Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 236: Line 236:


:It can only be a good thing. People just need to put the time into it, and be willing to discuss the borderline ones. There's an [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/References|in-progress one for the NBA]]. My peaves are the bloggy sites like most of SB Nation, SI's Fan Network, much of early years of Bleacher Report (hard to tell even now their full-time vs amateurish writers). If something is important enough to mention, more reliable sites should exist for the same content (esp. for NFL). —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
:It can only be a good thing. People just need to put the time into it, and be willing to discuss the borderline ones. There's an [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/References|in-progress one for the NBA]]. My peaves are the bloggy sites like most of SB Nation, SI's Fan Network, much of early years of Bleacher Report (hard to tell even now their full-time vs amateurish writers). If something is important enough to mention, more reliable sites should exist for the same content (esp. for NFL). —[[User:Bagumba|Bagumba]] ([[User talk:Bagumba|talk]]) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

== NFL deletion discussions ==

There's a user who today has been going around and nominating lots of NFL player articles for deletion. See:
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ja'Quan McMillian]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sam Babcock]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruel Redinger]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joe Williams (guard)]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marv Smith]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Stan Robb]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Comer (American football)]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Larry Green]]
* [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Willie Flattery]]
[[User:BeanieFan11|BeanieFan11]] ([[User talk:BeanieFan11|talk]]) 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Revision as of 19:43, 27 January 2023

WikiProject iconNational Football League Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis page is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/WikiProject used

"U.S." in infobox

I noticed there's an editor (@Squared.Circle.Boxing:) whose going through entire NFL team rosters and is changing each of the infoboxes and adding "U.S." after the birth_place (example). Is this how we do things now? I don't recall a discussion about it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about this as well. I didn't find anything in Template:Infobox NFL biography or WP:NFLINFOBOX that tells me whether or not it should be included. Though I know it's a different template, the closest thing I could find MOS wise was at Template:Infobox person#Parameters. The birth_place row explanation states the format should be Place of birth: city, administrative region, country.
I don't oppose the addition of "U.S." where appropriate for the birth_place parameter, but I think we should clear up and document what the default format should be on the template documentation for Infobox NFL biography. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I personally find it unnecessary to include – I mean – does the average football article reader really need to know that California is in the US? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Presumably non-Americans would also recognize NY, TX, and maybe FLA and a few others as U.S. states, but for the rest—generally no. I'd say just be consistent and list for all. On a similar note, I find it weird to just list a city in an infobox (or table), e.g. Los Angeles without California, while listing <city>, <state> in 99% of other cases. —Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the ping. Every English-speaking reader won't know the names of every US state. As well as clarity, it's also for consistency (always a good thing); the majority of modern-day BLPs include the country. I don't see why American athletes should be any different. It was also somewhat clarified in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 17 (the second section titled INFONAT) that country should be included in place of birth to bring infoboxes in line with WP:INFONAT.

I believe Josh's suggestion is the way forward; amend the documentation for the template to match that of Template:Infobox person (arguably the "parent" template). – 2.O.Boxing 18:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have a problem with adding the country to the player's place of birth in all circumstances, but it should say "United States", not just "U.S." – PeeJay 18:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if adding "U.S." is what there's a consensus for, you've got a lot of work to do – I estimate there's probably about 20,000 football articles currently missing that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think with some time to set things up properly WP:AWB would be able to handle this. If we decide to go forward with it I have no problem helping out. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind gradually making my way through articles. @Bringingthewood: has also mentioned they would be willing to lend a hand. If AWB can do the majority of work then that would be cracking (never used it so I have no clue). As for U.S. vs United States, I see the former significantly more than the latter and have changed a few that I've happened across. But I'm not fussed if folks want to spell it out. – 2.O.Boxing 22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing I managed to start. This is like the article for career highs and lows for interceptions and fumbles. Why we always fix what's not broken is beyond me. I saw that the majority of U.S. born American football players had no U.S. distinction, so I removed U.S., now this happens. Like 99% of the players have career highs meaning career highs - 22 --- not 3 as career best. I edited that also. I'm as lazy as they come, so I need everyone here to realize I never intended to throw a wrench in the spokes. Wouldn't it be easier to correct a few things to make it uniformed, other than re-writing the record book? Bringingthewood (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't it be easier to correct a few things to make it uniformed...: Some are looking at it from the perspective that NFL bios are not uniform with non-NFL bios. —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Expansion of "U.S." is not required, as its an exception listed at MOS:ACRO1STUSE. MOS:ABBREV also reads: If it is necessary to abbreviate in small spaces (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), use widely recognised abbreviations. Using "U.S." in the infobox seems fine. —Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba Honestly, I didn't want the NFL to be different than any other bio on Wikipedia. I just thought the NFL could be an easy 'uniform' fix being that there has to be over 90% of players that do not have it listed. If the rule is to have U.S. on every bio on Wikipedia, I'm here to help. I just wish that someone got the memo when they created all of these pages. I'm definitely not the only one who notices it. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bringingthewood: I sympathize, but consensus can change too. NFL bios have always been an outlier, most written for American readers and basically assuming all NFL players are American, which is slowly changing in the league. —Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba I hear you and it can definitely change. The players born out of the U.S. is a no-brainer, but I always hoped that American football would lead someone to believe that a player was not born in The Bronx, New Zealand. You know what I mean? We need one big button that plants the U.S. on every page. And U.S. not US. Even that isn't uniformed. There's an editor doing that now, I'm correcting them. Please let me know if that changes so I can stop, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I just put a few back that I initially removed using the same format as Squared.Circle.Boxing. Some editors have US and some even have the United States link added. Seems fine the way SCB did it. He was nice enough to tackle the Buffalo Bills and maybe we can keep it that way, not to make a three edit mess in the future. I swear, like a salmon swimming upstream. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Rikster2, this same issue has come up in the past for Template:Infobox basketball biography, correct? What was decided there? Do you have thoughts here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

<country> is specified in the documentation for |birth_place=, and there's a link to the discussion there too. —Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba, Hey man im josh: Wondering if I'll be tarred and feathered if I continue to put U.S. by the NFL players. I'm bored.
What do ya think?
Btw, Merry Christmas!! Bringingthewood (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bringingthewood: Why are you concerned? —Bagumba (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not concerned about anything. I almost added U.S. to a player the other day, I stopped. Just wanted to know if I could do something in the meantime.
If the vote goes the other way, I'll delete them, not a problem. There are many players to do if this gets passed. Not sure with the formality is here.
I don't mean to annoy anyone. I could help out a lot now. You know what I mean? Bringingthewood (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Ha, you keep catching me here, I was only concerned because I didn't want to cause anyone any extra work. If you say I can add U.S. now ... I'll delete them if the vote goes the other way. I just wanted to do something helpful, I have the time. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody WP:OWNs Wikipedia, so no one person should be giving you "permission". Still, we are all told to be bold. Since I !voted, I could be biased, but I think the consensus is clear. You don't sound like the type who minds, but realize that consensus can change too. Just follow WP:5P5:

Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.

Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: I get it. Funny, it's not so much permission, it's the slick removals I get from the so-called non-owners. It is what it is. I'm not going to go nuts with it, just not in the mood to wait a month then do something and when someone awakes from their slumber I'll have to send the link to this discussion. I'll act accordingly.
The extent of me being bold will be adding -- U.S., nothing will change in the article. Seems simple enough.
Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday to all those who drop by. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The joys of crowd-sourced editing. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting

Conversation has stalled and I see instances in my watchlist where the country is being added to infoboxes. I'd like to see if there's consensus so that we can update the appropriate documentation and, if need be, some of can start working on updating the appropriate pages.

Proposal: Standardize the practice of adding "U.S." after the birth_place for NFL player infoboxes (example).

Please cast a support or oppose vote. Including the rational behind your vote is appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: @BeanieFan11, Squared.Circle.Boxing, Bagumba, PeeJay, and Bringingthewood: Courtesy ping to those who were involved in the above discussion.Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support adding "United States" - I see an argument was made above that "U.S." can be used if space is at a premium. I don’t think space is too limited in the infobox, so writing "United States" should be fine. We should spell out the name of the country anyway; you wouldn’t write “U.K.” instead of “United Kingdom”, so the same should apply here. – PeeJay 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: Every reader won't know the names of every US state and there's also the issue with confusing Georgia with Georgia; it will be consistent with BLPs from other topics; and it will comply with WP:INFONAT, as one can't be expected to infer nationality from country of birth when country of birth isn't listed. My preference would be "U.S.", per Bagumba's reasoning above and for consistency with BLPs from other topics. – 2.O.Boxing 14:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose adding "U.S." or "United States". Since 95% plus are from US, it's an unnecessary addition of bulk. Cbl62 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that's a remarkably US-centric viewpoint. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just people in the United States. – PeeJay 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My opposition to adding US doesn't reflect a US-centric point of view. It reflects the fact that the added language in the context of articles about American football is surplusage and adds no value. It's a matter of good writing -- less is often better. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is insane. I originally started to remove U.S., assuming that few players had the distinction and it would look uniformed without it. And yes, (U.S., like the edits that myself, SCB and Bagumba have been doing, not US or United States .. can we agree on a uniformed system for something - anything??
But now we need a vote. Squared.Circle.Boxing broke his *** doing the Buffalo Bills and editors are reverting it already. I gave my word that I'd help him with putting U.S. on all pages so it would be like the rest of Wikipedia. I do see we need opinions to get things done, our edits should have stopped before this vote came along. Not sure why other editors are not involved, it looks like Rockchalk roots for the Chiefs and Dissident for the Commanders .... why change things now if they will remove what we do in the future? Not saying they would do that, but I said it when this all started not to fix what wasn't broken. Now we did hundreds of players and there's a vote. I'm not getting it. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The God's honest truth, I was coming here tonight to ask Bagumba if there might be an answer soon. This way I can start to put U.S. on big name players with no retaliation. This vote thing really got me. Someone should send a check to Squared.Circle.Boxing. I'll be the first to apologize. Josh Allen was removed last night and I had one removed yesterday also, with the editor saying well it's not on any other page. You see what I'm saying? Also, I don't mean anything I say to be taken personally towards any editor here. Just expressing what I feel. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockchalk717: @Dissident93: courtesy pings to both since I mentioned you guys. Didn't want to assume anything.
  • Oppose adding U.S./United States. Seems unnecessary to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nikkimaria: courtesy ping as you've been mentioned. – 2.O.Boxing 00:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Squared.Circle and WP:AUDIENCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per MOS:INFONAT:

    Most biography infoboxes have nationality and citizenship. Generally, use of either should be avoided when the country to which the subject belongs can be inferred from the country of birth, as specified with |birthplace=.

    It's consistent with most other WP bios to list the country of birth. It's presumptuous to assume non-American recognize all the U.S. states. By nature, infoboxes summarize info already in the body. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

    When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...

    Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2022‎
  • Support Therapyisgood (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support for consistency with other sports. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per above. We should be writing for a global audience, even if the sport is mainly followed by Americans. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose A little late to the party because I traveled for Christmas and have been busy. The NFL is about the only professional American team sport that doesn't have a large portion of its players being born outside of the US. Non-US English speakers are likely to realize an NFL player that has a place that says Middle of Nowhere, Missouri is in the US.--Rockchalk717 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm seeing some here say that we should add the country "because all of the other sports are doing it" – well, I chose a random other sport, Australian rules football, and their infoboxes don't list country of birth. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, another reason I find it unnecessary: if someone doesn't know that Wilmington, Delaware, is in the US, they can just click on the link and quickly find out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      Per MOS:LINK:

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

      The two letters U.S. fit the bill.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support HappyBoi3892 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Format

If we're adding "U.S." to place of birth/death in infoboxes, can we agree on a format? "U.S." appears to be most common across Wikipedia, but User:Nikkimaria, who voted above, loves to add just "US". Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As per MOS:US both formats are acceptable as long as it's consistent within the article, and also consistent with any other country abbreviations used within the article (ie. if "UK" is present "US" should be used). I'd be interested in seeing a citation for the claim that "U.S." is most common. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Should be U.S. for consistency. Thats by far the most common formatting I've seen with athletes/actors/politicians etc.-- Yankees10 00:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, a citation? I haven't conducted a peer-reviewed study on the matter, but aside from your edits, I've observed that "U.S." is dominant in my perusal of Wikipedia. Let's pick ten random dead Americans (first ones that pop into my head) and see what it looks like. Hank Aaron, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Betty White, Neil Armstrong, Lee Harvey Oswald, Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Payton, Elvis Presley, Robert Moses, Michael Jackson. How'd that score? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
A peer-reviewed study would be fascinating but not necessary - if you're trying to base a MOS change on it, you'd just need something beyond anecdata. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nikkimaria, what the was score on those 10? Do you want to pick another random 10? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to pick the first dead American each of those ten dead Americans reminds me of. Babe Ruth, Harry Truman, Bea Arthur, Gus Grissom, John Wilkes Booth, Lyndon Johnson, Red Grange, Johnny Cash, Ed Koch, Prince. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's the score now? Look who edited Red Grange's infobox! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba, Nikkimaria, Squared.Circle.Boxing, Hey man im josh, HappyBoi3892, PeeJay: I've edited over 500 NFL players so far and I'll go to next season doing it. I use U.S., Bagumba uses U.S., Squared.Circle.Boxing and HappyBoi3892 also do it that way. No offense, but Nikkimaria must have seen my edits amending US to U.S. It's just to keep it uniformed, nothing personal. Even United States was edited.
I'm getting my edits reverted by some, and it sucks doing things twice, but if we unite in doing this it'll get done. Just think if everyone who agrees with it did 20 players a day whenever they're here. It's not insurmountable. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that editor preferences might be related to MOS:TIES (no studies or sources to cite). In the meantime, MOS:US is currently mostly neutral on U.S. vs US. If there's an objective argument to be made either way, getting MOS changes would provide more long-term standing (for those inclined). —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No offense taken - not sure why this discussion needs to be so personalized. As I said, "U.S." is permitted under MOS when internally consistent within an article, so if you want to add it that way go ahead. It just shouldn't be changed back and forth. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I get it, no problem over here. When I see US ... I shall leave it alone. At least it's noted on the page, lol. I was probably just going with how this all started, the vote was for the U.S. format. If the truth is U.S., US or United States will cover the initial vote, so be it. I'm just not used to the broad explanations of things that seemed simple when first thought of.
Honestly, I'd just like it if we had a leg to stand on when someone comes along and removes it from the infobox. To just say 'it belongs there' isn't cutting it. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, I'd just like it if we had a leg to stand on when someone comes along and removes it from the infobox.: You can cite this discussion as current consensus for inclusion of U.S./US. I think the full-form "United States" is not preferable for an infobox, where info should be compact. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: That feels like a sturdy leg, thank you! Bringingthewood (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]


If we look at this 2018 RfC, we see that there was consensus at one point for the MOS to read:

US is a commonly used abbreviation for United States, although U.S. – with periods and without a space – remains common in North American publications, including in news journalism. Multiple American style guides, including The Chicago Manual of Style (since 2010), now deprecate "U.S." and recommend "US".
For commonality reasons, use US by default when abbreviating, but retain U.S. in American or Canadian English articles in which it is already established, unless there is a good reason to change it.

I'm not sure if this ever got updated in the MOS, or it was and WP:CCC later.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can we all agree that "U.S." is the way were are going to format football infoboxes? Nikkimaria, hey, what was the score of those 20 random bios I picked above? Was it 50/50 or was one format dominant? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is not meaningfully possible to decide here something inconsistent with projectwide consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's meaningful. There's only one editor causing an sizable inconsistency here—you. Your editing pattern and your dismissal of the evidence I've provided on this subject is obstructive. Stop it. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:CONLEVEL. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
More lawyerly obstruction. The consensus here will would not outlaw "US" anywhere and everywhere on Wikipedia. We would just agree that "U.S." is the way we format place of birth/death in bio infoboxes for American football subjects so that we have consistency across analogous structures. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see an issue with standardizing on "U.S." for this WikiProject. Per WP:INFOBOXSTYLE:

General consistency should be aimed for across articles using the same infobox. A good guideline is not to add extraneous style formatting over that in a default infobox without good reason.

Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Create a Wikipedia page for that "Left Hand Up" commanders Song.

It's taken on a life of its own. Jumpy542 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are your sources for that? – PeeJay 21:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the song being perfoemed at Fedex Field. <ref>https://twitter.com/Sam4TR/status/1604625844936314882?s=20&t=SCA9SHVYfiwcRri0b7SM5ACite error: The opening <ref> tag is malformed or has a bad name (see the help page). Jumpy542 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A Twitter post of the song being performed at the stadium isn’t really enough. You need to provide third-party coverage of it. – PeeJay 22:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/11/18/commanders-song-left-hand-up/ Jumpy542 (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Has anyone outside of DC given similar coverage?—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
no but here's one from the team: https://www.commanders.com/news/dj-oh-goody-big-57-realize-dream-with-commanders-song Jumpy542 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
To determine if a topic is notable per the WP:GNG guideline, we only consider independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Guardians

You may be interested in this deletion discussion on an XFL team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NFLPA All-Pro / "2022 Players’ All-Pro"

I'd like to ask what others thing about including NFLPA All-Pro elections in the infobox, as this is the first year that they've put out an All-Pro team. Personally, I'm very much against it, as the process is similar to that of the Pro Bowl or the Top 100 lists which players have openly stated they don't take seriously. They vote for people they like instead of those who are most deserving.

For reference, this is the NFLPA list of players. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As a new award, it seems like this one needs to establish itself as significant before meriting a place in the infobox. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum, there should be a standalone article for the general award, if and when it meets WP:GNG.Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Reading this again, if the intent is just to have this be another All-Pro selector, and not a dedicated Players’ All-Pro line item in the infobox, then a dedicated page is not required, as we don't even have a dedicated AP All-Pro page. However, there needs to be agreement that is WP:DUE for mention in the infobox, which is probably too early to decide in its debut year.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We currently only include the AP's. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FL candidate: List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks

The featured list candidate List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks has been open for four months, but needs more comments or votes to pass. Can people check it out if you have the time?

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Background colors for the Los Angeles Chargers & Miami Dolphins

Would any other editor (especially asking for Eagles247) object if I were to change the HTML background color codes for the Los Angeles Chargers & Miami Dolphins over at Module:Gridiron color/data? As it stands right now, the HTML color code the Chargers use for powder blue ( #0080C6 ) & the HTML color code the Dolphins use for aqua ( #008E97 ) both fail WP:CONTRAST guidelines regarding accessibility. I'm proposing using  #007BC7  as the background color for the Chargers, and  #00838D  as the background color for the Dolphins. I derived both color codes from the top headers on each team's website using the 'Inspect' button. The only reason why I'm proposing these specific color codes is to ensure WP:CONTRAST guidelines are compliant without the necessity for  black  text in the backgrounds for both teams over at Module:Gridiron color/data. Please feel free to reply to this topic with a comment. I would like to reach WP:CONSENSUS regarding this topic. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show us how that would affect the way templates display for these two teams? Perhaps create sandbox versions of {{Los Angeles Chargers}} and {{Miami Dolphins}}? – PeeJay 19:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly. Template:Los Angeles Chargers/sandbox & Template:Miami Dolphins/sandbox have now both been created. Of course, we can hard-code using the templates Template:Gridiron secondary color & other templates using color code information at Module:Gridiron color/data if changes are to be implemented. I used {{#invoke:<span style="color:white">}} & {{#invoke:<span style="color:black">}} as examples in my sandboxes to show how it would look. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd support this. The current black text versions aren't very nice to look at. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole: OK, it's  Done. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders

You may be interested in this deletion discussion on the List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:29, 16 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That List of National Football League annual pass completion percentage leaders is up for deletion boggles ze mind [Edit: initially surprised me]. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:30, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I could understand how they might assume that the completion percentage page is fluff if they're not familiar with the NFL and their metrics, so I don't fault them. Not everybody is familiar with which stats may be notable and which are not. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, you're right. I wasn't assuming good faith. Randy Kryn (talk) 00:21, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Potential missing article

Jim Griffin, a DE who played 3 yrs in the 1960s, doesn't seem to have an article. My newspapers.com subscription is pending renewal, so I can't look into it. Leaving this note here if anyone interested to research and possible create Jim Griffin (American football). —Bagumba (talk) 10:49, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now added. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, now I can check off an item from my enormous list of articles needing to be written :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I was somehow possessed to create a page for Charlie Joiner's high school, and Griffin came up as an alumni. —Bagumba (talk) 04:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Harper J. Cole: Just a couple quick comments about the article: Number 1, half sacks are presented as as a decimal not as a fraction, just see any box score or sack stats on NFL.com. 2, The sack stats on pro football reference from before 1982 are unofficial and they acknowledge this on their career sacks page. This because sacks were not an official NFL stat until 1982. Because of that I did go ahead and remove it.--Rockchalk717 05:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a convention? Randomly, I tried Deacon Jones, and his unofficial numbers are in his infobox. Should document this, either way it's decided. —Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Not that I'm aware of, however, I know one of the core fundamentals on Wikipedia is sticking to what is official (like when a transaction occurs, we don't update until it's official) which is what I'm basing this on.--Rockchalk717 16:54, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The sack stats for Deacon Jones were added about a month after the PFR link was added by an editor that I've had issues with when it comes to transactions in the past, so it seems like (at least with Deacon Jones in particular) that the editor may be unaware that why try to stay from what isn't official.--Rockchalk717 16:58, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious "shortest game" fact claimed by both CBS and NBC

All,

The 1996 San Diego Chargers and 1996 Indianapolis Colts articles were recently updated to say that the game the two played against each other is the shortest on record at 2 hours and 29 minutes. While the edits, made by a new editor, didn't carry citations, a search on "shortest NFL game" does yield results from both CBS and NBC supporting this.[1][2]

On the other hand, looking at the game stats, it seems unlikely that a game with 20 penalties, 38 incompletions and 28 possessions could be the shortest.[3] A contemporary newspaper lists the game time as 3 hours 27 minutes.[4]

Should I...

  • Leave the statements as they are and add the citations?
  • Remove the statements as probably wrong?
  • Amend the statements to make it clear that they are claimed by some sources and contradicted by others?

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • I must say, even if it was 2 h 29 m I still doubt that would have been the shortest NFL game – back in the early days, there were no commercials and teams almost always ran the ball (I'm talkin' 1920s ball, if any of you remember those days :)), and in a few cases, games were called with as much as an entire quarter remaining. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • As for what you should do, I'd go for option three – Amend the statements to make it clear that they are claimed by some sources and contradicted by others. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, a statement that has contradicting sources should be completely excluded, not even mentioning that there are contradictory sources. I can't find any policies to point in the right direction, just an essay which is more of a recommendation than a policy.--Rockchalk717 05:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the key is if its a reasonable contradiction. We shouldn't automatically remove, as some sources just have errors. In the end, its up to common sense and consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 05:59, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Since IND was 18-44 passing,[5] it seems like the clock would have stopped a lot. If nobody is clamoring for its inclusion, remove it. If we include something that is reasonably disputed (WP:WEIGHT), I'd at least put an explanatory footnote (often its too cluttered to get into the details in the body). Something like "shortest game" is insignificant to a season page anyways, esp. if its dubious. Maybe more imporatant to a list of game times.—Bagumba (talk) 05:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Regular season standings

Hi all,

For the regular season standings, the division standings are split so the AFC divisions are on the left and the NFC divisions are on the right. However, for the conference standings, both divisions are on the left, one after the other (Example here). I think it would look cleaner if the conference standings matched the division standings with the AFC on the left and the NFC on the right (Example here). My old edit was reverted (rightfully) for consistency with the other seasons. However, I think this would be a positive change for every season visually, but do not want to make that decision unilaterally.~

Thanks,

Wiki9814 (talk) 06:19, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More missing articles

For about two years, I've been keeping track of recent NFL players (who have played in a game) who do not currently have articles. Here's the ones still left from my list:

I'm not much of an article creator, but I've wanted to give it more of a shot. I'm starting to work on Mike Brown (defensive back, born 1999) now. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! :D BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I gave it a go. I think it's better than some of the player articles out there, but I know it could be better still. I'll revisit later on to try to improve it further. Hopefully some changes will have been made by others that help me learn for the next article I create. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Impressive! The only issues I found were quite minor (second listing of a team in infobox in playing career should be delinked; for active players, put "NFL career stats as of 2022" rather than "NFL career stats;" and I re-used a ref; then also, although not required, a section with some info about his early life / college career would be nice). Nice work! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for making those changes. I've got a busy day at work at the moment, but if these aren't taken care of before then, I'll try to knock out another one tomorrow. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Knocked out Ja'Quan McMillian. I'll probably take on Vi Jones next. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Vi Jones completed now too. Taking a break from article creation now for the day. Might try again at some of the remaining ones on Monday. Again, please do critique what I've done so that I can get better. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I took a look and they seemed mostly fine, the only issue I noticed was at the end (one line above the categories) there should be something that says {{DEFAULTSORT:last name, first name}} tbh I don't know why that's needed, but I've seen in the past people complain about it not being on there and it seems just about all bios have it. Also, sorry I haven't been able to help out with these; I've got this one long draft I've been working on, then I also need to save an article from afd, and my three favorite teams are about to play in the conf. championships, plus I've got other things going on. I should be able to get to some of these by Monday/Tuesday if you need a break from writing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:01, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing to apologize for, you don't need to do it all! I'll add the default sort in moving forward for any new pages I create. Funny enough the Ja'Quan McMillian article has already been nominated for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:05, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Should we create a page to document what sources are/are not considered reliable in NFL articles?

Similar to some of the items in Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources? BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It can only be a good thing. People just need to put the time into it, and be willing to discuss the borderline ones. There's an in-progress one for the NBA. My peaves are the bloggy sites like most of SB Nation, SI's Fan Network, much of early years of Bleacher Report (hard to tell even now their full-time vs amateurish writers). If something is important enough to mention, more reliable sites should exist for the same content (esp. for NFL). —Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NFL deletion discussions

There's a user who today has been going around and nominating lots of NFL player articles for deletion. See:

BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]