the player in question also played the sport of bowling for financial gain. That said, if someone wants to carry the torch against the term "Pro Bowler" in football articles, then they should note that the term is used in

Template:Infobox NFL season. — DeeJayK (talk

) 22:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox NFL retired look prettier than Infobox NFL player

Infobox NFL retired uses Infobox, looks more alike the other infoboxes and looks prettier than Infobox NFL player. I suggest after merging two infoboxes to use the Infobox NFL retired code instead of Infobox NFL player. Opinions? -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:54, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Prettier? No. NFL player is the best infobox that any sport project uses. It's easy to use, shows everything nicely, and has tons of information. NFL retied is being replaced because it's useless. I hope I never see the day that NFL retired is the one used on every page. If I do see that day, then this project will become like the NBA or NHL projects with infoboxes being practically unhelpful.--Giants27(T|C) 22:01, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, the NBA infoboxes use the same style as {{

Infobox NFL player}}. Eagles 24/7 (C)

22:20, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but if you look at it, there's no uniformity for them. That's more what I was driving at I guess.--Giants27(T|C) 22:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

For instance: Infobox basketball biography does not center Birth date. -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't really have a preference. Haven't dealt with them enough lately to care. But it seems like they've been changed a lot over the years. Pats1 ^T/C 22:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

IMO, "Infobox NFL retired" is the WP:NFL project's past. "Infobox NFL retired" is smaller, the typefont employed is smaller, and it has a cramped layout. It looks like the Wikipedia sports infoboxes that were in wide use four of five years ago, and it is damn difficult to read on the screens of handhelds, smaller laptops and netbooks. While I'm not against making improvements to the current "Infobox NFL player," returning to the layout and typography of "Infobox NFL retired" would be a step backward, not a step forward for WP:NFL. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 23:47, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Is it time to add "Importance" to the quality ratings?

I find it interesting that this project doesn't rate articles by importance, especially considering there are presently over 15K articles tagged under the purview of this project. In an archive search, I found this discussion from 2007, which said setting up "importance" was not a priority. However, most projects use it, including NFL subprojects for the Colts and the Buccaneers. Should we add it here? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree that an importance quality should be added.
—Michael Jester (talk · contribs) 05:19, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Since the template is edit protected, an admin would need to do it, if it's agreed upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2011 (UTC)

I second (third?) Muboshgu and Michael Jester that an "importance" attribute should be added. I would suggest modeling the project template after Template:WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:29, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

I've requested the edit here. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:13, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

If this change is indeed implemented, I think that we have to come up with some fairly clear guidelines as to which articles fit into each category. I feel this is particularly important for player articles (which make up the vast bulk of the project). I've recently given some thought to importance as it relates to the Pittsburgh Steelers subproject and I've documented specific guidelines for biographical articles for that project. For example, we might want to state that for a player article to be "Top" importance it must cover a player who is in the Hall of Fame or has been named All-Pro a minimum of three times. I think that if we can come to some consensus on this topic early in deploying this rating system it can prevent a lot of confusion in the future. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:00, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I'd base it to some extent on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Assessment. – Muboshgu (talk)

The parameters for the importance scale on the baseball project seem really broad to me. While these descriptions might work well for non-biographical articles, I'd like to see us agree on some fairly specific guidelines we can apply to biographical articles so that we don't have editors determining an article's "importance" based on their personal allegiances or biases. Some quick ideas (for players): Top=HoF or 3+ All-Pro teams, or 5+-time Pro Bowler; High=Any other All-Pros or Pro-bowlers; Mid=5+ year NFL (or AFL) career; Low=all others. Obviously the particular metrics are up for discussion, and we'd want to work out something similar to cover coaches and administrators, but something like this would give us a way to short-circuit any personal biases. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:57, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

That sounds okay to me in theory, but a nice discussion on it would be appropriate. I'm not sure how many people that would put in the "top" category, but it might be too many. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:42, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I was just throwing some possible parameters out off the top of my head. I don't claim that those need to be the actual metrics we use to measure importance. I'm simply saying that it's going to be easier and less contentious to try to come up with some metrics up front rather than to debate the assessment of each individual player as the categorization is being implemented. I'm open to discussing any ideas anyone wants to suggest for appropriate metrics and even what approximate percentage it is appropriate to have in each classification (e.g. should the top 10% of articles be classified as "top" importance?). — DeeJayK (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I've created Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Assessment to document the metrics/parameters for assessment of article importance (and quality). I've put in my own metrics, but please feel free to edit or discuss these as you feel is warranted — they are just the guidelines of a lone editor and shouldn't be taken to indicate any consensus amongst the project participants. I just wanted to get soemthing out there so that we can continue this discussion there, if warranted. — DeeJayK (talk) 06:17, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

Overall, I like it alot. However, I wonder about having someone like Ray Lewis listed as "top". "High" I can see, but "top" seems like a stretch. Can we get input from others? – Muboshgu (talk) 21:37, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

My point in including Lewis in the top category is that he should be a slam-dunk first-ballot Hall of Famer once he's eligible (and this is coming from a Steelers fan). My thinking is the the top category should contain players who are worthy of the Hall of Fame (even if they have not yet been enshrined). Any player who's been a three-time All-Pro is likely to garner strong HoF consideration at a minimum. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:24, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I tweaked the metrics slightly to require 5+ All-Pros or 7+ Pro Bowls in order to obtain top importance. I feel that any players who achieve these honors should be considered strong Hall of Fame candidates. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:36, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Update: "importance" parameter has been added to the WikiProject template. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Now that the importance parameter has been activated for this project we need to start getting articles assessed. As of this moment fewer than 5% of the project's articles have an importance assessment, so obviously there's a lot of work to do. Is there anyone out there knowledgeable about bots and how we can leverage a bot (or bots) to help up quickly tag some of these articles? For example, any article in Category:Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees or Category:National Football League teams could be tagged as "Top" importance per the assessment criteria that has been outlined. And any article in Category:National Football League seasons could be tagged as "High" and any article in a sub-cat of Category:National Football League seasons by team could be tagged as "Mid" importance. So, any bot experts out there? — DeeJayK (talk) 19:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad this has gotten started. I'm not a bot expert, but I'm becoming proficient with AWB, and tagging articles in a category is something you can do with AWB. I'll look into it this weekend. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:47, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been working on assessing articles and at present over 10% of the project's articles have been assigned importance ratings. I've assessed all of the articles that have quality ratings above "Start". I've also assessed all the articles on Hall of Fame inductees and all of the franchise articles, so I would guess that we've got at least half of the total number of "Top" importance articles now tagged. I've added a task to assess articles for importance to the project's "to do" list (for whatever good that does) and will continue my efforts to assess articles as I touch them. I've looked at AWB a bit, but I don't have any experience and it's not obvious to me how to use it to automate this task. If anyone has a base of knowledge with AWB or with a bot your assistance would be greatly appreciated. Thanks — DeeJayK (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Article naming conventions for early "Pro Bowl"s

I've begun creating articles for the NFL All-Star games which took place between 1939 and 1942 (e.g. 1939 National Football League All-Star Game). However, I've got a quandary as to how these articles should be named. The first game was played in January 1939 and was the final contest of the 1938 NFL season. Same with the second game. These both fit within the current Pro Bowl naming convention (i.e. the name of the article indicates the year in which the game was played, not the season to which is belongs so that 2012 Pro Bowl is the game that took place following the 2011 NFL season). However, the All-Star game after the 1940 NFL season was played in December 1940 and so it doesn't fit this naming convention. The same thing occurred in December 1942. Does anyone have any good ideas as to how these articles should be named to avoid confusion as well as to keep the titles as succinct as possible? Thanks in advance for your input. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:06, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I would just name it the 1941 National Football League All-Star Game since there was a 1940 National Football League All-Star Game already. Or you could also possibly name the article 1940 National Football League All-Star Game (1940 NFL Season). The last suggestion might fit the nomenclature better but might make it harder for a user to search for the article. GeologicNW (talk) 01:57, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Do it like the bowl games do. We have 2010 Alamo Bowl (January) and 2010 Alamo Bowl (December). Don't see why that couldn't work here. --Jayron32 04:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Excellent, that's the sort of thing I'm looking for; I knew this situation had to have come up before. Although I appreciate the simplicity of GeologicNW's solution (I was considering that approach myself), I have a hard time creating an article title that is just flat out inaccurate (e.g. an article titled "1941 NFL All-Star Game" describing an event that neither took place in 1941 nor was related to the 1941 season). Because of that concern, I'm going to move forward implementing Jayron32's suggestion. Thank you both for your input. If anyone else has any further feedback about the chosen approach, please feel free to share. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Y Update: I've created pages for all five pre-Pro Bowl All-Star games: 1939, 1940 (Jan), 1940 (Dec), 1942 (Jan), 1942 (Dec). — DeeJayK (talk) 22:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks

Template:Minnesota Lynx first round draft picks has been nominated for deletion. This may be related to this project as it involves first round draft picks of a sports team. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.—Bagumba (talk) 21:11, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Gabe Carimi

Hello. Please see

lead of the article. Eagles 24/7 (C)

00:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Userboxes

Where can I find userboxes for each individual teams? Can you reply on my talk page? Thank you. Allen (talk) 02:08, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Separate history articles for Baltimore-Indy/Oilers-Titans

In January of this year, editor

History of the Houston Oilers. Not only was this major edit done without consulting other editors, it flies in the face of the consensus to follow official NFL record books and acknowledge Baltimore-Indy Colts as one team and Oilers-Titans as one team. This is an issue that is no different that others battling to separate the main Colts and Titans articles. In the edit summaries of the Colts and Titans history articles, Levineps left the following statements: "many in Baltimore don't associate the Baltimore Colts with the Indy Colts" and "deserves own article." Both are opinionated statements that disregard both the basic rules of Wikipedia and consensus building done here on this project page. I just want to make sure there is enough support of my view point before I go proposing articles be merged and deleted. --Blackbox77 (talk

) 18:51, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

While I do not agree with his particular reason, what I have also previously said is that we are going to eventually be forced to split up this history content anyway due to their

very large size. The history of the Giants has already been split into multiple articles. If History of the Indianapolis Colts continues to be split in a similar fashion, it might be inaccurate to title a page History of the Indianapolis Colts (1953–1978). I don't know what a good solution would be, but this article size issue is going to eventually become a problem as these franchises get older. Zzyzx11 (talk

) 19:07, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

That's a great point and I can understand why slitting long history articles makes sense. However it needs to be gone about the right way and not by someone on a mission to glorify the BAL Colts and HOU Oilers like they are separate clubs from those that exist today. In the case of the Oilers/Titans article before Levineps came in, the article stood at about 31 KB - which according to

new article only weighed in at 23 KB while the original's remains still stand at 58 KB – a very small article vs one that is still very large. Unless some serious work is done to the Baltimore history, this split needs to occur elsewhere. Ultimately, my agenda is just to make sure undue weight isn't given by those who claim these franchises are more than what they are, and I think that's a justifiable reason to make sure this sort of situation is handled the right way. --Blackbox77 (talk

) 22:53, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Free HighBeam accounts

Hello all – free HighBeam 1-year accounts are being given out at

Wikipedia:HighBeam/Applications. This might come in useful for this WikiProject's devoted editors. Jrcla2 (talk

) 20:07, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

RfC notice regarding notability of individual games/plays

See Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Notability of regular season games or individual plays. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:04, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

2012 Nike uniforms

With the 2012 uniforms from Nike becoming official today, please be patient as I update each team's uniform. It shouldn't take long though. JohnnySeoul (talk) 14:04, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Notability standards for regular season college football games

Gentlemen, there is an important AfD discussion taking place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2011 Michigan vs. Notre Dame football game, which involves the application of the notability standards to individual regular season college football games. Please share your insights on point. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 19:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Draft preparations

As all of you know, the

Infobox NFL player to these articles now in a hidden comment with many parameters filled in (such as birthdate, birthplace, height, weight, college, etc.). Eagles 24/7 (C)

23:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed on all counts. -- The Writer 2.0 ^Talk 13:29, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

helmets in the infobox

Has anyone thought of a solution to the removal of the helmets from the infobox? I've tried a few things at the sports logo forum to get a new free-use template to use on new ones but no success.

Head90 | ^{Get Some!}

08:10, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Help: DeWayne Lewis

I don't even think this is a real NFL player. The article originally claimed that he was selected in the 2009 Draft by the Jaguars, which is not true. It also says he played for the Bengals, which I wan find no sources to back that up. A search on NFL.com for his name brings up no results. It also appears most of the article is plagiarized. I don't really know how to handle this, I guess it should be deleted but I'm not sure what parts are true and not true, or if there is any real notability to it. ~ Richmond96 t • c 04:49, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Nice catch, Richmond. Lewis was a real college player at a Division I FCS program, and later signed with the Jaguars as an undrafted free agent in 2009. He never played a down in a regular season NFL game, and is apparently non-notable per

WP:GNG. I have nominated the article for deletion here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/DeWayne Lewis. Dirtlawyer1 (talk

) 15:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the attention and the research. ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Kansas City Chiefs roster navbox

Can someone fix the color scheme at

WP:FOUR

) 14:41, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Armchair QB (talk) 15:18, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks.--

WP:FOUR

) 23:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Team roster navboxes

Looking at

WP:FOUR

) 01:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Only Vikings, Steelers, and Rams left.--

WP:FOUR

) 14:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Done. Still have 4 to deploy. Will get them done by the weekend.--

WP:FOUR

) 07:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Draft/Pre-draft section title

User:Eagles247 and I just had a little discussion on how to name the section on most NFL player's articles that contain NFL combine measurables, pro day comments, draft projections etc., like e.g. this one or this one. I used to name them "[year] NFL Draft", whereas Eagles247 suggests "Pre-draft". So before any of us reverts this back and forth, I'd like to see if we could reach consensus here on either one. --bender235 (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

tagging

A lot of articles of draftees (and UFA signees for that matter) are not getting the {{

WP:FOUR

) 12:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Miracle at the Meadowlands II?

Miracle at the Meadowlands II does not seem like a notable game to me, especially not commonly known (or even thought of as) a "miracle" game. Should this be AfD'd? Jrcla2 (talk) 15:43, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Roger that. Please nominate for AfD. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 17:37, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure an article on the same game (with a different title, perhaps) was already deleted. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:39, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miracle at the Meadowlands II. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:40, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Even though I voted delete, I keep on thinking that the page should become a redirect to the

talk

) 00:18, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

All-Pro in infobox

Which agency is usually used when All-Pro is listed in a player's infobox? AP, or some consensus of all the different agencies? It's not outlined in {{

Infobox NFL player}}.—Bagumba (talk

) 23:07, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

NFL categories

I have nominated a couple of NFL categories (one about ALS, one about 10,000 years rushers) for deletion here. Your feedback is welcome.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:28, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:IndoorFB63

Mike Crawford (American football) because he played for the Miami Dolphins in a few games his rookie year. I'm not going to nominate any of the aforementioned bios for deletion out of laziness and bigger priorities on Wikipedia, but they seem questionable and I thought I'd at least mention them here in case anyone wants to nominate them. Jrcla2 (talk

) 03:25, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos?

I've been looking at a number of pages of NFL players from the 1960s, for a book I'm editing, and I note that very few of them have photos of the players. I would think publicity photos would be easy to come by for folks like this, either from the NFL or from the individual teams. And occasional pages, like that for Don Meredith, do have photos. Any reason these haven't been added wholesale? --Michael K Smith^Talk 15:34, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Not all the pictures on the internet are useable. They need to be in the

fair use. An alternative is to include a link to the photos using {{External media}}.—Bagumba (talk

) 17:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of

List of National Football League and Arena football players

for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article

List of National Football League and Arena football players is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted

.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League and Arena football players until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:49, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Riki Ellison

Per [12] I looked at the 49er's all time roster and Ellison is listed for 1989. It seems he was on injured reserve the whole season. How is this usually handled? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think his infobox should say he was with the team in 1989.--

WP:FOUR

) 23:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I added that he was on team in 1989 and got a ring per sources found to corroborate.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dallas Cowboys - Rivalries Section - 49ers

In the Cowboys page...There is a subsection on Rivalries and from there a subsection on the Cowboys v Niners Rivalry. It states that the two teams first met in the Playoffs in 1972 and then goes on to discuss that game...it also discusses the two teams meeting in th 82, 92, 93, 94 Championship Games.... Strangely there is no mention of the 1970 and 1971 NFC Championship games Niners v Cowboys, in fact the first two NFC Championship games ever played after the merger.

So the article states: "The two clubs had first met in 1960, and in 1972 met in the NFC playoffs for the first time on December 23 at Candlestick Park;"

This is factually incorrect, the sentence should read: "The two clubs had first met in 1960, and in 1971 met in the NFC playoffs for the first time in the 1970 NFC Conference Championship Game played on January 3, 1971 at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco." Then it should discuss the 1971 Conference Championship followed by the 1972 Divisional Playoff Game discussion

AfterSeven 00:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterSeven (talk • contribs)

AFC Championship Game in infobox

Someone is insisting on putting the AFC Championship Game in the infobox for

WP:FOUR

) 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I had removed, but the same IP has added it back. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That IP has been doing it to random football players who appeared in super bowls. See his contribs and look for +46 or so characters. Their almost all like this. I say remove them all. That level of detail isn't necessary here. --Jayron32 04:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've invited the editor to this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Which one better? - (AFC Championship Game|AFC champion) or (American Football Conference|AFC champion) 71.180.203.153 (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Now on Brett Favre's profile he has 2× (NFC Championship Game|NFC Champion) (1996, 1997) unless this is what this about.71.180.203.153 (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Like what's the problem here?71.180.203.153 (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that not every achievement needs to be noted in the infobox. I'm not sure that appearing on a team that later lost the Super Bowl qualifies as the sort of thing we put in infoboxes. It doesn't need to be noted in that manner at all. Major records, major year-end awards, induction in the PFHOF is the sort of stuff that should appear, but lesser stuff can be left out of the infobox. It can be covered in the article text. If you swamp the infobox with too many frivilous achievements, it masks the important stuff. --Jayron32 05:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ic Look I understand all of that but it's in Tom Brady's infobox, again Brett Favre's infobox. Ben Roethlisberger's infobox I did not see this topic on here. Now that someone put this on let's um...Gerard Warren's infobox then this topic pops up. Where was this 3 years ago or something. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Put that on there just means how many Super Bowl appearances that individual made in his career. Not necessarily to put it for losing the Super Bowl. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff is not always the best reason; other articles may need cleanup as well. It's nothing personal. This is good to discuss how best to move forward.—Bagumba (talk

) 16:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a good launching point. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Article_Format you'll notice that the "Player pages" item is redlinked. That means that no standard has yet been developed for NFL player articles. Unless and until we develop that standard, we're going to have problems like this. Perhaps it is time that we get on that, so we can set forth a standard layout, format, and the like for NFL player articles. --Jayron32 18:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For the infobox, it would be best to add to the existing documentation for {{

Infobox NFL player}}.—Bagumba (talk

) 19:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So what that means then going forward? 71.180.203.153 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That means for short time, we should avoid making any wholesale additions/removals from infoboxes until we set a standard format. Lets work out a Wikipedia-wide standard for what we include and how we organize it, and don't make any big changes until we get that worked out. --Jayron32 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What standard format? 71.180.203.153 (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have one yet. My proposal is we start creating one. --Jayron32 03:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This guy is at it again. I just deleted the line in the infobox.--

WP:FOUR

) 06:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What's that supposed mean about the infobox? Elaborate. What Guy?71.180.203.153 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is I don't think it that big of an issue so whatever you guys gotta do to come up with a standard format.71.180.203.153 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)