Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Wikipedia talk:NFL)

Inconsistent application of nationalities in lead sentences?

[edit]

Recently, I did a double-take when reading Andrew Mukuba, whose lead sentence calls him "American." This stuck out to me because, per the sources in the article, Mukuba was born in Zimbabwe to parents who were Congolese refugees; the family immigrated to the U.S. after being granted asylum when Mukuba was nine years old. But I recalled a player with similar circumstances whose lead sentence does not call him American. Kwity Paye was born in a refugee camp in Guinea; his mother is Liberian and had fled the civil war in that country. Paye and his mother immigrated to the U.S. when Paye was six months old. The lead sentence of Paye's article simply calls him "Liberian."

Then there's Andrei Iosivas, born in Japan to a Filipino mother and a Romanian father, who immigrated to the U.S. as a teenager. He's called "Romanian-Filipino-American" in his lead sentence, though old versions of the page call him "Japanese-born American".

I've reviewed MOS:NATIONALITY which says that the nationality in the lead should usually be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident and that neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability. My reading of this is that all three of these players should be called (only) "American" because they are all residents of the United States whose notability does not come from the nationalities inherited from their parents or their birthplaces. (Paye, at least, is a naturalized citizen.) Does anyone disagree? OceanGunfish (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

My general statement would be that anyone not either born to an American parent or in the US should be cited that they are American. For Iosivas' page, Essentially Sports is not reliable. For other countries, it's not a given that being born in a country or to a parent with citizenship of a country automatically means the child is a citizen. It varies by country. As for excluding citizenship in the lead, use your best judgement. However, invariably on basketball pages, some "patriot" will add a "missing" country, even if it's trivial to their notability. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WT:MOSBIO notified. Left guide (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not unrelated to the present discussion is the on-going discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#The_Catalan/Spanish_label_again_in_Catalan-related_biographies There are a few existing RfC results that have concluded that a description like "Catalan politician" are preferred in the lead, though "Catalan" refers to Spain. Many argue that since the politician (for example) was of Spanish nationality, they should be described as "Spanish politician". This may be in contradiction with cited sources and the preferred identity of the politician, who might prefer the identity "Catalan". (An American Indian politician may prefer the label Navajo politician.) These are quite controversial issues in Spain. My own interpretation is that going strictly by legal citizenship is a superficial approach, and editors should try to better reflect the identity of the subject. Not to mention it is often better writing; describing the subject more efficiently. Anyways, this particular apparent consensus would seem to be in contradiction to the guidance described above (though I didn't read it carefully). The US is perhaps unique being a nation of immigrants; yet everyone is an (Ethnicity-)American (generally, including football players) Bdushaw (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

... yet everyone is an (Ethnicity-)American (generally, including football players): Except generally, ethnicity should not be in the lead (MOS:ETHNICITY). —Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I can see that could be a problem. These questions are not easy to resolve definitively and generally. Bdushaw (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I've given quite a bit of thought to labels in leads (see Wikipedia:Crime labels), and I've thought more about the problem posed above. Three guiding principles could be: "is the label consistent with the notability of the subject?", "is using the label good writing?", and "is the label more misleading than helpful?", in addition to the usual "is the label supported by reliable sources and the article text". In my view, the latter, while important, is not definitive; issues of UNDUE, etc. In the specific example above, one would have to ask, e.g., does the subject continue his ties to Zimbabwe? Or does he give Zimbabwe no further thought? If there is still a strong association, then perhaps "Zimbabwe" in the lead is appropriate, if not, then not. I would disagree with any hard and fast rule that says one has to specify the legal citizenship of a subject as a label; that has far too much potentiality to be misleading. Then there are nuanced questions of whether the label refers to a strictly legal fact, or whether it is a strong cultural identity (ethnicity?). In terms of good writing, labels are just shortcuts which can be easily misunderstood, or understood in a surprising variety of ways, unintended by the editor. They are a little dangerous. For nationality, as suggested above by Bagumba, it can be difficult to establish definitively the nationality of a subject. It is unclear to me that Mukuba is formally an American citizen (Does he still hold a work visa? Has he gone through the citizenship process?). I've been looking at the article Xavier Cugat and I have no idea what his citizenship status(es) were; he's called "Spanish" in the lead...that's not true; he's American, if anything. Also in terms of good writing, stacking labels can lead to problems, e.g., "American professional football player"...does that mean he is an American AND a professional football player? or a player for American professional football? (I once read on a package of cat food the label "Professional Cat Food", which I thought hilarious.) In the example above, I suspect the solution is to avoid the nationality, something like: "..a football safety [ok. What's a safety? Is "professional" really needed?] for the National Football League originally from Zimbabwe". It is often better to just avoid the label, and spend the words in a brief phrase later that clearly specifies the situation. That's the general result where crime labels are concerned. My ruminations. Bdushaw (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

We might as well just start rolling a dice. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't argue with WO-9 there. Maybe we can remove professional and I can get a few more hundred edits in. I spoke about 'salmon' months ago. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'll just start doing football leads depending on which way the wind is blowing each day. Could be "former American football quarterback" (old style), "American former professional football quarterback" (new style), "American former football quarterback" (new style sans pro) "American former professional football player who was a quarterback" (Bagumba style) I haven't checked the weather forecast yet for tomorrow, so I'm not sure what it will be. I'll keep you posted. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
What WO-9 is saying is correct, (and that's why he said it, lol), no need to get a good editor upset. I can say, WO-9 is a lot nicer than I would be with this situation. We have to get a happy medium here. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I know. We have this same discussion every few months, lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That we do, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, you are correct that such discussions are as repetitive as they are pervasive and exhausting. I advocate for clearer guidance to fend off the incessant arguing (what a waste of time!). But it's a mistake to trivialize the problem - I am continually surprised by new dimensions to the question; labels are important. And don't forget the beer and buffalo wings! Bdushaw (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placekicker or kicker

[edit]

Hello everyone, I was wondering if American football placekickers should now be renamed to kickers, as a lot of editors are already doing changing it. I have been reverting them, so just wondering if that's right or wrong. Thanks. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Placekicker is more of an archaic term that we really only use as its article title over Kicker (American football) for WP:NATURALDAB reasons. Kicker is the modern-day common name for them, so I don't have an issue with piping links to display just that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that the term placekicker (the role of attempting to score points by kicking the ball through the uprights) is used to distinguish from kickoff specialist (which seems to be evermore increasingly obsolete), with someone doing either or both more generally referred to as a kicker. The less that kickoff specialists exist, the less the distinction between "placekicker" and "kicker" seems to matter. Left guide (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC) edited Left guide (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the new kickoff rules made kickoff specialists obsolete as kicking into the endzone is now an automatic touchback with possession starting at the 35 yard line. No team is going to take up two of their allotted 53 roster spots with kickers unlike the past where it might be needed as certain field goal kickers could lack power on the longer kickoff (80 yards) but made up for it with accuracy. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Left guide @Dissident93 So you both suggest just using [Placekicker|Kicker]? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I personally don't care much what happens article-side, just chiming in to point out a relevant distinction you may not have been aware of. Left guide (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
If I was starting a new article on a kicker then yes, but I tend to leave existing links alone. Seems like nobody opposes others doing it though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind, currently I do not have much better to do 🙃 WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 23:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Ricky White#Requested move 29 April 2025

[edit]

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ricky White#Requested move 29 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of 2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game for deletion

[edit]
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game 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/2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College team names in career history

[edit]

Shouldn't we be using the full name of college teams in the infobox's career history section like we do in the lead now? WP:EASTEREGG may apply here for schools like Washington, Arizona, Minnesota, etc. as they share names with professional teams (which we always list in full). The only argument I've seen against this is nothing more than WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

D93, it would make a lot of colleges stretch to two lines. It's been like this for 20 years, as you know. Literally no reader has ever seen "College: Arizona" in the infobox and thought it was for the Arizona Cardinals. We didn't even use to include years for the colleges but you're suggesting we include years and nicknames? Should we spell out the whole high school names too? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The example I would imagine is being referenced here is this by the way. Not the actual section of where they went to college but in the 'pastcoaching' section. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, coaching careers mix the two formats for those who coached both in college and the pros. For example, Jim Harbaugh shows a stint with plain "San Diego".—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware, the example provided is D93 reverting my removal of the college nicknames from the infobox. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The slightly more ambiguous case with Harbaugh is that his playing career lists "San Diego Chargers", then his coaching career shows only "San Diego", and that San Diego college team is a bit more obscure, not being in a power conference. —Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It just makes little sense to me to have two different formats in the same section (and the lead) when spacing isn't an issue. @WikiOriginal-9 To be clear, this only applies to schools listed in the career section for coaches/executives and not |college=. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 39 § College coaching stints in bio infoboxes, the rough consensus was to list the full team name at least when it was ambiguous between college and pro teams, e.g. is "Houston" referring to the Houston Cougars or Houston Rockets? That discussion also mentioned football coach Jack Pardee, whose college coaching stint at Houston is listed as "Houston Cougars". —Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Why should any team names be omitted in that case? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:41, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's to set precedence. The only case where college nicknames can be added is in cases of remove ambiguity.
Guidelines that provide the precedence include: Wikipedia:WikiProject College football/Naming conventions and Wikipedia:WikiProject_College_football/Master_team_table. 9mm.trilla (talk) 07:40, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@9mm.trilla: I couldn't find where it says to mention the shortened school name without the team name there. Am I miising something? Thanks. —Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, @Bagumba, I didn't realize it wasn't in any part of both guidelines (though in my honest opinion, it should), but I already assumed when it involved college sports teams, and as a college football watcher myself, a school's preferred name was used instead of their mascots/nicknames when being mentioned or referenced to in articles. 9mm.trilla (talk) 08:13, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's more an issue now that there's more coaches hoppping between college and the NFL, but their teams are listed using mixed conventions i.e. college: no team name vs NFL: w/ team name. —Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My issue is the inconsistency with recent consensus to spell out the full team name in the lead. Additionally, it can also lead to confusion and there's no reason to be vague when space is not an issue in the section. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:17, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring theme -- All-Pro, American etc.

[edit]

Hello all. Regarding this Trey Hendrickson, and the All-Pro listing. Did we all come up with a reason for revert .. or to let it go? I brought this up some time ago, regarding AP only. Just wanted to make sure what we're doing regarding the infobox. This is also like the All-American selectors and pre-1980 sacks that I let go over the last month. Didn't want it to spiral out of control. Thank you. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean non-AP honors, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 26 § Non-AP sourcing? —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, like Hendrickson, the person added 2x .. with PFWA only in 2023. It's been done with non-AP All Americans also. Players were changed to 4x adding non-AP, and some vice versa. Not sure where the stance is on this. I almost reverted the Hendrickson edit, but wanted to ask about it first. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I get that, fine with me. I saw it reverted in the past, just wanted to make sure. I'm guessing some didn't want one page saying 4x .. all AP selections, and another stating 5x .. Sporting News and PFWA (No AP). Cheapens it in some eyes. They should stop the DPOY Award on TV stating AP. Gives them high ground to stand on and a mess for us. Honestly, the AP is the one everyone goes by, we know that. (Again, I don't agree with them). Bringingthewood (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Question of my own, what would this mean for someone like Derrick Henry for example? In his infobox it says first-team all-pro only in 2020, but he was named first-team all-pro by The Sporting News in 2020, 2022, and 2024 and they are considered an official selector. Would this mean I can change his infobox to say 3x first-team all-pro? Or add another bullet point below saying "3x SN first-team all-pro? Then again how would this all look in the infobox considering it already says second-team all-pro in 2024, but now also saying he was first-team all-pro in 2024. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NFLINFOBOX says

When listing All-American and All-Pro selections, there is no need to list the selector. If a player is selected to both the first and second team, whether by the same or different selectors, the player is listed as a first-team selection. List it as "First-team All-XXXX (19XX)".

But I don't believe it's been applied for All-Pros. —Bagumba (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I can’t speak for all NFL athletes' infoboxes, but I’m pretty sure most of them only have the AP selections shown. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was sort of applied at one point in time but people always change it back to AP-only. I'm not sure what the best way is. Dissident93 and I discussed adding notes to the highlights in the infobox earlier this year in a few topics. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol lots and lots of questions. In the case of Trey Hendrickson, judging by the 2023 All-Pro Team, the AP didn’t select defensive ends, so should his all-pros not even be mentioned? I feel like that is unfair. Should it be noted that the PFWA named him first-team all-pro?
For other athletes who have been named all-pro by many selectors in the same year, are we going to add all of them to the infobox with the selectors notated? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Notes clarify things like this without the clutter. It may not be the best solution, but it's better than the status quo. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Has this been implemented? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Jayden Daniels looks like an example, with footnotes in the infobox. But more importantly, it's itemized and sourced in the body. —Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That is something different as that pertains to OROY, not All-Pro. My question is what should we do if for example, a player was selected as a first-team all-pro only by the Associated Press in 2022, then in 2023 is only selected by The Sporting News. Would only the 2022 first-team all-pro be in the infobox? Would the TSN all-pro be notated? Or would you write "2× First-team all-pro (2022, 2023)"? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Daniels was an example of how multiple selectors could look combined on the same line, based on a non-All-Pro award. Your questions should be dealt with in the following order:
  1. What selectors should be listed for All-Pro?
  2. Should different selectors be combined "2× First-team All-Pro (2022, 2023)" or enumerated "AP first-team All-Pro (2022), "SN first-team all-pro (2023)"?
—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The same question came up with Lamar Jackson winning PFWA's MVP award last season for his third overall, which isn't reflected in his infobox currently. It makes the most sense to only combine ROTY awards since they can only be awarded once while enumerating ones that can be awarded seasonally. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:11, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
At List of NFL Most Valuable Player awards it reads "Since the 2011 season, the NFL has held the annual NFL Honors ceremony, which recognizes the winner of the Associated Press MVP award." The fact that the NFL since 2011 has recognized only the AP is probably a good reason why Lamar Jackson's 2024 PFWA NFL MVP award wasn’t allowed in his infobox. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 23:18, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But the NFL Record & Fact Book lists PFWA and TSN awards too, not just AP.[1] At any rate, Wikipedia is not a mouthpiece for the NFL's television programming choices. Per WP:NPOV:

All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic.

Independent sources cover non-AP MVPs too (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 26 § Non-AP sourcing). —Bagumba (talk) 03:07, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Even the league and networks are guilty of AP favoritism so it's not even just Wikipedia. How often do we think Lamar's PFWA MVP award will be brought up next season compared to Josh Allen's AP one? The NFL officially recognizing only the AP awards would solve this going forward. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:44, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But favoritism ≠ only viewpoint, and the PFHOF citing others too carries weight for me. —Bagumba (talk) 01:41, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, it just makes how Wikipedia handles it clumbersome. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:46, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
College has the concept of consensus All-Americans, so the college WikiProjects dont limit it to AP. A difference is that the college basketball project seems to limit mention to the consensus selectors, while the college football project sometimes lists other selectors. —Bagumba (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my bad I didn’t know we were only talking about college, I thought this discussion was for NFL too. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Let's not go down the road wrong road here. Some of the additions are fine, how about we let them go and see how it turns out? Remember, we can fix whatever is unwanted. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That didn't take long. This is why I originally started this section. Please see Trey Hendrickson's All-Pro revision history (May 11-13). This has been going on for some time across Wikipedia NFL pages, some say AP and some say ALL selectors. This also goes for All-Americans. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Lol this is why you can’t leave things open-ended. We need to reach consensus so we have consistency across the board. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Here's hoping! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please don’t hold your breath sir, I fear you will pass out.🤣 GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a simple person, my favorite player is T. J. Watt. His infobox shows second-team All American. That's for the AP. He was first-team for SI and ESPN, but I was told that doesn't belong there. His brother has first-team listed for PFW, which he's also AP-2. That's just for All-American. The All-Pro teams go back and forth for over a year now. The latest saga is Trey Hendrickson. Is it AP only or All selectors? I can't explain it any other way. I can't edit or revert without common ground. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you, I'd just like to get a final solution here. And btw one of my favorite players is Derrick Henry. It would be great to know if I could change his all-pros to reflect his first-team selections by The Sporting News and the PFWA in the years 2019, 2022, and 2024. His first-team all-pro selection by TSN in 2022 isn’t even mentioned to begin with.
To your point regarding SI and ESPN first-team selections, the reason why that probably got pushback is because for the AP, TSN, and PFWA, although not considered "official", it says and I’m quoting "they are included in the NFL Record and Fact Book and also part of the language of the 2011 NFLPA Collective Bargaining Agreement" which probably gives them some sort of legitimacy/prominence. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 00:07, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that .. maybe scraping the bottom of the barrel with some selectors. But the case for The Sporting News and PFWA being recognized, I agree 100%. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
All-American: Presumably it's similar to the de facto infobox practice at basketball bios to only list selections by consensus selectors, not that it needs to be AP specifically. The possible confusion is that a page like 2025 NCAA Men's Basketball All-Americans isn't conflated with non-consensus selectors, while 2024 College Football All-America Team is. —Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Flag icons for international games

[edit]

So flag icons are being added to schedule tables for the 2025 NFL International Series games but unless I'm misunderstanding MOS:FLAG/MOS:FLAGCRUFT, they are being misused as the icons are only meant for players/teams representing nations internationally like the Olympics and World Cup. A team playing in a stadium located outside the U.S. isn't that. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

The flags are there because these international games are special games. These link to the country, not any national team. It's clearly in the venue section. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
A flag icon should generally only be used to identify things or people representing the entity depicted by said flag (i.e. diplomats, Olympians) per MOS:FLAG:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

A stadium hosting an intra-league NFL game doesn't meet that criteria, regardless of where it is located. Left guide (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
This practice was done all the way back in 2007 when the first game was held in London. We would have quite a bunch of pages to change. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WP:CONTENTAGE Left guide (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But still this wouldn't just be NFL international games affected though, I've seen these for NBA, MLB, and NHL international games as well. Yes if there is a consensus later on, we can fix all of it but for now we'll leave them be. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
But it's not really going against the style either, the stadium is in a country that is outside the US so it could be seen as that. There's a reason it's called International. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I typically dislike overuse of flag icons. That said, the way they are used now seems fine. If they were able to the table of individual games, then I would think that is too much. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's still directly against the guideline and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS shouldn't overrule that. However if it's been done this way for nearly a decade without much fuss, then it's probably maybe it's not worth enforcing as it would likely just be added back. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: To try to avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I've notified the guideline talk page at WT:MOSICON. Left guide (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, is the issue with the table at NFL International Series § International marketing and expansion (2022–present) or schedules like at 2025 Los Angeles Chargers season § Schedule? —Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: My comments were based on the usage at team season articles like 2024 Jacksonville Jaguars season#Regular season, since the Jaguars have historically been regulars in these types of events, at least the London ones. Left guide (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say it's fine on the International Series page as it aligns with its scope per MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS, but they are being misused within team schedule tables per MOS:DECOR / MOS:FLAGCRUFT. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Left guide (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Usage at pages like the Chargers' schedule is also missing the country name with the flag. The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. (MOS:FLAG) However, I don't get feeling the exact country is all that relevant to the team's season. For that matter, venues are probably trivial too, with the key info being whether it is a home, away, or neutral site game. Neutral site games could just have a footnote to the venue, while the road team's stadium is available at the opponent's team page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the 2025 Chargers article, if that flag wasn't there there wouldn't be any indication to the reader that the Chargers are even playing an international game this year. In the case of Week 1, since I don't see "at" before [Kansas City Chiefs], I just assume that the Chargers are at their home field in the LA area. I don't actually have any reason to look at the venue column. That "Sao Paolo" over there without the flag is very easy to miss. I don't care though. I thought I'd just leave these thoughts from a reader's point of view. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe the cells could be highlighted and noted like we do for career highs within statistic tables? Not my personal preference but it's commonplace. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure highlighting here is a good idea. All of the table cells for past seasons are already highlighted green for wins and red for losses, so additional highlighting for other things in the midst of that may cause confusion to readers. A symbolized notation seems reasonable though. Left guide (talk) 05:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, that completely went over my head for some reason. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:25, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@HalfOfAnOrange: you continue to add them despite it clearly being misused per MOS:FLAGCRUFT. The team and players are not representing Spain, they are simply playing a game there. We might as well add state flags using that logic. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

First off, I haven't kept up with this thread for a while and it didn't ping with any updates besides just more opinions. Second, sorry about that then, I'll leave it be then. I will wait for a final consensus which may take a while longer. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 23:38, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It's less forming consensus and more bringing awareness to an already established guideline. I used to include them in Dota 2 esport articles where nationality mattered way more and they were still removed during WP:GAN. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:53, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. But yeah isn't talk for forming a consensus? HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 23:58, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely, it's used as a place for editors to discuss articles in any way. In this case, bringing awareness and clarifying the guideline's role within WP:NFL topics. There isn't any opposition to having them included within the NFL International Series article based on discussion here, for example. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Split proposal for Field goal

[edit]

I believe that we should split this article between Field goal, and List of longest gridiron football field goals. What do you all think? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 23:44, 15 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Support: Separating concept from records is a pretty common wiki practice. For example, in baseball, no-hitter and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters, or in basketball, three-point field goal and List of NBA career 3-point scoring leaders. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:42, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Green Bay Packers 2025 NFL draft picks

[edit]

Does anyone have any ideas on how to improve the viewing of these type of templates. My main issue is that the actual important navigational links in the template only typically cover one line, while the links to other years cover 3-4 lines depending on screen width, while also being highlighted, in this case, in gold. The result is that the actual links are somewhat hidden. Any ideas on how to improve this? Shorten the years to just the last two numbers (i.e. "2025" would become just "25")? Make it an expandable list? Use {{small}} text? Only show the a certain amount of links, like the five years before and five years after? For ease of access, that list of draft years comes from a sub-template: {{Green Bay Packers NFL draft template list}}. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:40, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

At Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2019 March 6 § Category:Indianapolis Colts draft navigational boxes, the consensus was to delete these types of team draft year navboxes. —Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Bagumba Is there more to this story than that deletion discussion? Seeing as Template:Indianapolis Colts 2025 NFL draft picks and all previous years exist today, did consensus change?
Assuming they all don't get deleted, I think the best course of action for now is using small text. But obviously open to other options. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:35, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Re: small text, there was an issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 17 § Mass TfD's of NFL draft navboxes regarding ACCESS issues. I'm not up on the technicalities on how "small" and navboxes mesh.
I'm not sure about consensus changing. I can imagine if only a few teams got deleted, someone will invariably recreate it based on WP:OTHERCONTENT, right or wrong. —Bagumba (talk) 18:47, 16 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

College positions

[edit]

If a retired player played at a different position in college, does that get included in their infobox? I see this often with college QBs, e.g. Bobby Franklin (American football). —Bagumba (talk) 04:28, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Don't see why it shouldn't be included. {{efn}} can be used to explain if desired; they're a godsend for infoboxes. Left guide (talk) 05:58, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Said this in a post earlier, but footnotes to clarify more minor things like this are vastly underutilized. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:33, 17 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just leave him as safety in the infobox. We never include college positions in the infobox. College numbers aren't there either. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:00, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with WO-9. You know someone is going to say if the position is there .. why not the number? Let's really hope it doesn't come to that. Some people already insist on adding practice squad numbers. Future slop should be stopped now. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:17, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Left guide and Dissident93: Would Franklin's position then be shown as:

  1. Quarterback,[a] safety
  2. Safety, quarterback[b]
  3. Safety[c]

—Bagumba (talk) 02:25, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe 3 is a reasonable compromise in light of objections raised above, with the additional caveat that it should only be there if it's due enough to be mentioned in the lead. Left guide (talk) 04:27, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
3 is also my preference if this is done as the infobox mainly pertains to his professional career. A player like Logan Thomas that played QB in college and the early part of his NFL career could have both listed once he is considered a former player (by retirement or 2+ years as a free agent). ~ Dissident93 (talk) 21:53, 18 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with WikiOriginal-9 and Bringingthewood that the ibx should generally exclude college position. It's inclusion is not an existing practice, it's not done for numbers, and we don't need to start footnoting their combine measurements there too. An WP:IAR exception might be players more notable as college players. The caveat would be if their lead sentence would reasonably tout their college career over their pro (e.g. Eric Crouch being called a "former college football player"). Otherwise, the details are in the body, and the infbox shouldn't be cluttered with explanatory notes.—Bagumba (talk) 06:14, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think positions played in college should be omitted from the infobox. Most players who are notable enough for an article on here are known for their professional careers; the number who are more notable for their college exploits are few and far between, and the number of those who played a different position in college to the NFL is even smaller. If a player played a different position in college to the pros, mention it in the body of the article. – PeeJay 09:37, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ In college only
  2. ^ Quarterback in college only
  3. ^ He was a quarterback in college

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eagles–Packers rivalry

[edit]

Courtesy notice for a relevant discussion for this WikiProject. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:03, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

TV / streaming networks in schedule tables

[edit]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE has been presented as a reason to omit TV/streaming networks from schedule tables a few times in the past (1, 2, 3), but it probably needs more discussion to be considered consensus. They end up getting removed after the season is over anyway so it's clearly not seen as vital. The networks are still retained in the game summary templates if readers care that much. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTTVGUIDE only explicitly discourages such information from an article on a broadcaster, which in this context would be listing a schedule of games on articles like NFL on NBC and NBC Sunday Night Football, so it doesn't really apply, at least not in letter. However, past consensus and editorial discretion can determine whether it should be included in team season articles. Left guide (talk) 00:28, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, what's the reason for removing them after the season? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:32, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is because it's of no interest or use to readers by then lol. Kinda flies in the face of WP:RECENTISM tbh. Left guide (talk) 03:43, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Depends how it's viewed. If it's only to be used in current seasons then it's nothing more than a TV guide; it at least maintains some historic value if kept. We should either keep it permanently or omit it entirely. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 03:56, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on the last sentence per WP:ENDURE. How are these aspects treated in secondary sources though? Do reflective sources 10 years after the fact make note of the TV network a particular game was broadcasted on? Left guide (talk) 03:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I doubt any general sources get into this historically at a per team, per game level. There was a time when MNF was a big deal, but that could be noted as a Monday game, without the specific network. And there's NFL Sunday Ticket (and one can only hope more flexible options to come). —Bagumba (talk) 05:55, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Assuming it's true, Dissident93's point about these getting routinely purged at season's end seems rather telling about the general long-term significance. Left guide (talk) 06:02, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I could understand the compromise. In-season, drive-by editors will probably just add it back. So unless a few editors are willing to step it up and police it in-season ... Alternatively, create a template for a standard schedule header that doesn't include TV, and use it universally. Editors will be less inclined to use their own header, or will try to change the template, but people can watchlist it and monitor in once central place.—Bagumba (talk) 06:33, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
{{CFB schedule}} exists so I'm surprised an NFL one doesn't. But even if one is created, the issue like you said is trying to keep it enforced as drive-by editors will try to replace it to match older pages, which tend to have plenty of other practices that go against more recently established guidelines and consensus. I can whip one up if there's support for it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 17:14, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: There's already a family of NFL schedule templates. Please see Category:Sports schedule templates letter "N" and just use those. I mentioned this in a thread on this project page last month lol. These templates have been around since at least '08. Left guide (talk) 18:48, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, it's one of those templates that need two or three others to actually function. I've never seen any of these actually in use, but it's nice to know it exists. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:52, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Many other sports use "game log" templates, especially those with more annual games like NBA and MLB, but it's in use on college basketball which has a similar family of "schedule" templates. An example would be 2007–08 Gonzaga Bulldogs men's basketball team#Schedule. NFL would presumably look something like that. Left guide (talk) 19:01, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I just prefer standalone templates if possible. They are easier to maintain and more understandable to use for less experienced editors. Imagine if we had to use separate modules for sections within player infoboxes. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:17, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's no usage yet. —Bagumba (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
They're hardly listed at all. Teams will often list the network their games are on on their website, but after the fact, it's almost impossible to find a valid source for the broadcaster, let alone the announcers, which for some reason we list in {{Americanfootballbox}}. I'd delete the |TV= and |TVAnnouncers= parameters if I had the choice. – PeeJay 09:34, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
@PeeJay: Shall we start a proposal to seek consensus on removing those parameters? If so, it would be fair to notify the college football project since the template is also used on many college football articles. Left guide (talk) 09:44, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Support deletion (right up there with all those random announcer quotes in championship game pages). Some editors just love cramming anything true into a box or table to avoid writing prose. Any notable game whose broadcast info might be notable can be placed in a sourced page section e.g. Super Bowl LVIII § Broadcasting. —Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at WP:ANI § User:Sagatorium

[edit]

 You are invited to join the discussion at WP:ANI § User:Sagatorium, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Left guide (talk) 08:09, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Award categories

[edit]

Following a post made on WT:CFB, but is there any opposition to creating more award categories like Category:NFL Comeback Player of the Year winners and Category:NFL Coach of the Year winners to match Category:NFL Most Valuable Player winners and Category:NFL Defensive Rookie of the Year winners? I would usually just WP:DOIT but they involve a large number of pages. My rational is that if a standalone article and navbox already exist for them, then a matching category should as well. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:59, 20 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Can't say I've ever understood the category community, but there's WP:OCAWARD, and while it's not an award per se, Category:Super Bowl champions was not "defining" enough and was deleted, but winning an SB is more likely to be in any obit than some awards. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Championship winners in team sports can have ambiguous grey areas because it's a vague concept not rooted in objective criteria (these discussions seem to pop up in sports projects often), whereas recipients of individual awards are generally black-and-white. Left guide (talk) 03:13, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Except the delete reason was WP:PERFCAT ;-) —Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You're right in that the categories tend to be policed in a different way than articles. However, WP:COMMONSENSE would say that if an article (List of NFL Comeback Player of the Year awards) and navbox (Template:AP NFL Comeback Player & Template:PFWA Comeback Player of the Year) exist without issue, then a matching category should probably be considered defining. A single player (sometimes two) winning a yearly award isn't the same as 100 people (staff, coaches, players) winning a championship. This wouldn't be tied to any specific publication either in case anybody was wondering. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:58, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2025 May 21#NFL Team Years

[edit]

Courtesy notification for the above discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:15, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retro Team Colors

[edit]

We have had an editor who has pushed hard at rivalry pages to use the color scheme for the team that was used in that season. However, consensus at these pages is that the point of colors for teams in general is to help associate data with that team, or to differentiate between two teams. So having a bunch of different colors is confusing to readers and doesn't reinforce the team's current identity. Within that thinking though, I wonder if navboxes should also be standardized to the team's current color scheme. As an example, templates like {{Green Bay Packers 1950 NFL draft picks}} and {{1919 Green Bay Packers}}, which get transcluded to players' articles, are different from the Packers current color scheme. Take Johnny "Blood" McNally, who has four championship team templates, but also has {{Green Bay Packers Hall of Fame}}. The color scheme of these templates conflict, possibly confusing the reader and implying different teams. I'm not going to die on a hill, but wondering if maybe we should consider all NFL team templates reflect the current color scheme of the team, or for defunct teams, the last color scheme used. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:46, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I think they should use the colors and logos they used at the time, if possible. Take for example, Snow Bowl. That's not the 80s Bucs wordmark. I'm not necessarily sure how to find the old wordmark but the team's primary color was orange, not red. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:09, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
WikiOriginal-9, sorry, I was only referencing navbox templates that get transcluded to player articles. I don't have any issues with historic team pages or games using the historic colors/logos (nor would I have any issue with only using current ones). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:18, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think the navbox templates should use old colors too. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see what Gonzo is saying, but going with modern colors for a 1919 team navbox doesn't make sense either. Being included in a team Hall of Fame is panoramic and not tied to any specific era with differing team names or colors. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:07, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Colt McCoy

[edit]

Colt McCoy has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 14:02, 22 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Football Cardinals Redirect listed at RFD

[edit]

The redirect Football Cardinals has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. It may be to the interest of members of this project. Everyone is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 May 23 § Football Cardinals until a consensus is reached. Servite et contribuere (talk) 15:49, 23 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&oldid=1291815521"