Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Wiki-Code Formatting Adjustments using color data from Module:Gridiron color/data

Is there a way to change the wiki-code formatting for Template:Gridiron alt primary style so that the border color in that specific template uses Template:Gridiron tertiary color raw instead of Template:Gridiron primary color raw? I'd change it myself, but I'm not technically proficient enough to implement this change by myself. Would anyone be opposed to changing the wiki-code formatting here? If not, would someone who knows how please help me implement this change? Also, how would I change the wiki-code formatting for the rowcells in Template:Infobox NFL team back to where they were at a normal size? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Unless I'm misunderstanding, the whole point of using the alt style is to use the secondary color as the filler and the primary color as the border (which makes it an inverse of the primary style). And the NFL team infobox is now using |rowstyle= instead of |headerstyle= to provide alternating styles, which seems to not work in exactly the same way. Personally I don't think we need every header to be the same size as the title header anyway as it just takes up additional space for no reason, but if others disagree then I can take another look at it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:54, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I mean, the only reason why I'm even proposing a wiki-code formatting change for Template:Gridiron alt primary style is because if you look at the wiki-code formatting for the Baltimore Ravens at Module:Gridiron color/data, the Ravens use  gold  as their tertiary team color (i.e., border color), but then that color can't be used in Template:Gridiron alt primary style. I'm just using the Ravens as an example, but my point is that the same tertiary border color should be used for both Template:Gridiron primary style & Template:Gridiron alt primary style for all teams that have a different tertiary color for the borders. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Would implementing your proposed change affect other teams and if so, would the module data have to be fixed for to account for it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Yes, implementing my proposed change would affect the following NFL teams: the Baltimore Ravens, the Arizona Cardinals, the Indianapolis Colts & the New York Jets. It would also affect the following CFL teams: the Calgary Stampeders & the Saskatchewan Roughriders. All I would like to see is the same tertiary border color for these teams that's used in the |titlestyle= be used in the |basestyle=. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:23, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

AP awards

This was discussed in the past but I believe there wasn't actually any consensus arrived from it, but the AP awards given out at the NFL Honors are considered the main award by the league and media (and have for years), and thus the articles should have their titles changed to reflect that. For example, Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award should be re-titled to simply NFL Most Valuable Player Award as the only other notable MVP award even given out anymore is the PFWA NFL Most Valuable Player Award, which hasn't deviated from the AP's for the last 20 years anyway. We could include the historic MVP award table from the current NFL Most Valuable Player Award article in a section under the retitled AP page. This would apply to all the AP awards given out at the NFL honors. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:45, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I have mixed feelings on this. The AP awards have been the 'de facto' awards for a good while now, essentially endorsed by the NFL given that they're the version of the award given out at the NFL Honors. I certainly wouldn't oppose it. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

What's your counterargument for posterity? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:24, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly just the ambiguity of the title. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:26, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

NFL Most Valuable Player Award is an existing article that summarizes all the different MVP awards. What would you rename this? I'm not sure I would support in an RM. I would be supportive of all the "Associated Press"es in the titles be changed to "AP" tho. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:27, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Would likely have to be for all the titles at Category:Associated Press awards if we're going to shortform it, which I would actually support. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Per my original post, Associated Press NFL Most Valuable Player Award would be moved/merged with NFL Most Valuable Player Award, with the table there listing all the historic MVP awards be moved to a subsection under the newly renamed page. The only content that page even has is the table, so no information is being lost or overwritten. All other existing award pages such as PFWA NFL Most Valuable Player Award would remain as is. I'm only interested in stripping AP from the page title and not the article for the sake of simplicity; the Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award is awarded by the Baseball Writers' Association of America but isn't reflected in the page name. I can make a sandbox version of what it would look like if needed.

The only hesitation I have is how we would handle the pre-AP awards from before 1957. Would the Joe F. Carr Trophy and United Press International NFL Most Valuable Player Awards be included as a mostly linear path from 1938–1956 or would it be best to keep the current formatting and allow the table to list all the non-AP awards? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:22, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

The Joe F. Carr Trophy should probably be included somehow at least? Its article says "It was awarded until the 1946 season, and it remains the only MVP award the NFL has officially sanctioned". Maybe these discrepancies is why Lizard the Wizard split out the AP award in the first place? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Honestly, the simplest change would be to have NFL Most Valuable Player Award renamed to List of NFL Most Valuable Player awards. Every thing else can stay the same except changing Associated Press to AP (honestly, shouldn't it just be "MVP" per common name?). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

AP NFL MVP? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that per WP:CONCISE. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

are considered the main award by the league and media: I don't believe the NFL has stated this, but even still we'd go by reliable, independent sources, not necessarily what a league desires to push. FWIW, the NFL's own record book lists both the AP and PFWA winners (and Sporting News, but they only issue offensive and defensive POY now). At Total Football II: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League p. 387 (1999), they list all the winners and historical selectors together. I'm wary of WP:UNDUE status making AP the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, and that's before even considering for recentism based solely on NFL Honors in the last decade. —Bagumba (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The PFHOF explictly mentions AP, e.g. Peyton Manning (click "Career Highlights") shows "2003 Associated Press Most Valuable Player". For Jerry Rice they list his non-AP MVPs ("1987 Most Valuable Player/Player of the Year (PFWA, NEA, SN, MX)").—Bagumba (talk) 05:16, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CONCISE, I've shortened all the AP awards (AP NFL Offensive Player of the Year Award) and moved all the generic award landing pages to be less vague in their scope (List of NFL Offensive Player of the Year awards). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:21, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDLINKAVOID

In my years at WP:NFL, I have noticed two very common MOS issue: MOS:AVOIDBOLD and WP:BOLDLINKAVOID. For those unaware:

• MOS:AVOIDBOLD: If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy.
• WP:BOLDLINKAVOID: Links should not be placed in the boldface reiteration of the title in the first sentence of a lead

An example of both of these issues can be found here: 2013–14 NFL playoffs (Perm Link). The title of the article doesn't lend itself to being restated exactly in the first sentence, and even if it did, then the bold words should not be linked. I try to fix these as I come across them and I would appreciate any help if you all run into the same issue in other articles. I feel like many editors aren't even aware of this MOS, as I have been reverted fixing it until I share it with people. Thanks for nay help! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a proposed standard wording and formatting? If we can establish that, some WP:GNOMEs might get to it. I often find certain editors revert for seemingly no other reason than "but we've always done it that way".—Bagumba (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba these issues are rampant across Wikipedia in general. I was just putting this out here with the hope that when other editors see it, they correct it. Seems like the biggest problem is people just don't know its in the MOS this way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:17, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: FWIW, it's come up before e.g. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 20 § NFL Championship Game edits by GoodDay, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 23 § Intro to American Football League seasons.—Bagumba (talk) 06:57, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the background Bagumba. My main gripe is the linking in the lead sentence, which doesn't seem to be contentious. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:14, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for New York Jets

New York Jets 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) 00:09, 13 November 2024 (UTC)

Autotagging pages in player categories for the NFL WikiProject

Every now and then I use AWB to run a recursive search against Category:National Football League players by team, skip talk pages which have "WikiProject National Football League", "NFLproject", "WikiProject NFL", "WPNFL", or "WP NFL", and then I manually add the NFL WikiProject template to the relevant article. I've asked a bot operator that I respect who has experience with similar tasks (Qwerfjkl) about this to see if they'd be willing to take on this task as a bot task so that I don't have to manually do so. As a project, we're pretty good about not leaving articles unassessed, except regarding the importance level (see Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Assessment), which is why I thought this may be reasonable and wouldn't be in vain.

Initially, I had asked them not to worry about ratings, assuming one of our members would do it once the article was tagged as being related to the project, but Qwerfjkl mentioned that they could use ORES for ratings, restricting the task to only stub assessments, which ORES is apparently pretty accurate at.

So, in short, I'm asking whether there are any objections to a bot task which would...

• A) Add the NFL WikiProject tag to any articles added to Category:National Football League players by team on a regular basis
• B) Assess any of the newly tagged pages, which don't already have an assessment, as stubs if ORES returns that as what they are most likely to be (which it is pretty accurate at)

Please provide any feedback that you may have. It would certainly help save some time for me and be most useful after each year's NFL draft, where we end up with a lot of new articles that need to have the WikiProject tag added. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

• Support. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:19, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
• Support as I don't see any reason to oppose this. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:01, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Discussion to merge Template:Infobox Canadian Football League biography into Template:Infobox NFL biography

Discussion here ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:58, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl losing quarterbacks

Thoughts on this one? I'm not really seeing this as a topic discussed by third-party, reliable sources. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:35, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Pure trivia and stats cruft. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

This reminds me, I wanted to nominate it for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:13, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support that move Hey man im josh. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:47, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

I would support that, too. The losing starting quarterbacks are already listed at List of Super Bowl starting quarterbacks, for that matter. Useight (talk) 02:09, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty, since there's feedback I'm not off my rocker on this idea, I've sent it to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

NFL's Greatest Games

Does anyone have a source for this article? I cannot seem to find any conclusive list of all these games? At best I can find Apple.com with just a few episodes. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:55, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

NFL attendances

Hi, I was asked to discuss about the average attendance figures of the NFL in 2023 over here. Do you think those would be a good addition? 80.57.47.217 (talk) 07:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, that was me that mentioned it might be worth discussing here. I thought that the numbers might be interesting, but they were sorted simply based on the number of attendees. That's cool, and interesting, but I think it'd be more valuable if we had the percentage included in a column as well, and sorted by that, as opposed to the raw attendance numbers. Also, I noticed your contributions and thought I'd encourage you to register an account. It'd make communication with you easier, as we could ping you, and you'd be able to better see a history of your edits and such. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:49, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

It'd make communication with you easier, as we could ping you ...: Editors could use {{talkback}}, but many might not be aware or find it inconvenient. —Bagumba (talk) 00:45, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Jet Chip Wasp

I just ran across this one. I really can't grasp that this couldn't adequately be covered in Super Bowl LIV. I really don't see too much independent coverage about the play, outside of typical Super Bowl coverage. Currently, the article is maybe 40% about the Super Bowl itself, and about 10% just the broadcast calls of the play. Wanted to get some opinions before I WP:AFD or request a merge. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:31, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

Stat table templates

I have some stat table templates tailored to position if anybody wishes to use them. Ideally, a template could be used to enforce consistency further if that's desired. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:04, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Those look good. I've always wished the stat tables had named parameters like the infoboxes though. It's hard to tell where stuff goes sometimes. The college football head coaching template has named parameters. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Should references be included in NFL infoboxes?

I am wondering if references should be included in NFL infoboxes… I removed a few but I thought I should check here before I do that anymore. Thanks WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 22:26, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

Similar to the lead, all information in an infobox should be included in the body of the article, so generally it should be cited there and not in the lead/infobox. That said, controversial items may need to be directly cited even in the lead. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:51, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. There's an editor who added dozens of references to the NFL infoboxes over the months. Never saw that in the NFL boxes before. I left them there and later saw a much more experienced editor thanked this person for their work in general .. far from a warning. That stopped me from asking. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:26, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

If there's a pro-football-reference link in the infobox, and the information is supported by that link, i dont think a reference needs to be added in the infobox. Ideally, the information should be mentioned in the body in prose and cited. —Bagumba (talk) 00:37, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

They're references like the one for Mario Monds. Same editor, all are for the teams in career history. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:48, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba@Bringingthewood@Gonzo fan2007 Alright thanks I will not remove them unless cited in the infobox from PFR. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 01:53, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, err on the side of verifiability. At some point as the article improves (WP:TIND), the reference can be placed with prose in the body. —Bagumba (talk) 02:08, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Right, also, one last thing, on Giorgio Tavecchio, is it really necessary that every year on the Raiders it shows if he is on the practice squad or the active roster. Just checking, seems a bit complicated to me but I want your imput on that. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 02:23, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Crash Underride went and simplified it.[1] It did seem a bit lengthy before, but not sure if there's a standard on whether offseason and practice squad stints should be noted or not during multi-year spans with the same team. —Bagumba (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Suggested moves, J. R. Reed (American football, born 1982) and J. R. Reed (gridiron football, born 1996)

J. R. Reed (American football, born 1982) → J. R. Reed (American football) and J. R. Reed (gridiron football, born 1996) → J. R. Reed (gridiron football) – J. R. Reed (gridiron football, born 1996) was moved a little over a year ago, and thought I would start a discussion about these as they no longer both have the (American football) anymore. Anyways, thought I would at least bring it up or if others have a different suggestion that would be fine too. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 18:58, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd leave it. A reader looking for a player in the US by that name might not necessarily know which one happened to play in Canada too. The birth year slightly helps to disambiguate.—Bagumba (talk) 19:18, 23 November 2024 (UTC)

Or J. R. Reed (American football, born 1982) → J. R. Reed (safety, born 1982) and J. R. Reed (gridiron football, born 1996) → J. R. Reed (safety, born 1996) – Was another one that I was thinking. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

WP:NCGRIDIRON #4 says to just use "American football" when using birth year.—Bagumba (talk) 03:32, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Category:Super Bowl winning players

The above category was created recently but Category:Super Bowl champions was already deleted in the past. I personally never minded the champions category though. That CfD looked like it could have used more discussion. I'm not stating an opinion one way or the other, I just thought we should resolve this before someone goes through and adds it to every player. I think a bot could have the categories added back automatically by simply undeleting the champions category? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:50, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: That CfD was pretty well attended, resulting in 10 delete votes. The rationale in the CfD still applies from my point of view, and I think, based on that, this is essentially just a modified category title for which that CfD still applies to. I boldly G4 deleted the category based on that. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:09, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

OK thanks. In regards to the CfD, I just meant that the last two !votes were saying that WP:PERFCAT doesn't apply to athletes but like I said, I don't mind either way. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:27, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Formatting

I am trying to get a consensus on this to see what people here in the project think…

For example: On Giorgio Tavecchio an editor put in for each year that if Tavecchio was on the practice squad (with an asterisk) like 2014, 2015 and 2016, 2017 did not have an asterisk as he was on the active roster. It seems a bit complicated and clunky to me but I will leave you guys up to that and to get a consensus. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

For reference, the two formats on that page have been:

• Oakland Raiders (2014)*, (2015)*, (2016)*, (2017)
• Oakland Raiders (2014–2017)

[2] —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Agree that the explicit one looks clunky, while the more compact one misleads that he played four seasons on the main roster, when in reality he was released in the preseason in the first three seasons. I never understood overblowing the infobox tenure with "offseason" stints (does any other project do that?), even if I accept listing practice squads. —Bagumba (talk) 07:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that listing offseason/preseason stints are bad form. We're talking about practice man. What is next adding "one-day contracts"?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:22, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yeah. It seems a bit much to me and a bit too complicated. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

  So this seems like one of those perhaps bad practices we'll likely continue for "consistency" and "ease" unless there's ever volunteers to remove the thousands of existing offseason (and likely unsourced) stints. —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Packers–Seahawks rivalry at WP:GAN

Would anyone feel like doing me a real solid and reviewing Packers–Seahawks rivalry at WP:GAN in the next week or so? The Packers and Seahawks play each other on December 15, I thought it would be cool to get it to DYK on the day of the game, but obviously need the GAN to make it eligible for DYK. Cookies, barnstars and QPQ would be freely offered! :) « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:American football positions (2024)

My attempt to change (revision) the {{American football positions}} was reverted (diff). I discussed this matter to the editor who reverted the changes. He suggested that I come here, hoping that you guys figure out what to do with the template. Happy Thanksgiving! George Ho (talk) 19:30, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I don't find the version that George Ho swapped the template to to be better than what was there, but I also recognize what was there wasn't great. I'm hopeful someone here has an idea on a better implementation. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I'd redesign it using the standard {{Navbox}}, with high-level groups for offense, defense, and special teams. I don't see any particular significance to the current custom organization–it's not a visual alignment of X's and O's by position. —Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I did just that :) Feel free to tinker and or revert. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:16, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for History of the New York Giants (1994–present)

History of the New York Giants (1994–present) 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) 01:06, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Well this would put Wikipedia:Good topics/History of the New York Giants on the path to be a candidate for removal. It's one of our five NFL topics that have been promoted, so hopefully someone interested in good articles and their improvement is up for the task. The only Giants fan that springs to mine for me is @Giants2008. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:59, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Football biography cleanup

We made a lot of progress in 2023 and early 2024 with the article improvement campaign at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Football biography cleanup, but progress has stalled in recent months. There are still a lot of stubs lacking SIGCOV that could use work. Cbl62 (talk) 03:20, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game

I mean, ridiculous game, but long term notability? Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:11, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

These are always difficult. Per WP:LASTING:

It may take weeks or months to determine whether or not an event has a lasting effect. This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable.

Or WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article. However, this may be difficult or impossible to determine shortly after the event occurs, as editors cannot know whether an event will receive further coverage or not. That an event occurred recently does not in itself make it non-notable.

YMMV on how recentism may skew an AfD.—Bagumba (talk) 02:09, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

These are always hard to suss out, but something I will mention without really taking a side is that the game did, more or less, lead directly to Eberflus' firing, which is the first time in da Bears' extensive history that they have made an in-season coaching change. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 19:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Nominated for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2024 Chicago Bears–Detroit Lions Thanksgiving game. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

"Madhouse in Maryland" name

Discussion to garner consensus on a name for the Madhouse in Maryland Hail Mary play a couple of weeks ago on its talk page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:54, 1 December 2024 (UTC)