Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Dispute at Jordan Love

Hello, Yankees10 and I are having a dispute at Jordan Love. Seeing as there is some history here considering accusations of me "owning" the article, I'm bringing it here for input. Basically, the dispute revolves around a second source from Packers.com being added to a statement regarding him signing his new contract extension. I had added a source from ESPN.com to verify the signing, which is a reputable, third party source. Another editor added a second citation after the sentence to Packers.com, which is technically a self-published primary source. I removed it as excessive, Yankees10 reverted to add it back in. I reverted and explained myself a bit more in the edit summary, they reverted again accusing me of article ownership and edit warring (noting I have only reverted once, they have reverted twice). So basically the issue is whether his signing needs to be supported by the primary Packers.com source in addition to the ESPN.com source. I'll also note that the current placement of the Packers.com source is confusing, because it does not support the facts in the preceding sentence (rather it supports the facts in the sentence before the one it is attached at the end of).

I think WP:V and WP:CITATION supports the basic premise that the minimum number of sources to support a fact is most appropriate, and that third party sources are much more preferred over self-published primary sources like Packers.com. WP:OVERCITE provides a good essay on how too many citations can hinder readers and editors. I will also note, since this is early in Love's career, I am trying real hard to avoid what happened with Aaron Rodgers and his 512 inclined citations. It is so much easier to avoid early instead of having to clean up later.

• Links to the sources in question: ESPN.com and Packers.com

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Accusations of ownership are better handled 1-on-1 on user talk pages, taking it to a noticeboard if needed (WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE). Diffs should be provided to justify such claims.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba, I am not sure who this was directed to, but I just wanted to note that one of the reasons I moved the discussion to here so quickly is because I wanted to avoid further accusations of ownership. I am, and always have been, happy to go along with the consensus of the SMEs here at WP:NFL. I also wanted to avoid starting an edit war, as I had only reverted once. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: It was intended to be a generic statement toward accusers of ownership, but it could also apply if the accused is subject to persistent, seemingly unfounded accusations from an accuser. —Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

As for the content dispute, it's probably better if the other involved parties state their perspective. Kante4 originally added the aforementioned Packers.com source.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Hey, i added the packers.com source as the ESPN article relies(d) on "Sources" ("sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter"). That was the only reason and the packers made if official with their article. Kante4 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for that background Kante4! My only desire is to try to limit the number of references necessary in Love's article. I always regretted not doing Aaron Rodgers, and his article has ballooned up to an unmanageable 512 references. Would you and Yankees10 support the replacement of those two with the following:

• "It's official: Packers QB Jordan Love signs record extension". Reuters. July 27, 2024. Archived from the original on August 2, 2024. Retrieved August 2, 2024.

I think for such a straightforward, non-controversial piece of info, we should be able to support it with just one citation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me Gonzo fan2007. Kante4 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

My $.02 may not be needed here, Gonzo fan2007, but yeah, as long as the Packers have announced the extension, there doesn't seem to be a need for the additional ref. Yankees10 maybe was considering that we don't post breaking news with these signings/trades based on rumors or reports, until one of the teams officially announces it, but that's usually for article leads and infobox changes. We don't need sentences being broken up with several refs between random words. Your original ESPN reference is sufficient especially in this case. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

I went ahead and made this change, adding the Reuters reference in place of the Packers.com and ESPN citations. I used the citation bot to format the reference, but it doesn't appear to have worked. Can someone give me a hand with that? SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 16:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Spf121188, here you go: {{Cite news | url = https://www.reuters.com/sports/its-official-packers-qb-jordan-love-signs-record-extension-2024-07-27/ | title = It's official: Packers QB Jordan Love signs record extension | date = July 27, 2024 | access-date = August 2, 2024 | newspaper = [[Reuters]] | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240802150607/https://www.reuters.com/sports/its-official-packers-qb-jordan-love-signs-record-extension-2024-07-27/ | archive-date = August 2, 2024 | url-status = live}} « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Perfect, Gonzo fan2007, thank you! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (my edits)} 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Pro Football Archives

If I recall correctly. I saw a post here that https://www.profootballarchives.com/ was down. It appears to be up again. @BeanieFan11:- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

• I'm aware. It was down for awhile, the owner told me that he was never bringing it back up again, and now its somehow back up (but I'm glad that its back). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

All-Time Rosters

As many of you know, I am working towards WP:FL for all WP:PACKERS lists. The ones I have left to end to complete are Green Bay Packers All-Time Roster. However, the more I think about it, I really struggle with whether they are worthwhile for Wikipedia. The quality and consistency in Category:Lists of players by National Football League team is so low and bad. With the sheer number of roster moves these days and the size of NFL rosters, updating these lists that are "All-Time Roster" style seems borderline impossible.

I know other WikiProjects have FLs for All-Time Rosters, like Portland Trail Blazers all-time roster, but I guess I wonder if the dynamics of the NFL justify not having these types of articles. I mentioned in an earlier post converting over the "list of players" to a different style, which had support and I implemented at Lists of Green Bay Packers players. I wonder if this is enough. I guess I am asking what everyone's thoughts would be with abandoning the idea of maintaining all-time rosters for NFL teams on Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I would caution against getting the all-time roster to FA status. Especially once the list goes into disrepair, ie with Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster once @Killervogel5: left, it is a pain to de-list everything. Maybe if they're worthy, we can have some bot just update the stats? But even then I don't support their inclusion on WP. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Given the sheer size and monotonous nature of the updates, it seems better suited for automation, but I'm not sure if there is community precedent for such types of automated edits. In the meantime, {{Dynamic list}} seems relevant for any such incomplete lists. Nobody is required to maintain these lists. Is the question whether they should be deleted (WP:THEREISNODEADLINE comes to mind)?—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba, yes I think that's the question. Basically, is maintaining a badly outdated list preferential to deletion? Does categorization better fit this type of need? Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range? Just straw polling the community before I put effort into updating or reworking the lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)

Does categorization better fit this type of need? I'm not endorsing one way or another, but the WP:NOTDUP guideline says:

Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range? As those Packers lists only have seasons and number of games played, which are pretty basic and self-explanatory, NOTSTATS doesn't seem applicable. —Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)

Reliable sources noticeboard discussion

There is a discussion at WP:RSN#profootballarchives.com that may be of interest to members of this project. Left guide (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

NFL.com

I know we removed the links from the infoboxes recently but people keep changing weight and stuff "per NFL.com". NBA infoboxes take the links from Wikidata. I'm wondering if we should do the same thing here. Just a thought if anyone wants to pursue this. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

To complicate matters, there was discussion before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21 § Player's position that the team's website was the most accurate, not NFL.com. I'll leave it to regulars to gauge that. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

NFL.com and PFR to a lesser extent have always lagged behind the team's website for updates to jersey numbers, height/weight, and positions. The only reason people argued for NFL.com as the primary database for these things was due to its infobox inclusion. I don't see any reason why we couldn't have replaced it with an autopopulated team profile page link based on the |current_team= parameter. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21 § Player's position discussion, I agree with a lot of what Dissident93 had to say. I know that Hunterb212 (talk) is one user that updates the height and weight in the infoboxes to show what the NFL website says at the time that he is updating them. There have been times when, after not very long, I see that the NFL website ends up changing that info, and I have to update the infoboxes to show the new changes; that's why I like to first have the infoboxes show the height and weight from the pre-draft measurables around the time that this information is first coming out, and then I wait until the regular season is close to starting or has already started before I use the NFL website or the team websites to update the infoboxes, as this information is more likely to change before then. I would say as far as the measurements in the infoboxes go, sometimes, I rely only on the NFL website, only the team pages, or a combination of them, with the pre-draft measurables being factored into the decision making. For example, with Brock Bowers, Georgia had him listed at 6'4 and 240 pounds. At the NFL Combine, he was measured at 6'3 and 243 pounds. The NFL website currently has him listed at the NFL Combine measurables (6'3 and 243 pounds). The Raiders website has him listed at 6'4 and 230 pounds. Since the Raiders website has a different weight listed than what Georgia listed him at or what he was weighed at during the NFL Combine, I would use the team website's weight listing (230 pounds) for his infobox, as it's more current. As for the height, it looks like the Raiders team page is likely relying on what Georgia listed him at, so I would go with the 6'3 listing that the NFL website got from the NFL Combine. Currently, his infobox only relies on the NFL Combine measurables (6'3 and 243 pounds). There are other times when the NFL website and the team websites pull both the height and exact weight from the old college listings, such as for Xavier Legette and Brenden Rice. In this situation, I personally would have the pre-draft height and weight listed in the infobox and would cite PFR if the PFR page still relies on the pre-draft measurables, as those listings should be more accurate and current. However, since the NFL website, the team websites, and practically every other source now show the listings that originally came from their colleges, I expect that eventually, someone will update their infoboxes to show these listings, as they're now considered "official"; this is why a lot of the times, in the "Professional Career" section, I will add the pre-draft measurables, even if I can't retrieve any other info except for the measured height and weight, because I want to show that the official listings aren't as accurate as many people believe them to be. It's also why I add that info to the "Professional Career" section for special teamers as well, even though people have told me that adding this information is irrelevant for kickers, punters, and long snappers. There are also instances, such as in Cooper Beebe's case, when the team website gets the height and weight from what Kansas State listed him at (6'4 and 335 pounds), while the NFL website lists him at 6'3 and 320 pounds. At the NFL Combine, he was measured at 6'3 and 322 pounds. Since the NFL website didn't get the weight from the Combine or an old college listing, and the NFL website got the height from the NFL Combine instead of the college listing, I would cite the NFL website for both the height and weight (6'3 and 320 pounds). Currently, his infobox says 6'3 and 335 pounds.

In situations when the NFL website, the team page, or both show the accurate height from a pre-draft measurement and the weight comes from either a pre-draft measurement or after the players were drafted, while PFR got the height from an old college listing and/or the weight from either a college listing or an outdated, pre-draft measurement, I would encourage anyone to leave feedback on the PFR website to change the info. It usually takes them at least a week before they update their listings based on feedback. They're more receptive to that kind of feedback after training camp and the preseason have concluded.

There were times during this year's draft when the positions of the players were listed differently between the NFL website, the team websites, and the draft profiles. The 2024 NFL draft page on Wikipedia sometimes showed a different position listed for a player than what the same player's Wikipedia page said. I agree with what Dissident93 said in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21 § Player's position discussion that a more encompassing term, such as offensive lineman, defensive lineman, edge rusher, and defensive back, should be used during times of uncertainty. I would then update the positions once the NFL and team websites update the positions and are in agreement with each other. For example, currently, Darius Robinson is listed as a defensive lineman on the NFL website and the Arizona Cardinals team page. At the time of the draft, if I recall correctly, it was either the NFL website or the Arizona Cardinals website that listed him as a defensive end, while the other source said defensive lineman. Meanwhile, his NFL draft profile listed him as an edge rusher. During that time, I would have listed him as an edge rusher in the infobox, since two of the three sources considered him to be a pass rusher. Then, once the NFL website and the team page both listed him as a defensive lineman, I would have updated the infobox to say defensive lineman. As Sergio Skol (talk) said in the same discussion, the jersey number rules should also be considered a factor when it comes to deciding what position the player gets listed at in the infobox. I would have also left feedback on the PFR website to get the position updated if it needed to be. Currently, Darius Robinson is listed as a defensive end in his infobox and on the 2024 NFL draft page.

In my opinion, the infobox should have links to the NFL website, the team website, and PFR, regardless of how that gets implemented. Then, all three sources can be used interchangeably or in conjunction for the infobox info, depending on how each source decided to list the info. RevMSWIE500 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)

Move of John Jefferson to John Jefferson (American football player)

Daask recently moved John Jefferson to John Jefferson (American football player). Notwithstanding the fact that "player" should very dropped either way, I'm not sure I support the move. Looking at page views, it appears the football player is pretty clearly the primary topic here. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

WP:RMUM says:

If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

I've undid the move per your WP:RMUM concern, and because WP:POSTMOVE wasn't followed to update all the links to John Jefferson that were pointing to a dab page instead of to the football player. No prejudice if this is formally proposed at WP:RM. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Conversation continued at Talk:John Jefferson § Requested move 20 August 2024. Daask (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)

Roster templates - player positions - depth charts or roster?

Now that the depth charts for some teams have come out, I've been running into an issue with IPs changing player positions and justifying it by pointing to a depth chart (which are often stated as unofficial). I see this as problematic for the following reasons:

• 14 teams explicitly state on the webpage for their depth charts that what's listed is unofficial
• Another depth chart hasn't been updated since July 26, per the info on the page
• Several teams state that their depth charts are compiled by their PR department on the page
• When there's a position listed on a depth chart that is different from that of the team's roster, it has led to edit warring

Proposal:

• A player's position will default to what is listed on the team's roster/website, which will have priority over depth charts
• If this position is ambiguous (such as listing "DL", which at least 14 rosters regularly do), then the depth chart may be used to designate their position
• Consider whether Pro Football Reference should be used as the second option
• Do not use NFL.com for player positions, this is widely recognized as not up to date on this type of information.

Please provide any feedback you may have on how best to handle player positions for the relevant rosters listed in Category:National Football League roster templates. I believe this is important to get ironed out once and I'd appreciate everyone's help in doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:31, 23 August 2024 (UTC)

Is this more of a preseason issue, or regular season also? —Bagumba (talk) 12:15, 25 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: Sorry for the delayed response. It is a larger issues during the preseason, but it does also come up during the regular season sometimes as well, just much less often. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

The fact that some depth charts explicit say "unofficial"[2] and others might not even provide a date[3] makes me inclined to discount them. Esp. in the preseason, where from a long-term encyclopedic perspecive, it's more important what they actually end up playing, and how reliable sources generally describe the player. —Bagumba (talk) 05:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks @Bagumba, I agree, and it's been very frustrating to deal with, especially from the IP range of 68.234.69.0/24. Repeatedly making changes based on depth charts and not listening to warnings and ignoring the fact that they explicitly state "unofficial" in a number of cases. It's been rough. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree with what's been proposed. One more thing I'd like to see done (for consistency reasons) is specific OL positions, which are almost always noted in depth charts and only change on the field due to injury. We already allow this for the more dynamic DL, LB, and DB positions. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

I'd support that and I think it makes sense, especially for those non-starters. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:46, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Honestly @Dissident93, I think the biggest problem that we struggle with, something that @Rockchalk717, myself, and you often struggle with is that people make guesses at player positions. They routinely make a buttload of unsourced changes based on what they see on a few plays or based on what they're guessing, or based on what one site reports. I wish they were all protected but I'm way too involved to implement something like that. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: An issue that I see, that is touched on at #NFL.com (above), is that if this project is using the teams' website as the primary resource, it is unclear to a drive-by editor, as it's not linked in the infobox and almost assuredly isnt sourced in the body. The roster templates linking to depth charts also opens it up for unregulated use as a reference for those not aware of these proposed project guidelines. —Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba: I was thinking the same thing about the depth charts in the templates... It's troublesome and I'm not really sure how to combat it, but it's an issue I've been dealing with since I started here. I hadn't actually considered the positions on the player pages, since I felt those are usually grabbed from PFR or the team site anyways. Whatever the case may be, I'm strongly of the opinion that we shouldn't be using the depth charts for player positions, given that 14 of them explicitly state they're unofficially and a number of them state that they were put together by the media team. This leads me to believe the NFL doesn't actually require that teams put out any type of official depth chart, but does instruct teams to list one on their site (all of the sites are pretty identical in a number of structured components).

Aren't there game books usually created that list positions in some sense? I feel like I saw that at some point and if they exist I think those might actually be the best thing to take as "official". Hey man im josh (talk) 16:28, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

This gamebook shows the starting lineup by position and at the end shows a position for everyone who got in the game. I'm not an active editor for player positions, but it seems unwieldy to verify if someone shoves a one-off position in an infobox. It also might be undue if other sources dont update their position accordingly. —Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I agree it would be undue to label a player as a center if they shifted there for a single game as an example. For active players we should only be listing their current position but for retired players we should be listing the position(s) they played for a significant amount of time, not just as one offs. Same reason we wouldn't label Vrabel as a tight end, despite his 10 touchdowns. I'm just not sure what to do about the roster templates at this point given the long term issues. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Team profile link being dynamically added/removed from the infobox based on |current_team= could mitigate this issue at least. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:13, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

I would love that implementation, even if we didn't agree that it was helpful for determining player positions. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:26, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Jrooster49, who hasn't chimed in but is probably our most active editor when it comes to roster templates. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:18, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Template:Infobox American football game

Can I get some clarity on the intent of {{Infobox American football game}}, specifically the |visitor= and |home= parameters. The template's documentation page says that these parameters should be The club that was designated as the visiting team and The club that was designated as the home team. The expectation, per this documentation and WP:EASTEREGG, is that these fields would contain just the linked name of each team. However, there seems to be this prevailing desire to have a hidden link to the teams' season page. So for example, in Fail Mary the parameters have | visitor = [[2012 Green Bay Packers season|Green Bay Packers]] instead of just | visitor = [[Green Bay Packers]]. Other than the documentation page, I don't see anything else discussing this (i.e. WP:NFL doesn't seem to have a Style Guide on NFL game pages. I personally prefer just the team link, because that's what I expect when clicking in the infobox and otherwise it comes across as an easter egg link, but I truly don't care. I just want to update the documentation page so there are no more content disputes on it. Can we establish consensus one way or the other? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

If you look at indiv Super Bowl pages (e.g. Super Bowl LVIII), the teams' specific season page is linked. This seems in the spirit of MOS:SPECIFICLINK. EGG seems a bit misplaced, as it's not totally unexpected, so it's more a matter of project principles and style being consistent. The main downside is that some totally unfamiliar with the NFL would find the general team page more useful, but the assumption is that those are a smaller group of readers, and the general links are at the season-specific team page.—Bagumba (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bagumba, ya Super Bowls are covered under {{Infobox American football game}}, so this would cover those games as well. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:14, 27 August 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to get some consensus on this. I don't want to make a unilateral change that falls into an edit way. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:55, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

I randomly sampled the entries at List of nicknamed NFL games and plays, and the ones I checked all used the season specific team link. Presumably all the SBs are the same. Keep the status quo, barring a new consensus, which also seems most relevant (see above). —Bagumba (talk) 07:43, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Request to add image parameter to Template:Infobox NFL team season

This is a matter that I figure others may want to weigh in on, given how many articles it could potentially impact, but @Carrite is requesting the ability to add an image to the infobox and, I believe, asking for the the title of the article to display overtop of the infobox instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there already is an image field? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

You're thinking of |uniform=. There's no other way to add images, which could be used to show players lifting the Lombardi Trophy in a Super Bowl year or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:25, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

It looks like there is a functioning logo field as well. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:35, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Just realized I didn't add a link. Fixed @Dissident93 and @WikiOriginal-9. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:04, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

A request has been made on Carrite's behalf at Template_talk:Infobox_NFL_team_season#Template_should_accommodate_an_image_(team_photo). Carrite is requesting that images be available to be added, such as shown in 1953 Baltimore Colts season. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:33, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Editing war

OK I am not really sure how this works and if I am in the wrong place, however I am wondering about the page Brayden Narveson. I personally do think that my edits are correct, however User:135.131.153.248 and User:2404:4404:442F:2100:11B9:83:1305:D2B3 have reverted my edits such as Narveson losing the kicking job to Nick Folk, his weight being 6 foot instead of 5 foot 11, or Greg Joseph being released hours after signing Narveson (if you check the logs). I did not want to get into an editing war so I wanted to check with you higher-ups. Anyway thanks for dealing with me and please let me know if I am in the wrong place. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 03:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

It was a different user who edited your additions. Generally, follow Wikipedia:Dispute resolution. In this case though, since their edit summary "Info Update" didn't seem to match their actual edit to remove content, you might try to reinsert it with an explanation like "unexplained removal of sourced content". Hopefully that resolves it, or they discuss it, but yeah, good to be aware of potential edit wars. Good luck.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Ah, looks like you added the other IP while I was editing.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Yes, thanks for helping. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 04:22, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I believe IP 135. is going with the team link: https://www.packers.com/team/players-roster/, which many editors do when there's no pfr link. The team has him listed at 6'0" - 215 lbs. The article has pre-draft numbers. I would have went with the team link, I'm going out on a limb, but the Packers might have the final current say in the matter. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

OK I can put it back at 6 foot. Thanks. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 04:43, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't. Looks like Green Bay rounded it off. Keeping it at 5'11" seems accurate. That might be the way a team site lists players. A stupid 1/8th of an inch could lead to this. It's just tough to point fingers at a team site at times. I just went through this with pfr and teams. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:47, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Ohhhhhhhh, OK so I will revert my revert of my other revert LOL WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 04:53, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Glad you got that, lol. I think you're correct, not sure how to fight one of those team site editors though. :/ Bringingthewood (talk) 04:57, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Just a note: Take T. J. Watt for example. The Steelers team site and pfr are correct. His pre-draft is 6'4 1/2". But they both list him at 6'4".... and 1/2 is more than 1/8. Go figure. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:03, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Alrighty Airtighty thanks. Good night (for me), one last question, do you guys ever sleep? It seems like the majority of people that work on this WikiProject never sleep, I am sure you guys do, but I would like some secret insight from you. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 05:04, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Does Merlot or Cabernet count? Ooops .. I didn't say that. Good night. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:07, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

Differing timezones and most editors here seem like night owls, giving that impression. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:47, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

If the Packers list him at six feet, so should we. Kante4 (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Normally I would agree 100%. But I think Packers.com might not be rounding him off correctly. Sometimes people do make mistakes, I think I heard that somewhere. Just going along with it right or wrong ... nah. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:18, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

But assuming that they "might" have made a mistake is not the way to go I say. We have sources and should stick to them. Kante4 (talk) 21:23, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Not assuming here. On Brayden Narveson's page it shows pre-draft at an 1/8th of an inch. I even wrote about it in the revision history, that maybe someone could find that out. We definitely shouldn't lose sleep over it. Honestly, I wish this player had a pfr page. I'm not going stop using a team page over this in the future. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:20, 2 September 2024 (UTC)

Devil's advocate: Why assume the pre-draft is necessarily right? —Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

@Bagumba @Bringingthewood @Kante4 Well, I mean if you look it up, it is conflicting… some say 6'1"[4][5][6] others say 6'0"[7][8][9] and others say 5'11"[10][11][12][13] (the Titans did as well). When I searched everything up, I think User:Bringingthewood's original prediction was correct, because when he was on the Titans he was 5'11". However, when he went to Green Bay, he magically went up to 6'0" (and all the others updated to that as well). I personally think he should stay at 5'11" but I don't know what you guys think. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 15:37, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

So, pfr has him also at 6'0. This, NFL.com and the current team website is what i would consider checking for players and if they conflict, then it should be discussed. Kante4 (talk) 15:53, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

I absolutely agree 100% with Kante4. Brayden Narveson’s height should be listed as 6’0”. That’s how he’s listed on Packers.com and NFL.com. Those are the most recent and factual sources. It shouldn’t matter what other sites say or what the Titans had him listed as. Narveson no longer plays for Tennessee. Just because his pre-draft height was 5’ll 1/8” doesn’t mean Green Bay or us on Wikipedia must have him at 5’ll”. The draft was months ago and that may not even be accurate. The Packers have him at 6’0” at this very moment in time for a reason, that’s the fact. This isn’t about personal opinions, some bias or an assuming feeling that the editors at Packers.com or other sites made a mistake listing him at 6’0”. That’s not for us to decide. If anyone concurs, then I’m going to update his height to 6’0” on his page. 135.131.153.248 (talk) 04:23, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Before a change is made, I recommend that a couple of people agree to it. Not just the one you agree with. If you change it and it gets reverted, it starts all over again. Let's not forget the title of this section. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:48, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

I changed it. Maybe this will save someone from being blocked. I believe that @WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 will be okay with it, being that he was originally doing the right thing .. before I made a suggestion. We should all be able to sleep again. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Yep, that is absolutely OK with me, I just wanted a consensus to be made with at least most of us agreeing with it. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 13:54, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

So did I. But it wasn't heading in that direction, not with the one and done reverting attitude. This is only a speck on the paper. No big deal. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:44, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Why I moved to inactive (Goodbye)

(If you have questions you can ask me on my talk page, I may respond, I may not.)

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Goodbye, at least for now. I do not know how long, it may range from a few days to a few months, I am not sure. This is partially due to school and somewhat getting into an editing war and my previous past of vandalism (I do sincerely apologize for that), even if it had been over 3 years ago now. I do not know if anyone will really care, however, because of all this I will be taking a break from Wikipedia. I know that Brayden Narveson is something I should keep up on, however I think it is needed for a break for me. Anyways, goodbye for now, I will make another edit or two today cleaning things up, but for now, I am going to be gone, thanks for all the help I have done for the past 4 years. Anyways goodbye for now, I am sure that Wikipedia will be an ever better place for when I am away… goodbye. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Take a break and breather. Best of luck to you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:07, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I care @WhyIsThisSoHard575483838. That was a bull**** edit war anyway. Remember your revert of a revert? I should have stayed away after that, because you seemed to agree with me when I said the team page and pfr are usually the way to go. You created the page, so I was giving you the benefit of the doubt. I didn't like others jumping in and assuming they took all the erasers off pencils. Hope you come back soon, you did fine. A better place .. not sure about that one. ;) Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 23:41, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks man. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 00:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the NFL an independent source for an article about a player?

See Wikipedia_talk:Main_Page/Errors#Independent_sources, for a discussion about this. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:F804:C954:1D4C:5D11 (talk) 22:15, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Quick roster navbox question

Per this edit, I think listing the practice squad above the inactive list makes more sense since PS players still practice with the active roster and can be called up to play in games. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:45, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless we want to be hierarchical. Reserve list players are earning full salary? —Bagumba (talk) 13:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't necessarily object to Dissident's proposal, but this is also what I was mulling over. IR players are, in a sense, more officially and statically part of the team typically.

I've been looking at rosters a lot this last week. For what it's worth, practice squad players are listed below those on the reserve list. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

It's always been that way but recent PS rule changes have put more importance on it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:01, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm not up on rule changes, so I don't have an informed opinion either way. —Bagumba (talk) 07:34, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Since 2020, it has been expanded from 10 to 16, up to six veterans can now be signed to it, and teams are able to call up two PS players on game day up to three times a season. When these navboxes were created, the PS was for players with two or fewer accrued seasons and they could only be added to the active roster if a corresponding move was made (like any signing). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:28, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

I would be in favor of this. I had reverted a couple edits doing this but after seeing it discussed here and previewing it I think it looks good. I do agree there is a bit more emphasis on the practice squad and its importance now more than ever so I'd be in favor of the change. My only con to changing it is the main roster page lists reserves first then practice squad, which is why I reverted in the first place to follow that same format. So if we make the change to one I think it may be beneficial to do the other for continuity's sake. Jrooster49 (talk) 04:05, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Relevant to the topic, but I also don't think we need to add the elevated PS players to the active roster since they revert back following the game. It just adds additional maintenance (up to 64 possible transactions a week) that people usually forget to change back. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:54, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox American football game#Proposal changes to Infobox

I would appreciate some input in the above referenced section for the template {{Infobox American football game}}, which is heavily utilized by this WikiProject. Thank you. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:24, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Source Request

Has anyone come across a good source that explains how taking part in preseason games, being on a practice squad, etc does not contribute to being on a team's all-time roster? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, the 49ers media guide has separate listings of "All-Time Roster" and "All-Time Practice Squad Roster". —Bagumba (talk) 14:48, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba, thank you so much! I checked the Packers' media guide and it includes Players who have played in at least one regular-season or playoff game with the Packers; list includes years and regular-season games played. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:29, 18 September 2024 (UTC)

High school stats table

So for players that set state/national high school records, would a stats table still be considered too trivial to include? I ask because I've never seen such a thing in over a decade editing player articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:08, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Help requested for article creation

So I've done extensive research for good sources to create an "Uprights" article at Draft:Uprights, but I think I'm hitting major writer's block, and thus having trouble actually fleshing out the prose. If there's anyone in this project who's interested, please feel free to expand it using the many references attached (or any other sources you can find), it would be much appreciated. You can move it to mainspace whenever without having to ask or notify me, there's no WP:OWNERSHIP. Left guide (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Left guide, this topic seems to already covered at Goal (sports)#Gridiron football. I would recommend improving that section and maybe creating a redirect for Uprights to that section. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems too minor enough to stand as an independent article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007 and Dissident93: I appreciate the feedback. Honestly though, I respectfully disagree because from researching the sources, at least a few of them go into in-depth detail on the design, construction, assembly, and installation of the uprights, which seems too tangential and off-topic for other existing articles which are mainly focused on football rules and gameplay. Hopefully, the writer's block will go away soon. :( Left guide (talk) 23:10, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

You might also find SIGCOV discussing the evolution of the goal posts -- which have changed significantly (both in configuration and location) over the history of the game. One question, though: Is "uprights" the formal/common name? I'd generally thought of them as goal posts. Cbl62 (talk) 02:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Well some of the sources I researched discussed that too, but that seems at least somewhat replicated by other already-existing articles. I'm mainly hoping to fill in holes or gaps in the encyclopedia, particularly for aspects that seem beyond the scope of existing articles (such as engineering, construction, assembly). Feel free to examine the sources if you haven't already and I think you'll see what I mean. As to your question, both terms seem used, maybe it varies by region. My main reason for preferring "uprights" is that it seems like more of a unique and distinguishing term for gridiron football, whereas "goal posts" seems more widely-used in other sports (i.e. soccer, hockey, etc.) and therefore more ambiguous. Left guide (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, the article should be based on the common name. You should do some sampling to see which is, in fact, most common. If that leads to "goal posts", the new page could be disambiguated with a "gridiron football" qualifier. Cbl62 (talk) 03:12, 24 September 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1920 Buffalo All-Americans season

1920 Buffalo All-Americans season 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) 17:58, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Pro football's All-Decade team of the 1960s

Does anyone know what is "pro football's All-Decade team of the 1960s"? It's mentioned in obits for Billy Shaw.[14] It's in the WP article too, so I was initially thiking that it was a case of WP:CIRCULAR, but I see that it's in a 1999 issue of The Coffin Corner. There's AFL All-Time Team, and NFL 1960s All-Decade Team is only for NFL. Was there an AFL–NFL decade team?—Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for 1920 Canton Bulldogs season

1920 Canton Bulldogs season 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) 23:54, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Richard Cooper's Link

Why does this link redirect to the 1990 NFL Draft Page. What happened to his page? Kelliecharging (talk) 01:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Someone redirected it without discussion. This guy started 103 games so I restored the article. That's terrible. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:25, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely ridiculous.-- Yankees10 01:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Kelliecharging (talk) 01:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Non Football Injury/Illness Link

HI

the abbreviation (NF-Inj.) no longer works.

Please help

Kelliecharging (talk) 01:21, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

• Fixed, the wikilinks were formatted backwards. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

  Thank you Kelliecharging (talk) 19:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

NFL Rosters

Hi

When a final roster is listed on a team page. Is the final roster the final PostSeaon roster or the Final Regular season roster. I just got a message from a user that is upset because after he edited the regular season roster into the final postseason roster. I changed it back. who is correct on this

Kelliecharging (talk) 19:54, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

What page was this? And final rosters get put in once a regular season is complete and they have been eliminated from playoff contention. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:11, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

So does that mean the final rosters on the team pages include players on the post season roster? The pages I'm talking about are the Patriots pages with Tom Brady Kelliecharging (talk) 20:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, they should basically be a snapshot of the last gameday roster regardless if it was Week 18 or the Super Bowl. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:49, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Source Help

For the life of me, I can't find a source for the following:

• Touchdown Club of Columbus#Paul Brown Trophy award winners. At the very least, I need one for Lindy Infante winning after the 1989 season but would prefer the whole list so I can support the statement that the award stopped being given out in 2003.
• NFL Rookie of the Year Award#NEA NFL ROTY Award winners, preferably the full list but at the least something that says it stopped being given out in 1996.
• NFL Rookie of the Year Award#Pepsi NFL ROTY Award winners, preferably the full list so I can support the statement that no one for the Packers has won it.

I have my Newspapers.com access back (ironically not through Wikipedia, but I can access directly through Newspapers.com now) but still can't find anything. Any help would be greatly appreciated! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

For NEA, try checking the World Almanac source listed at Newspaper Enterprise Association NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award, except the Internet Archive is down right now because of a hack. World Almanac used to be part of NEA, and would list some of their awards. When I fully sourced NEA's Jim Thorpe Trophy (MVP), I never found anything definitive stating "this is the end". Luckily, PFR also had the list, and it matched the last newspaper announcement I could find. But that's not always bulletproof. I found later entries for Helms Foundation College Basketball Player of the Year that weren't at Sports Reference. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 04:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I haven't found much on NEA for later years, but did find the 1999 winner. —Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added the 1997 and 1998 NEA winners to the page. I'm actually skeptical about that 1999 article without seeing the NEA's DPOY that year too. It's possible they just put in the wrong award name for James, who won other ROYs. Will be able to check a few other possibilities once Internet Archive is back up. —Bagumba (talk) 10:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:The 70 Greatest Redskins

Template:The 70 Greatest Redskins has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Left guide (talk) 03:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

International PS notation

Can you please check out the Saints 2017 Roster and Alex Jenkins Int'l notation. Looks like someone messed it up. Kelliecharging (talk) 20:48, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed, it was formatted improperly. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:52, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

NFL Rosters

What is going on with the NFL rosters?! Kelliecharging (talk) 20:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Kelliecharging: Could you be more clear? I have no idea what you're asking and I'd imagine I'm not the only one. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

The 1988 Giants roster had the Defensive linemen listed under the Defensive backs. I looked back on the recent changes and saw that the template had an error. so I fixed it. Kelliecharging (talk) 22:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It was simply because the |defensive_back= parameter had an extra s when it shouldn't have. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:21, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

List of NFL players born outside the United States

Dissident93: I see that you removed the list of active players from the page with the explanation "being WP:BOLD and removing the active player list due to its large and dynamic scope that requires constant maintenance. with the growth of the sport overseas and the IPP, this list will only continue to grow". A few points:

1. If the page is no longer primarily a list, perhaps List should be removed from the title.
2. requires constant maintenance: I actually never understood why it just wasn't a cumulative all-time list, instead of only focusing on active players and churning. That would be less maintenance, and we wouldn't lose knowledge or effort. It doesnt't need to be complete from Day 1 (or ever)—just tag it with {{Dynamic list}}
3. WP:OTHERSTUFF: List of NBA players born outside the United States

—Bagumba (talk) 03:46, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I honestly thought we had an all-time list somewhere before, but I suppose I was thinking of this. I just viewed a list of active ones to be too much of a hassle. I used to comb through it every so often and found plenty of outdated info, which to me is worse than having players missing from an all-time list as they shouldn't ever have to be adjusted once included. The NBA one is pretty much what the NFL should look like. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:18, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

There's List of Canadians in the National Football League. But unless it's going to have paragraphs of Canadian-specific prose (currently zero), there's no reason for a country-specific page. —Bagumba (talk) 14:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Ideally that would be merged and become a section at the list of NFL players born outside the United States. I'll probably get around to getting to the page to match the NBA list unless somebody beats me to it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reserve list listings

Regarding this edit detailing the reserve list for a team in 1983:

• Where can that be easily sourced?
• If a player wasnt on IR all year, should he just be listed on the regular roster? What's so significant about their end season status?

—Bagumba (talk) 11:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

IR back then was season-ending so I don't believe they were unable to come off it? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:21, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds right. But if they actually played some games before landing on IR, it makes it look like they never played that season. And a lot of people (or just me) wouldn't know exactly when IR stopped being permanent.—Bagumba (talk) 14:35, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point, but I've always viewed the "final" roster being a snapshop of the last gameday-ready roster. That issue would apply to the 2024 rosters too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:32, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

From an editor's perspective, I understand why it usually ends up that way. From a reader's point of view, I want an overview of the season. Whether someone is injured at game 17 is no more significant if he was injured games 4–8. Then there's the issue of sourcing it specifically for the last week, which is just as big of a reason to get rid of reserve lists once the season ends. —Bagumba (talk) 19:16, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the logic but would this mean that all players that played in at least one game that season should be displayed in the final roster? Would the 2024 Raiders one at the end of the season include Davante Adams? I've seen some pages that have one for the offseason, one for Week 1, and one at the end of the season. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:24, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, 1 game means they are on the roster, having played during the season. This is also straightforward to source, unless someone can point out an easy way to verify the reserve list years after the fact. —Bagumba (talk) 20:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#WP:NRIVALRY

For those interested, there is a pending discussion of the above guidline. Cbl62 (talk) 23:31, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

NFL Team Template Wiki-Code Formatting

Charlesaaronthompson has unilaterally made border changes to every NFL template, undid his changes, and then reimplemented them again, all in a matter of a few days (including reverting my reversion of his fist change at {{Green Bay Packers}}. I find this frustrating in and of itself, but am finding their constant need to keep redesigning color schemes even more frustrating. These edits are overkill and purely decorative in nature. Is it too much to ask that moving forward these types of changes get proposed first before implementing them? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:48, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Sounds entirely reasonable to me to discuss changes that affect so many pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Is there a reason why borders for NFL team templates can't be included in the |basestyle=? I put them in because I felt it would improve the appearance of the templates. I only took them out to appease User talk:Gonzo fan2007. I put them back in because it seemed weird to me that the border color for the Baltimore Ravens' primary style (they use  gold  as their tertiary team color) didn't match the border color used and derived from Module:Gridiron color/data. I only want border colors to be used in NFL team templates in order to be WP:CONSISTENT with other sports team templates, such as MLB & NBA team templates. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:59, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The NFL team infobox was (recently by me made) consistent with the NFL and NBA player infoboxes but you reverted it and removed the border. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: This is not a situation where consistent applies, each league is entirely independent of one another with very little crossover except that they're sports. Where do you stop then? Hey man im josh (talk) 23:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: What do you mean when you say "where do you stop then"? All I would like to do is ensure that all the NFL team templates have a border color for the |titlestyle= & the |basestyle=. @Dissident93: Is there a reason why the NFL & NBA player infoboxes need to use the primary team color w/border color for both the header & |basestyle=? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:32, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: What I mean when I ask where it stops, is why not NHL -> MLS -> all soccer articles -> all sports team articles? I know it seems drastic, but in trying to implement some things I thought were standard amonf sports articles to NHL articles I got bit because there was not consensus for it. Treat each league, or at least each sport, independently.

Personally I'm not a fan of the changes to the borders, but I'm not mad at you for trying them. I'd just like discussions to be had about such widely used colour/template changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:38, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

There is no objective reason but doing it that way shows the alt style throughout the rest of the infobox and the primary style only in the title header, which seems odd to me. I was trying to get both styles alternating similar to the MLB player infobox in the sandbox (example here) but wasn't able to get the border colors showing (by using rowstyle). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:39, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: Are we not having a discussion about a proposed widely used color/template change? Also, it would stop w/NFL, MLB & NBA team templates. I don't want to change NHL team templates or MLS soccer team templates because that's a lot of work. @Dissident93 Now that you've explained what you were trying to do, it makes sense to me. If no one else is opposed, then we should implement the infobox so that primary style & alt style alternates throughout the infobox. @Hey man im josh @Dissident93 So the question I need to ask is this: what's our WP:CONSENSUS? I vote for using |border=2 in both the primary style & alt style of all 32 NFL team templates. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:51, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I can implement the sandbox version if others like it, but ideally the borders should be working. And to stay on track with the original topic, the issue is that borders in a templates body can look messy due to how many sections can exist. I'm sure they can also be made to alternate but I haven't tried to see what it looks like. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:00, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Ideally, the cell size should be the same for both the primary style and alt style that use the borders. That's what I would support. Is there a way to use borders in the |basestyle= that doesn't make the template as a whole look messy without compromising the cell sizes? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:15, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

I have my own opinions on colors, but I also grasp that I don't make those decisions and consensus drives that. Charlesaaronthompson, you have had so many run ins with colors, formatting, etc. that I would hope by now you realize that if you are going to make a major changes to colors across 32 NFL team templates, that you should drop a line here first to get some idea if the WikiProject supports those changes. And second, if you have another run in, don't just revert a revert. Go to the talk page, here or the user page and have a discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:45, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Yes, you're right about all of that. So please, help me establish a WP:CONSENSUS? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh and Dissident93: What should the WP:CONSENSUS be? |border=2 in the |basestyle= or no? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

A visual comparison would help. I cant tell a border from a basestyle, and I doubt that I am alone. —Bagumba (talk) 05:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Where exactly would this be applied? In navboxes, borders are usually fine until it gets grouped with several other ones and becomes messy. I don't have an issue with them in infoboxes, but I personally don't prefer them being so predominate in the NFL team one as it makes more sense to me to display the primary style there more. My suggestion was to either keep them all primary or alternate them like the MLB player infobox like the sandbox example. They would ideally have border support and be the same size as the title header, but I actually kind of like the (unintended) size differences here as it condenses it a little. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 13:30, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Charlesaaronthompson my point is to establish consensus before making large-scale color and style changes. I hope you take that to heart moving forward. And it would be great if you went back and undid your revisions to bring everything back to the status quo ante.

My main issue at {{Green Bay Packers}} was that the white border is just fine as it currently is. The dark green border is overkill and looking at some other navboxes, I feel the same way, that the dark borders within the expanded navbox are just overkill and serve no real purpose. {{San Francisco 49ers}} is another example of just color overkill. The previous version, with white borders, is much more appropriate and professional. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:33, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

That was also my point, that such wide spread changes aren't good to make without discussion first. @Charlesaaronthompson stating Also, it would stop w/NFL, MLB & NBA team templates. I don't want to change NHL team templates or MLS soccer team templates because that's a lot of work. – That's my point though. You're attempting to make three independent leagues for three unrelated sports consistent.

Also noting that I'm opposed to the border changes. They are, as Gonzo said, purely decorative and I personally find them to make the templates look worse, but obviously my opinion doesn't necessarily reflect others' feelings. If you want an official vote of some kind then create the examples in a new subsection and then the discussion can be linked to from all 32 team templates to allow for proper consensus to be achieved. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:43, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Reiterating josh above, Charlesaaronthompson you were bold and made some changes. They were reverted and there is some opposition to your changes. Before that discussion, you should return the templates to their status quo before your changes, and then propose your change. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:41, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: I actually already did so for all 32 of the teams, except the Packers, which you had already done. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Sorry if this is considered off-topic from the other issues, but I just realized that the borders in the NFL team infobox sandbox example were working as intended in light mode but not dark mode (which I use to edit). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:52, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007, Hey man im josh, and Dissident93: OK, may I please propose these changes? I mean, Hey man im josh already reverted my changes back to the prior status quo. How much time needs to elapse before I can propose these changes and have them taken into consideration? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 02:27, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

There's no expectation to wait a significant amount of time after changes are reverted for a lack of consensus. As I said above, put together some examples and propose them in a new subsection, which we can then link to from the different template talk pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:08, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I recently made a proposal here if you need an example of what this looks like. I want to stress again that there is nothing wrong with being bold, but at this point Charlesaaronthompson, you have had numerous editors express frustration and opposition to your unilateral color and formatting changes on templates that I would hope moving forward you work to gain consensus by first proposing changes like this before making them. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Club vs Team debate

For any editor not aware there has been an ongoing discussion since April at Talk:National_Football_League#Change_the_term_club_back_to_team about whether we should use the term "club" or "team" to refer to the clubs/teams in the league. ~~ Jessintime (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was not aware of that, no, so thanks for bringing this up. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

For clarity, someone changed, at some point, teams to "clubs" in the article and the discussion is about changing the wording to be "teams". Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Category:American football families versus Category:National Football League families

I am trying to understand the difference between these categories. Like why is Category:McCaffrey family in Category:American football families while Category:Manning family is in Category:National Football League families. Should these all just be in one of these cats? Category:American football families would seem to be more general and appropriate, in that it would account for families who had people who played college football, in other leagues other than the NFL, etc. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, we shouldn't limit them to leagues. The same logic applies to why we use Category:American football quarterbacks instead of Category:National Football League quarterbacks. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Terrible Towel

Terrible Towel 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) 02:05, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

San Diego Chargers infobox

Something wrong with the infobox at San Diego Chargers. It says "1961-2017", instead of the correct "1961-2016". I've tried to fix it, but no luck. GoodDay (talk) 23:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I made the corrections. It appears that @Azure1233: (in Dec 2023) mistakenly changed the dates. He apparently didn't realize (though there was a note there) that NFL team pages go be NFL seasons, rather than calender years. GoodDay (talk) 23:18, 30 October 2024 (UTC)