Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Player Statistics Template

Looking around, I do not see any indication of a template for individual player statistics. Recommend implementing one for this project for standardization. KyuuA4 (talk) 09:01, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

All-pros

I have noticed that some players are being credited with 2nd team all-pros as being the same as 1st team all-pros. Dan Hampton, for example, Hampton was a 4-time 1st team all-pro and a second team all-pro twice. Both are important but they are not the same. I don't think showing a guy like Hampton (who is a personal favortie of mine) who was 4-1st and 2-2nd as a 6-time All-pro is verifiable . . . unless there is some place I don't know about . . .72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:26, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Pro-Football-Reference.com has it as 6 All-Pros, it doens't distinguish between second and first teams, so I think it should just say 6 instead of breaking them up--Yankees10 'Go Packers! 01:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have to agree that Pro Football reference is showing things that way. And because the standard for wikipedia is verifiable it has to be allowed, under wiki rules. SO, I will leave it alone. However, it is sad that the work of people that went into the Total Football II: The Official Encyclopedia and the ESPN Encyclopedia is being undermined by Pro Football Reference.com. Those books are the source for Pro Football Reference.com and the website is misrepresenting what is in the source material. Those books show the differences between 1st and 2nd teams, but as you correctly point out, the website showing those thigns as one in the same. Sadly, guys who were second team all-pro a lot will be eleveted because of that. Some players were legitmate All-pro, they were 1st team selections. Others were runner ups and were "2nd team" All-pros. They were never meant to be the same thing. Being a second team all-pro is a good thing, but being a first team selection is even better. It means more writers or players thought you were the best at your position. Now, it is all screwed up because in most respects, Pro football reference.com is a good website. Baseball reference.com is even better. Oh well, with all the young guys on the internet, they just don't have an understanding of somethings, especially history. I like 2nd teams being shown, but I like them being show as what they really are, not somehting they are not.

This is what they say:

All-Pro selections include any player selected to the first or second teams by one of the multiple groups making selections that season.

It is simply an editorial judgement they are making . . . but it is verifiable.

72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok thanks--Yankees10 'Go Packers! 02:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This should go without saying, but you can at least in the text of the article specify which all-pro team for each year. And don't be scared away from using off-line sources—just be sure to give a proper citation so people can find your source. —Mike 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Before everyone goes to town changing al the ALl-Pros I think thre should be a consensus. As I said the "padded" numbers of Pro-football reference are verifiable, but they are not accuarate. They have essentiall perverted the orginal data of the ESPN Encyplopedia and Total Football II. When serious football people used wikipedia, and they have, they will see the errors. Then, they will not use them again if they get burned. I simply suggest that padded all-pro selctions (combining 1st and 1nd teams) is bad of the credibility if the NFL prokect at wikipedia. . . somehting that should be considered, I would think, be for going full-steam ahead and changing all the bios.72.0.36.36 (talk) 20:44, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To add All-Pro selections together and just say "All-Pro selections" is not inaccurate one bit. It may not be completely specific, but it's still completely true. If a guy has five first-team All-Pro selections and five second-team selections, he does, unquestionably, have 10 All-Pro selections. It is not inaccurate to say this, because the first-team is not the only level of "All-Pro-hood." we're not talking honorable mentions or alternates here - they are all selections.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:59, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Setting aside the verifiable portion. What is your basis, I wonder, for saying that second team selections are "unquestionably" the same? What would you use for back up that opinion? To counter that would be so say that 2nd team All-Pros and 2nd Team All-Americas have been, for decades, separate and are different levels of, to you your term "All-Pro-hood". Pro football reference may be changing the way they have done that anyway, so if that happens, what then? The verfiable portion of the arguement disappears and it leaves nothing. 1st and 2nd team selections are not the same based on the the reference materials or in the newspapers where those teams were released. Pro football refernce, while being a good site, is simple lumping two things together and calling them the same. That is inacurate in every way. The only thing on the "pro" lumping those things together is verifiability. If that vaporizes then we will have to go back and change all the stuff that has been changed. What is the point of that? All I suggest is a discussion, a vote by people in this project before all those infoboxes are changed72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:00, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry man, you're wrong. The phrase "All-Pro selection" does not convey first- or second-team, they are just selections. I'm aware they are different, and I have no problem with breaking them up in the infobox. But I'm also okay with condensing them and dropping the "#-team" aspect altogether, because that's accurate as well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't want this to get into a "you're wrong" thing. I seen enough of that and it is never productive. Let's get other to opine here and let's have a reasonable discussion and vote. There is a term--ahistorical that applies. It simply refers to looking at things and how they were don at the time, rather than doing revisionist history. By condensing the teams Pro Football reference, and now the NF: project here, is changing the meaning of what ALl-pro teams were. The Total Football II and ESPN Encyclopedia published the teams as they were originally posted. What is happening here is revisionist history. No one had ever considered 2nd teams and 1st teams the same. If so, they would have been published that way from the beginning. 2nd teams were a notch above not being on a team, 1st teams were and ARE a notch above 2nd team. So, rather than a big edit war, let's come to a consensus and have a discussion and vote with many voices being herd and wait before all the infoboxes are changed. I think that is fair. If a consensus is reached to your way of thinking, then fine. If not, we won't have to go through all the trouble of changing them back. The point is do we want this NFL prjoect to be a joke or to be as good as it can be? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No one is saying they mean the same thing. They obviously carry different degrees of honor. But they are still all selections and therefore can be condensed as such.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:15, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chris on this one, which I have stated above--Yankees10 01:21, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a reason why there is a 1st-Team All-Pro and a 2nd-Team.. that's because they are separate honors. If they were all meant to be considered All-Pro, then they would be the same. Our goal is to be as informative as possible. If the issue is that there isn't enough space, then why don't we make more space instead of removing information? Ksy92003(talk) 01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Informative as possible? Like the 32 most recent starting quarterbacks in the NFL? That kind of informative? Ten bucks you wouldn't have disagreed here if not for our recent dispute.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Just forget it. I struck out my comment, just ignore it. I can't even get into any discussion anymore without somebody getting all mad at me. Forgive me for having an opinion. Four other people have given their opinions, and I'm pretty much forbidden from even giving mine. Forget I said anything.

But I will say that there is a difference between a player's playing honors and indiscriminate information, Chris. Ksy92003(talk) 01:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a differnce and we now agree they are not hte same thing. Now, what should be done? It is not really logical to justify indiscriminate information with All-pros just because there are problems with Like the 32 most recent starting quarterbacks in the NFL?. Further, lets keep this civil. Ksy92003's opinion is as valid as mine or ChrisJNelsons. Also, I don't think anyone should open the doors about past disputes. I think chirjnelson should assume good faith in the NEW matter.

Right now the opinions are 2 for combining and 2 for separating 1st and 2nd teams. When others opine, we will know more. Right now, since there is a dispute . . . let's keep it civil and keep things the stus quo, until a consensus is reached72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

A consensus isn't needed because both ways are accurate. I will continue to handle this on a case-by-case basis. Sometimes I'll do them separately (if they are plentiful) but if a guy has like one first-team selection and one second-team selection, I'm going to combine them.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think you should do anything with those, Chris, at this time because you know very well that this is being disputed. It's not wise to mess with stuff that you know is opposed, so please don't. Ksy92003(talk) 02:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

No thanks. Wasn't just referring to All-Pros anyway.

Anyway, I also consider this no different than all-conference or All-American selections in college. If you look at any college team website, you'll see a headline like "Six Tigers named to All-SEC team" and in the article, it'll probably say "These two guys were named to the first-team All-SEC team, and these four guys were named to the second-team." It's very common to refer to them all as just selections. I guarantee you that you could find tons of media outlets that have done it. Let's say Brett Favre was an 11-time All Pro - nine first-teams and two second-teams. Now let's say ESPN is doing a show on him. How much you want to bet they'd call him an "11-time All-Pro." They would, because that's just how it's done.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's original research to assume that ESPNEWS would say that he is al 11-time All-Pro. They could say that he made 9 All-Pro First-Teams just as well. Ksy92003(talk) 03:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't know what you're talking about, so it's pointless to keep discussing it with you.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right. I have no idea what I'm talking about, I don't know anything about anything, I'm always wrong, you're always right. I'm stupid to think that this situation would be any different. Sorry for making you waste your typing energy for trying to discuss something with me that I very clearly don't know anything about. Ksy92003(talk) 03:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Bingo.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess I have "mental defects" to think that after all the times you've been blocked that you would've changed your character.. guess I'm stupid for that also. Ksy92003(talk) 03:22, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid this. But since there is an ugly dispute, let's go to dispute resolution. If not, I will have to report chrisjnelson again for breaking wikie rules, being uncivil, not assuming good faith, personal attacks, and a couple of others. chrisjnelson, there is a duspute here. There is a cooling off period. Please stay cool. There is now a content dispute. That should freeze your actions. Please assume good faith, I think this can be resolved. Both side, let's keep cool.

Right now, there is a 2 persons for and 2 persons against. No one is "right" or "wrong" at this point. Let's follow the steps in dispute resolution, okay? Everyone. This is kind of imporant because it goes to the integruty of the NFL project on Wiki. If this gets out of control these article, which many of us have spent a lot of time working one, will be revisionist history rather than ahistocial. I would appreciate comments from others in this. We know what those who have posted think, so those 4 let others speak, rather than attacking.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:34, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, 72~. I'm dropping out of this since it doesn't seem that my opinion matters and I don't need to get into a dispute after going so long without one, after turning a new leaf like I said I would several months ago. If Chris wants to get mad at me for having an opinion, then he can do that. I don't care anymore. Ksy92003(talk) 03:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Your vote counts, you are against combining, your opinion is valued by me and Yankee10.72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

L. C. Greenwood

Here is the perfect example. L. C. Greenwood was All-pro in 1974 and 1975. He never made a second team all-pro team. He made the 1st team All-AFC teams on 4 occasions. Pro-Football-reference.com combine all of the 2nd team all-AFCs with the 1st team All-AFC selections and then combined them with the 2 All-Pro selections. So, not only are All-Pro teams being combined but All-conference selections, which are entirely different because they choose only for each conference, are being combined with All-Pros. It is not accurate to say L.C. Greenwood is a "6x All-Pro". It is false, but due to a horrible editorial decision by [1] and copied here this NFL project is going to be viewed as innaccurate by those who may read these article to get solid information. It think it underminds the NFL Project Wiki72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Chrisjnelson and Yankees10, the first and second team are basically the same thing--Rockies 17^{Holla at Ya Boy!} 14:55, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. However, there is not recognized authority that supports your view. . . but you have a right to you view. I'd say it is 3-2 in favor of combining 1st and 1nd teams, However, you didn;'t address the ALl-Pro and All-AFC combined teams, do you like that?72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:51, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of authorities that would (and have) combine them in wording at times. The thing you don't get is that a consensus is not needed because both ways are totally accurate.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

There are not "plenty of authorities". If there are name five of those "plenty of souces". If there are plenty of sources, then cite them. There is a dispute chrisjnelson, there fore dispute resolution applies. Please don't tell me what I do and don't get. You are, according to your own wrods, not an authority on this. A consensus is needed as per wiki rules.72.0.36.36 (talk) 19:59, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I for one will not follow any bogus consensus that's chosen between two accurate methods. I'll continue to do things both ways depending on the situation, because they're both completely accurate.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not? why "not follow" a consensus? What if others thinks that both are not accurate?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not an opinion, it's a fact. Both ways of expressing them are factually accurate. One is more specific than the other, but both are accurate, and to argue that they are not is like arguing against gravity.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a fact. It seems that is is a big fat mistake. What happens if the pro football reference people change? What if they show 1st and 2nd teams separately? What then? Your "fact" becomes false.72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:25, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll repeat something that I said somewhere else, below I believe: Consensus is not about determining right or wrong, fact or not. Consensus is about coming together to work on a solution because of differences between two valid methods. Consensus has nothing to do with whether or not it's "fact" or "accurate". It's determining what the best way to display some information is based on two reasonable methods. To argue that combining them is the most accurate way or not isn't getting us to a consensus.

But Chris, just because you hold an opinion doesn't mean that one is "fact". 72~ and I think that they don't need to be combined, and we believe that this way is "fact". What's the difference? Is it just because you think something so that's automatically correct? Now, I'm going to use an example. Say you have 22 apples and two oranges. That means that you have 24 fruits. But that could be 24-0, 23-1, 22-2... 0-24. If you just say that you have 24 fruits, and the fruits are either apples or oranges, nobody knows how many of each you have. Using a scenario like what we're debating, say Brett Favre has made (non-real numbers) two 1st-Team All-Pro teams and seven 2nd-Teams. If you combine them, that's just saying that Favre has nine All-Pro teams. But that can be any combination, and as you've admitted the 1st-Team and 2nd-Team are different levels of prestige, so there is a clear difference between nine 1st-Teams and nine 2nd-Teams. Combining them would be unfair, not entirely accurate, misleading, and omitting potentially-significant information. Our goal on Wikipedia is to be as informative as we possibly can, so why would we want to omit information and be less informative? That doesn't make any sense to me. Ksy92003(talk) 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analogy. Combining is misleading. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's go back to the very first post on this topic, regarding Dan Hampton. The Pro Football Freaking Hall of Fame calls him a six-time All-Pro. As I've said repeatedly, it is VERY common for the media to do this, and pretty much likely. They do this because it is factually accurate. Just as 4x first-team All-Pro and 2x second-team All-Pro, 6x All-Pro is accurate too, because all the latter is saying is "This guy was selected to an All-Pro team six times. Since both are correct and verifiable, a consensus is not needed as both methods should be acceptable. The. End. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus isn't about finding out which way is right and which isn't; if one way was clearly wrong, then there would be no need to seek a consensus. Consensus is about seeking the best way, not necessarily the right way. There shouldn't be any reason not to seek one if it could help. Ksy92003(talk) 21:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The Pro Football Hall of Fame calls him a 6-time 1st or second team ALl-pro. It is not "Very" common for the media to do this. I doubt with your youth and inexcpeience that you would know what you are claiming. However, chisjnelson, wikipedia is not a dictatorship. There is a dispute, either you can particiapte or you can choose not to. I say there is a dispute and there is no consensus. You don't get to be dictator and decide what is accurate or not, unless you are an expert, which yo uare not. This is not the end. Maybe it is for you, maybe you want to escalatethis until you get banned again, I hope not, because there is no need for that. Your using definiative verbiage sich as "The end" amd "you are wrong" and, etc. you say, "I for one will not follow any bogus consensus that's chosen between two accurate methods". SO, you are not willing to follow the wiki rules. That is common in your history. However, all of us have had to follow a consensus we did not agree with. You yourself have had the arguement in other topics that sicne a consensus was formed we all had to follow. SO, since you will not follow what the consensus is, why should your vote count? Why not back out of the process? You are not adding anything productive, except your opinion. There is a dispute, I understand you diagree with that. Fine, but you are not hte final authority on who decides whether there is a dispute or not. The dispute is over content. Period. Cool down, and follow the rule.72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My youth? What the hell ever. I easily know as much about sports journalism as anyone in this discussion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey Nelson, weren't you just reminded to remain civil? RC-0722 63.18.193.202 (talk) 22:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yep, but I don't think I've been uncivil.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting that most of the conversations that I've seen Chris partake in eventually get driven off-topic. Chris, as your "I easily know as much about sports journalism as anyone in this discussion" statement goes, here on Wikipedia, we don't have a hierarchy. I mean yes, we have Bureaucrats, Admins, regular users, and anonymous users, but the opinions of all are valued all the same. Whether we know more about "sports journalism" than you or not (which who are you to say that, anyway?) doesn't mean that your opinions hold more weight than ours, which is an impression you're giving off. Ksy92003(talk) 22:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

My vote would be for showing first- and second-team all-pros are separate things. i have written a short paper back book on all-pros called 'the all-pros: the modern years 1960-98'. it is a pro football researchers association publication. i am the co-chair of the awards committee so i have a little knowledge on this subject. i have been published in pro football weekly and a couple of other places. showing first- and second-team all-pros together without noting it in some way would not be truthful. starting in about 2000 the pro football hall of fame would use these words, 'player x was a first or second team all-pro x number of times'. they did combine them but they did make a notation. that is questionable in my thoughts. however, if properly noted it can be done. i would ask if tom brady, who got 49-1/2 votes for the all-pro team and brett favre, who got 1/2, would both be considered all-pro? i think they would not. clearly brady is all-pro and favre is 2nd team all-pro. i vote for keeping them as pure as possible.Jturney (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

"...would not be truthful." This statement is completely false, regardless of your accomplishments. No one is saying that first-team and second-team are the same honor, that they carry the same level of prestige. But to combine then and say "a four-time All-Pro selection" is completely accurate, and this is a fact.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:14, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

another thing is what is a website that lists the players 2nd team, because when I am going to make infoboxes I am no way going to waste my time trying to find all the players 2nd teams on a million different websites, at least with PFR all the All-Pro's are there--Yankees10 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Even then, just because something can be done doesn't mean it should or has to. If two things are separate, then it makes much more sense to keep them separated than to combine them. Ksy92003(talk) 23:53, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

all the information needed is in total football 2; the official encyclopedia of the nfl. i think that if the right information is available then the accurate way should prevail over an a hybrid way.Jturney (talk) 00:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

is total football 2 a website I can go to, because it doesnt help me if its just an encyclopdia that you buy in the store.--Yankees10 00:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

no, it is an encyplopedia. however this issue will be resolved soon. they are going to what he called 'disaggregate' in the next "few months". i image at that point all of this will be moot. here is the email he sent me

We *will* get that all-pro info disaggregated soon, It is high on our to-do list right now. It's tough to say exactly when it'll be done, but it will certainly be in the next few months.

it seems this will solve the problemJturney (talk) 00:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to voice in. I say do not splat these things together. It creates confusion among those who are trying to get info really quick. Combining the FIRST and SECOND teams make little sense. Let's go back to how it was last week, thing were looking very good.Howdythere (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does every discussion here turn into a tempest in a teapot?! Semantics aside, I'd agree with separating them. Maybe something like "10 all-pro selections (four first-team)". —Wknight94 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would make some sense or say, a guy was a four-time 1st team All pro and 6 times second team all-pro'. That is the way it has been and now this change can mislead people reading the articles. The misinform rather than inform.72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying the way I put it could be misleading? How are you thinking people will read that? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:18, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Misinoform may not be the right word, just that unless all the infoboxes are done all the same time, they is two sets of information. One player may take weeks to have to "combine" applied and another might have been done right away72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I assume that 72~ is saying that a sudden change from the way it has always been (keeping them separate) to combining them together could be misleading; here is what I said earlier in the conversation, and 72~'s response to show why I made this assumption:

..Say you have 22 apples and two oranges. That means that you have 24 fruits. But that could be 24-0, 23-1, 22-2... 0-24. If you just say that you have 24 fruits, and the fruits are either apples or oranges, nobody knows how many of each you have. Using a scenario like what we're debating, say Brett Favre has made (non-real numbers) two 1st-Team All-Pro teams and seven 2nd-Teams. If you combine them, that's just saying that Favre has nine All-Pro teams. But that can be any combination, and as you've admitted the 1st-Team and 2nd-Team are different levels of prestige, so there is a clear difference between nine 1st-Teams and nine 2nd-Teams. Combining them would be unfair, not entirely accurate, misleading, and omitting potentially-significant information. Our goal on Wikipedia is to be as informative as we possibly can, so why would we want to omit information and be less informative? That doesn't make any sense to me. Ksy92003(talk) 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Excellent analogy. Combining is misleading. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hope that answers your question, Wknight94. Ksy92003(talk) 20:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But I'm proposing we say Favre was on "nine All-Pro teams (two 1st-Team)". What other way is there to read that other than two 1st-Team and seven 2nd-Team? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont want to accuse anybody of anything but Im having the fealing that Howdythere and Jturney is 72.0.36.36 just using a user name, considering there edits are very similar, I dont know for sure but this is what I believe --Yankees10 21:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:RFCU. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Purpose

Can I ask wht thee purpose of combining the All-Pros is? Is it because a website makes it "easier". Or is it to make players look more they made more all-pros? I just think since the most accurate data is available why nto use that? It is true that there is a source that shows these thing combined, but as with L.C. Greenwood . . . it kind of misinforms . . . so I just would like to know why "beefing up" the all-pro is so desired, why is that?72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there really is any reason why we're having this discussion. No offense to those who are in favor of combining them, but would the world come to an end if they were kept separate? Would keeping them separate cause any sort of issue? Is there any huge problem right now? I don't see any reason why we need to discuss a change. Ksy92003(talk) 01:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue to me is that changes have already been made all over the place. Rather than have an edit war a discussion should help. I just don't see why a less-good way (to be kind) is preferred over a good way. Nothing was broken yet folks went all over the place and "fixed" it. Why? Because it was easy? To make theri favorite guys look a bit "better"? I don't know.72.0.36.36 (talk) 02:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Where have changes been made? (Sorry - I'm late to the party). —Wknight94 (talk) 03:06, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know of anyone that's made edits regarding this discussion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Many of the infoboxes have been changed concerning these All-pros, that is what I was referring to, the "fixing" was my analogy. I thought the infoboxes were accurate before the "combining" took place. From what I can see dozens of inforboxes now contain the combined All-pros rather than the separate ones. Now, if the source is changed (pro-football-reference.com) then we have to changes them all back at that time, a lot of work in my opinion, for nothing. 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Fixed order of responses above) Can you please point out a few that have been changed? Pick two or three at random so we can see what is at issue here. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

COmpare Carl Eller and L. C. Greenwood. Eller's is accurate (it has yet to be changed to the combined method, Greenwood has the "combined" All-pros. Alan Page was a great player, a Hall of Famer, but no one called him an "11-time All-pro". He was always known in NFL encyplopedia as a 6-time All-pro. Start with those.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I looked at Alan Page. I don't get it. I gather the 11 is coming from pro-football-reference? Why do they have 11 while other sources say six 1st and three 2nd? (Sorry if I'm pushing the discussion backwards but it's hard for myself and others to properly weigh in when the sources are so confusing). —Wknight94 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You are making the point. One source has combine the 6 all-pros plus the 3 2nd team all-pros and adding 2 two All-NFC selcetions, making a total of 11. That source, in my opinion, os making an error is how they combine all the selections together in sort of a lowest-common-denominator fashion. It is confusing. It looks like pro football reference may change this. Then, here on Wiki those of us who care have to go back and change all these again, to the more accepted and professional form, whi is Alal Page was a 6-time ALl-Pro, 3 times second team, and in 2 other seasons (1977 and 1980) he was ALl-conference. You seem to be up tp spped to me . . . you see the problem.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. Suddenly I'm envisioning some awfully big infoboxes. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Except for these things were done that way last week and the infoboxes were no bigger. The way things were done before was fine, this new what doesn't change teh size of the infoboxes very much, if any.Pershonally the size of the font in the informoxes to way too big. What I see is not enough "white space" where the reader can read what is there. The new way puts all the data in a flattend was and is confusing and jammed in there. The Alal Page inforboc before was more readable than now, and it is not showing him as a bogus 11-time All-pro. So, size of the boxes is importantm but the NFL Project at wiki is messing with sacred cows when it messes with All-pros. For nearly a centruy they have been used one way, and now, with one wedbite that says it may change how they do things this srping is causing problems here. Lets LOOK before he leap. That is if you want the NFL project not to be a joke.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, more confusion: pro HOF web site says Alan Page was 1st team All-pro six times, 2nd team three times, and all-conference ten times! What is going on? Could you be named All-pro and All-conference at the same time? So is 11 some invented combination of the various flavors listed in All-Pro? Damn, I thought I understood for a minute but now I don't. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:53, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they can. All-pro picks the top players from both conferences . . . ALl-Conferecne is a team that just picks from each conference. So, a guy can be all-pro and all-NFC in the same season. 72.0.36.36 (talk)

Wow, yucky. And I thought MLB had too many awards... In this case, the 11 does seem a bit misleading then. The only place I saw it (and I didn't look particularly hard) was that pro-football-reference site which seems to be engaging in a synthesis of sorts. We usually shy away from statistics like that which are only shown in one place. —Wknight94 (talk) 17:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

good way to put it. 72.0.36.36 (talk)

Article that needs attention

Hello all. I came across the following diff [2] and believe it is likely vandalism, but someone who know ANYTHING about football may wish to review. --Jordan 1972 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NFL lists his birthplace as San Antonio, I have since changed it back. Joesixpac (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

NFL in Toronto

Hello, I recently created a page called The National Football League in Toronto. I did this because there have been a lot of news recently about the possibilty that the NFL may move to Toronto. Now before I am accused of creating a Crystal Ball page, hear me out on this. I strongly believe that Wikipedia needs a page that adresses the issue of the NFL in Toronto in detail. Now, I understand that a page similar to this was created before, NFL in Toronto, but this page was created back in 2006 and since then there have been many developments in this particular case. Now as for the cystall ball question, I beleieve this page is no more of a crystal ball than the page on World War 3. Both pages talk about a hypothetical possibity that may not occur. Now, I admit that this page is very elementary at the moment, but I am making strides to include as much referenced information as I can. The worse case senerio, I think we should either rename the article or change it to Professional Football in Toronto and add some info about the CFL and whatnot. I would like to as for all the help I can get adding to this page and perhaps altering the page to meet Wikipedias guidlines. Let me know what you think. Thanks. Joesixpac (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

• This is pretty interesting, actually. I've read something about the NFL expanding in the near future and perhaps forming a new team outside of the US. Canada was mentioned in this article (I don't recall where I read this) and it said that it might not expand there since there is already a Canadian American football league established in the country. There was talk about expanding into Mexico. The article didn't mention this, but I have always wondered about Hawaii getting their own team. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Tuck Rule Game or Snow Bowl (New England)

There's a discussion at what is now Talk:Snow Bowl (New England). Should this article be called the Tuck Rule Game or Snow Bowl (New England)? It's been called some variation of "Tuck Rule" since it was created in September 2006, and was just changed recently (possibly due to to this discussion). Obviously the opening line would mention both names, but what is the most common name? Torc2 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

It has nothing to do with that AfD. The title has been bothering me ever since I changed it (Tuck Rule Game simply is rarely used, if at all), and another user (or possibly IP) recently posted about it on the talk page. I agreed with what that user had to say. Pats1 ^T/C 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've renamed the article to something official and neutral, which should solve the problem (but probably won't). Torc2 (talk) 12:14, 19 January 2008 (UTC) Compared to Snow Bowl, the Tuck Rule Game is more definitive, which points to that Raiders-Patriots game and nothing else. A quick Google search shows more instances of "Snow Bowl" referring to other games. KyuuA4 (talk) 20:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Tuck Rule Game.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

2005 NFL Draft renominated for FL

This article lost FL status, but I have fixed/removed dead links and I have added more refs and improved the article. Do you think it can be renominated for FL status?--TrUCo⁹31¹ 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Check here for renomination>>>hereTrUCo⁹31¹ 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Archival

(I archived this talk page) Ok I am new to the project but I am an established user, and from my knowledge of other projects, sections that have not been responded for over 7 days are to be archived. If members of this project agree to do so, may you want me to archive this talk page on regular basis?--TrUCo⁹31¹ 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In second though I will request a bot to do so.--TrUCo⁹31¹ 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City Chiefs subproject

Would anybody be interested in starting a subproject about the Kansas City Chiefs? RC-0722 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes! I've been interested in a very long time. Check out my user talk page to check out my contributions. conman33 (. . .talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I just created the project. Feel free to join and tell others too. Go here: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Kansas City Chiefs subproject.conman33 (. . .talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Great! I'll start work on a ubox. RC-0722 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Nfl Drafts

Someone has added a merge tag on Manning-Rivers trade to be merged with 2004 NFL Draft. Also 2002-2004 NFL Drafts have been delisted from featured lists. 2005 and 2006 were delisted like a week ago. Gman124 (talk) 23:36, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Redskins SubProject

Anyone interested in a subproject for the Washington Redskins? Let me know here or on my talk page. Jwalte04 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

• Although I'm not a fan of the Redskins, I would suggest that you go ahead and start it up. I have been the only one active on the St. Louis Rams subproject since I founded it almost a year ago. I see nothing wrong with starting it up and hoping that others will take notice what needs to be done. There's always lurkers around that are willing to help here and there, but don't want to join a project. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Sure I'll join. I think I know of another person but he might join just because he hates the cowboys. RC-0722 ^communicator/_kills 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

All-Pro Team articles

I was just wondering if anybody would like to help me create articles on the All-Pro Teams using pro-football-reference.com, I already created the 1979 All-Pro Team, if anbody wants to see how it should look. Thanks--Yankees10 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Per the discussion (far) above, I am confused about the pro-football-reference data. Are they not distinguishing between All-pro and All-conference? How is Alan Page listed as being on 11 All-pro teams but other official sources list him as being on six first-teams, three second-teams, and 10 all-conferences? I tried doing the math but could never make 6, 3, and 10 add up to 11. This would seem to be quite relevant to your article writing. It seems I need some football award education if anyone could oblige... Thanks! —Wknight94 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah your right I should hold off until we figure out if this is a reliable enough source or not--Yankees10 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

It's probably going to be a good idea to name them differently. I don't know if other sports have "All-Pro" selections but the articles should be named something along the lines of 1979 National Football League All-Pro Team. Just my two cents. Wlmaltby3 (Talk / Contribs) 09:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

National Football League International Series article created

With the official announcement today of the Bills playing in Toronto and the Chargers and Saints in London for '08, I decided to create the article National Football League International Series, which will focus on games held outside of the U.S. I would appreciate some help expanding it because we all know that the NFL is going to have a big presence outside of the U.S. for years to come. conman33 (. . .talk) 19:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

move Safety (American football) → Safety (football position)

Safety (American football) → Safety (football position) — I believe the disambiguation (American football) is rather unclear as it could also mean the Safety (football score) and the same position is also in Canadian football. I suggest (football position). Please add your thoughts at Talk:Safety (American football)#Requested move. DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:38, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Team WikiProjects

I was wondering if there would be any objection to moving Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/St. Louis Rams subproject to Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Rams. I noticed that the Chicago Bears WikiProject is not placed as a subpage to the NFL WikiProject. I'm not sure what the rational was for creating them as subpages. --Pinkkeith (talk) 14:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Infobox NFL season

The Template:Infobox NFL season is coded in such a way that it reads the city and team that the season is for and automatically assigns colors to the infobox. On the whole this is fine for many teams, but some teams have changed their colors and/or moved and relocated from a different city. For example, see 1999 St. Louis Rams season (the last season using blue and yellow) and 1960 Los Angeles Chargers season when the San Diego Chargers were in Los Angeles. If someone could change the infobox so that colors could optionally be placed in manually, I would appreciate it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I will work on it. Give me some time though, I want to compile all the sets of colors for each franchise through their history before I do it. That way, we can add all the true colors to each one once I change the infobox.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Season Schedule Template

I've created a season schedule template in my sandbox. Any feedback would be appreciated (put it on the talk page of my sandbox). Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 04:15, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Current NFL Position templates

What do we do with Template:CurrentNFLKickers, Template:CurrentNFLLongSnappers, Template:CurrentNFLPunters, and Template:NFLStartingQuarterbacks? After the season ends in a couple weeks, these templates are going to have no purpose on any of the player articles (up to 128 if you combine all four). Previously there was a discussion about this at User talk:Chrisjnelson, but Chris has recently decided to just end the whole discussion right in the middle of it, a horrible time to do so. Should we remove the templates from the ~128 players' articles that have the templates right now? Ksy92003(talk) 00:42, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Correction: I ended the discussion when I explained why they do "have a purpose."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well we'll let the project decide. You aren't the only one with an opinion. Ksy92003(talk) 00:47, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a matter of opinion. It has a purpose. I told it to you. You didn't get it. That's it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Well let's the project decide if they agree with your "purpose". Just because you think something doesn't make it automatically right. Just because you think something is important doesn't mean that it is. I could use that same reasoning and say that it doesn't have a purpose just because I don't think it does; you're saying that it does have a purpose because you think it does, so I could say just the opposite.

That's why we have WP:CONSENSUS and why no one person can make all the decisions, especially when that one person is so far the only person to disagree with somebody who s/he's had conflicts with and has been the opposing party in about six of your blocks. Ksy92003(talk) 01:17, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The templates should be kept. They serve a purpose and the purpose is to know who a team's starting quarterback (and others). Even with a season's end, it does not claim those players are the team's starting players at those positions at that specific moment in time, which is why it is noted in the template, as of such-and-such week. There is no reason to not keep them. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 13:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I do understand the points that you are making, don't get me wrong. But I personally still don't see the importance of these players (and in turn the templates remaining on those players' articles) at a time like September, which is nearly seven months after the most recent regular season game. I personally don't yet understand why it would be so significant that seven months after the most recent regular season game that we would feel the need to say "Ben Roethlisberger was the starting quarterback for the Steelers seven months ago." Ksy92003(talk) 14:11, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that the season's over..

Is there still any reason to keep these templates transcluded on the players' pages? It really doesn't serve any purpose now that the season is over, and it's kinda ridiculous to say that "Eli Manning started a game for the New York Giants about a month and a half ago." Ksy92003(talk) 14:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Team logos on player pages

Over the past few days, someone/some people have been adding individual team logos to players and coaches infoboxes (examples Joe Washington and Ray Flaherty are just two of a loooooot). Does anyone else thinks this looks horrible and should be removed? Jwalte04 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It does not follow rules 3, 8, and 10c of WP:FUC#Policy anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't worry, Michfan2123 got to most of it real fact, doesn't seem to be an issue any longer. Just everyone keep their eyes open for it. Jwalte04 (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

notability of arena football league players

I know that this might not be the correct place to bring this up, but is there a concensus on the notability of Arena Football League players?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

If you were trying to find it, the projcet page for the Arena Football League is... *drumroll* Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League!! While the project page doesn't express their notability directly, I assume that it's pretty much how it is for WP:NFL, WP:MLB, et cetera, and that an Arena Football League figure is considered notable if he is a player for an Arena Football League team or a coach of an Arena Football League team. Note the bold font of "Arena Football League" because I don't believe that players in the af2 (the Arena Football League minor-league system) would be considered notable, much in the same way that American Hockey League players and Triple-A baseball players wouldn't be considered notable solely based on an affiliation with a National Hockey League or Major League Baseball team, respectively. Ksy92003(talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I guess I could drag this discussion there, but I'm hoping for some feedback here. They are probably homers for their AFL players. My problem with considereing them notable is that they are basically the minor league for the NFL. I don't think there's anyone in the AFL that wouldn't rather play in the NFL. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

While it is true that many people would prefer the pay of an NFL player to an Arena Football League player, and while several players do make the jump, it is also worth noting that the AFL and NFL are two separate leagues. The AFL is a "lower" league compared to the NFL, but the AFL is the highest level of Arena Football in America. I think that's enough to make different notability guidelines between NFL and AFL players. Ksy92003(talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't see as two different types of football. What's with the Continental Basketball Association? I'm sure they don't have the same exact rules as the NBA. Should all their players be considered notable because they are in a professional league?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I consider the differences between the NFL and Arena Football League significantly more.. significant. For example, the size of the field is different, the boundaries are different, the running game clock runs differently, and in the AFL you're allowed to have a receiver run to the line of scrimmage prior to the snap, just to name a few. Yes, there are different rules. But I think the difference between the rules in the NFL and the Arena Football League are significant enough that they could be considered two separate types of football. Ksy92003(talk) 19:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with characterizing the AFL as a differnt type of sport. But the extent of the difference and how it effects considering them a different type of football shouldn't matter. At the end of the day, these guys aren't notable; none of them have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

I still think it'd be best to question their notability at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arena Football League; they might have different notability guidelines than here, and it's important to know those. They are, after all, independant projects and the same guidelines might not apply. Ksy92003(talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

All-time roster lists

Hello, I am trying to create a format for Team all time roster lists, mainly because we are one of the few sports that doesn't have a uniform article setup for this type of list. I have been working for a long time on List of Washington Redskins players, but have kinda come to a standstill on what to do next. I have participated in peer review and, though helpful, can only take me so far. Any ideas, criticisms, and questions would be appreciated. You can leave something here, the article talk page, or on my talk page. Also, there are other formats being used (see List of Chicago Bears players and List of Seattle Seahawks players), so if you prefer that, please make a note of it. Thanks. Jwalte04 (talk) 05:17, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I think it would be a good format to have all the players, the years that they played, and some key statistics for the players (different stats for different positions). I've seen a baseball-related featured list with a similar format, I believe, and it'd be great if all all-time rosters could become featured lists (maybe not for the Texans; their team isn't great enough in the franchise's history to deserve featured content).

Oh, and I was just kidding about the Texans. I'm actually a Texans fan (as well as a Giants, Chargers, Packers, and Redskins fan). Plus, they've got a cool logo. Ksy92003(talk) 05:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The Redskins article looks strong - I will definitely consider adopting it for List of Miami Dolphins players.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Don't want to make the table sortable? See New York Mets all-time roster. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that making it sortable would only make sense if we connected all the boxes (like List of Ipswich Town F.C. players), but I think that there is too many players for that. But that is a good point to bring up - Should the letter boxes be or not be connected? Here are some other things to think about:

• More/different columns/stats
• the look/info provided in Key
• The use of images
• The possibility of changing the needed amount of matches played for the Redskins. I originally had it at one game, but changed it to three to trim the fat somewhat. However, I did not want to make it more than three because that was the number of matches that were played by the replacement players in the 1987 NFL players strike, which I think is important to include because of the fact that they went 3-0 during the strike, the Redskins later won the Super Bowl that year, and the Redskins were the only team not to have any players cross the line. Let me know your thoughts. Jwalte04 (talk) 23:39, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe make the the amount of games needed a little higher but make a special exception for the replacement players? Jwalte04 (talk) 23:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Current FLC

San Diego Chargers seasons. Do you think you could give some feedback. Buc (talk) 17:14, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl champions

This FL is close to being delisted, so I thought I'd make sure the project was aware of this. -- Scorpion⁰⁴²² 14:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Spygate in Template:New England Patriots

A Request for Comment over whether Spygate should be included in Template:New England Patriots (under "Lore" or another section) has been added to Template talk:New England Patriots. Input from outside observers is appreciated. —Torc. ^(Talk.) 19:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

All-Pros

There was a discussion about All-Pros that has now been archived. Why is there this rush to use Pro Football reference.com's website as the source? They are going to change how they show All-Pros. Here is an email from the webmaster there:

> > By the way, we're also starting to get serious about disaggregating the > > all-pro data. No guarantees, but I'd hope we can have it done within the > > next month or two. > > > > Thanks for writing, > > > > (name withheld)

It is going to take time, but they are going to show the All-Pros in the tradition method, that is if you are a 1st team All-pro that is one thing. If you are a 2nd team All-Pro that is another. They are not the same thing. Never have been, never will. The source for All-pros is Total Football II: The Official Encyclpoeida of the NFL and ESPN: Pro Football Encyclopoedia, NOT Pro football reference.com. Anyway, guys who were 5-time 1st team All-pro and 2-times 2nd team all-pro are shown as a 7-time All-pro. This is not accurate. Why are we going to have to go back and change everything when Pro Football Reference.com "disaggregates" the All-pro data? What gives?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Jim Zorn was NFC Offensive Rookie of the Year in 1976? Says who?

Please see discussion at Talk:Jim Zorn#NFC Offensive Rookie of the Year in 1976? Says who? —Wknight94 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The award they are referring to is the NFLPA Offensive Rookie of the Year Award. As you rightly point out the AP, NEA, UPI, and Pro Football Writers Association, The Sporting News, and Pro Football Weekly all named White as the Offesnive Rookie of the Year, the Player's Association also gave out that award. I will note that it was that organization that gave Zorn that Award.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to start a Wikipedia Project...

I would like to start one called Wikipedia:WikiProject Professional Football to cover all pro football leagues that aren't mainstream, such as: the AAFL, af2, etc. Would anyone like to help me? If so leave a message on my talk page. --Crash Underride 19:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

proposed policy in NFL season articles

San Diego Chargers seasons was required to go against the current policies of NFL season articles in order to gain FL status (see here). I'd like to suggest all NFL season articles be changed appropiatly. Buc (talk) 21:41, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

An unusual hello from the Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts

We've identified the Rosey Grier biography as a priority for improvement. It's start-class right now; let's team together and get it up to B-class. After all, how many defensive linebackers have ever authored a book called Needlepoint for Men? Might be the only time our two projects collaborate, so let's chuckle and give Rosey his due. :) Durova^Charge! 09:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I worked on it some and added a section that should have been there that wasn't. I think it looks a little bit better. If you need anymore help just leave a message on my talk page. --Crash Underride 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the assistance. Anything else you could add would be great. We're doing a featured portal drive for textile arts and it'd be a hoot to include his biography in it. Cheers, Durova^Charge! 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

PFR and DBF credibility issues

I am getting slammed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley because PFR and DBF don't pass WP:FAC standards. I have been able to swap out some PFR refs for NFL.com. However, some things I am unable to. Can anyone help me find sources to replace the remaining PFR refs so we can get our first post 1930s football bio WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone have any arguments on why PFR and DBF should be viewed as reliable sources for WP:FAC consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me be more specific. At the Tyrone Wheatley FAC, the following refs are being challenged from PFR. I am not able to find replacement refs. Please advise.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 13:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

• In nine instances, I refer to Tyrone Wheatley's 100-yard games.
• Wheatley's highest rushing total in the playoffs was 56 yards.
• In 2000, Wheatley’s 4.5 yards per carry ranked ninth in the NFL.
• He was able to play in three 2002–03 playoff games including the 2003 Super Bowl against former coach Gruden.
• Wheatley became the sixth person to lead the Raiders franchise in rushing yards three times (Clem Daniels, Marv Hubbard, Mark van Eeghen, Marcus Allen, Napoleon Kaufman).

Bye Week / Date

After creating many season schedule summaries for the Pittsburgh Steelers individual season articles, there have been users (usually unregistered) who have added an indiviual date (usually that of Sunday) to the bye week. I don't think that bye weeks should be a given a date, as not all games are played on Sunday. What is the "view" of the project on this matter? I would appreciate knowing one way or the other, so I can either add the date in the future, or report those who add the date for vandalism. Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Anyone? If there is no policy that exists, perhaps there should be one created. Blackngold29 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I agree that dates should NOT be added to bye weeks and that a policy should be created if one doesn't exist. --Crash Underride 05:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

No date.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

He's talkin' about the dates on here, not nfl.com. IP users have been addin' the dates, I seen it myself. I think they shouldn't be on there. IMO --Crash Underride 05:42, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

So is there policy on other things, do we add it to a list somewhere? Do we need to vote or have it approved or do I just reference this discussion? Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 06:03, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Chris??? lol --Crash Underride 06:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposed semi-pro football project

There is currently a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Semi-pro football to focus on those articles which specifically deal with content related to semi-pro football leagues and teams. Anyone interested in working in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:36, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

New York Yanks

The 1940's NFL team 'New York Yanks' were moved to Texas and was then used to form the new Baltimore Colts, yet I can find no mention of the Dallas Texans or New York Yanks anywhere on the Colts history page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.75.112.217 (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

What is up with the All-pros?

Are we going to discuss this? The issue is that a single-source (pro football reference.com) is putting out information that is misleading and is going to change it (why was my post deleted?) What is going on?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

A previous discussion on this subject was archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 4. Is that what you're looking for? Maybe the archiving is set to trigger too quickly... —Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Links to Seasons in Infoboxes

I know this discussion has come up before, but I thought I would bring it up again, I wanted to know if the links to seasons should be in the infobox. I think they should be there for 3 reasons, 1st there on most of the infoboxes already, second reason is the links are already in the years played section and third reason is I think it looks better with the links (which I know is not a good reason)--Yankees10 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Which infobox? The one for the team or like during a season? (i.e. New Orleans Saints or 2008 New Orleans Saints season)?--TrUCo⁹31¹ 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah that would help to say which one, Template:Infobox NFLretired, sorry about that--Yankees10 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

So what do you want to do? You want to add what to the infobox (as It is confusing on what you want to add to it)--TrUCo⁹31¹ 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I want to know if we should have the links or not--Yankees10 19:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

What links? For the seasons?--TrUCo⁹31¹ 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

yeah--Yankees10 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Well I dont thinks so, as it would have been mentioned in the article already, and it really is important to list it in the infobox, IMO.TrUCo⁹31¹ 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I dont think you know what I'm talking about, this is what I'm trying to say should it look like this:

• Green Bay Packers (1994-2002)

OR

• Green Bay Packers (1994-2002) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankees10 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Ohh, well most of them do and some dont, so consensus here would be to link them all, IMO. But wait for other opinions.TrUCo⁹31¹ 20:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

well most do have them, yeah I'm hoping other people also express there opinions--Yankees10 21:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I agree with Yankees10, I think it should be linked such as this:

• Dallas Cowboys (2005-present)

But then again, that's just me. So I say. AGREE. --Crash Underride 05:17, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I Dont think the present should be linked though, thanks for responding--Yankees10 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Why link 1994 and 2007 when ALL the years in between aren't linked?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Tough one. Ordinarily I agree with Chrisjnelson on this point. But now I'm picturing people thinking, "oh he started with Dallas in 2005 - was that the year they missed the playoffs?" *Click* They could traverse the Cowboys' seasons starting at the first year X played for them. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm with Dub K on this one. Plue, who knows they about be like some players and be one hit wonders and have a HUGE rookie season and possibly nothin' that big again. --Crash Underride 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Who's Dub K?--Yankees10 22:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Wknight is Dub K. Dub K as in W-K.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh--Yankees10 23:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

New Gridiron person infobox

I created a new info box that's an updated version on Template:Infobox Gridiron football person. It's Template:Infobox Gridiron football person alt, and instead of the American Football League (AFL), it retains the Arena Football League (AFL). So in turn, I removed the AFL draft, round, and pick, entries and changed AFLDraftedYear to AFLEntryYear, since the Arena League doesn't have a yearly draft. It still contains the Canadian Football League (CFL), and NFL, of course. I'm also constipating adding the AAFL, and United Football League, that is, if they pan out any. --Crash Underride 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

You're constipating?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I assume s/he meant "contemplating". Ksy92003 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing. Anywho, that's cool, good work! Kimu 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I was thinkin' about somethin' else lol. I need some help though on the position(s) part. I can't get it to register for some reason. Plus, I just thought of it a few minutes ago, I would like to add the players major as well, people might find it interestin'. Ya'll feel free to help me out with those if ya like. --Crash Underride 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

I tried tinkerin' with it but I still couldn't get it. I don'tknow,so I gave up, rather listen to SHOUTcast lol.Crash Underride 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Correction to Super Bowl VII National Anthem and Halftime information

Euphjoe (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
There is some incorrect information about Super Bowl I and Super Bowl VII:
The University of Michigan Band did not perform at Super Bowl I in 1967. The Michigan Band's first appearance in a Super Bowl was in 1973 at Super Bowl VII.
In Super Bowl VII, the National Anthem was sung by the Little Angels children's choir accompanied by the Michigan Band. Andy Williams did not participate in the pregame ceremonies.
Halftime entertainment at Super Bowl VII was a show entitled "Happiness Is," featuring the university of Michigan Marching Band. Woody Herman joined the band for two songs ("The Raven Speaks" and "Woodchopper's Ball"), and Andy Williams sang two songs with the band ("Marmalade Molasses and Honey" and the finale, "People").
The Citrus College Singers also performed along with the Michigan Band and Andy Williams on a couple songs. I was a member of the Michigan Band during the performance at Super Bowl VII.

Seems that the Super Bowl VII article may be using http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history/entertainment which can be viewed by some as a a reliable, published source since it is from the NFL's official website. Unfortunately, since you cannot cite your own personal eyewitness account, you may need to find another different source to cite. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Help request: GA backlog

Hello. There has been a large backlog at the Good Article Nominations page for a while. Since most of my editing is in the Sports and Recreation category, that is the area that I am currently focusing on. To try to cut down on the backlog, I'm approaching projects with the request that members from that project review two specific articles over the next week. My request to WikiProject National Football League is to try to find time to review Ion Croitoru and Jeff Hardy. If these are already reviewed by someone else or you have time for another review, it would be great if you could help out with another article. Of course, this is purely voluntary. If you could help, though, it would help out a lot and be greatly appreciated. The basic instructions for reviewing articles is found at WP:GAN and the criteria is found at WP:WIAGA. I recently began reviewing articles, and I've found it fairly enjoyable and I've learned a lot about how to write high quality articles. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Efrem Hill

Could someone please asess Efrem Hill? I can't, my assessin' script won't work for Opera. Plus, I worked really hard on it. Crash Underride 20:11, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Abdul Hodge

Ya'll, I just expanded his article and re assessed if from stub to start. Could someone else take a look at it and give an unbiased opinion please??? Crash Underride 05:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Player numbers

Does anyone know where I could find jersey numbers for former NFL players? I am trying to fill in the Jersey Numbers in the List of Washington Redskins players article. Thanks. Jwalte04 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Official AFL Infobox

I made it, well, used the Template:Infobox NFLactive and just copied it and switched to Template:Infobox AFLactive. It's for current Arena Football League players. Hope you can help me out. Crash Underride 21:28, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Model schedule table for all season articles

I've created a model table for the schedule of all season pages. It can be found here. I would love to hear any comments, criticisms, suggestions; hopefully if we can all work to improve it, and it could be added into the NFL project's criteria on what a season page should include. You can leave any comments on the discussion page. The one thing that I am unsure of is the color for a tie, obviously the green is win and pink is loss, as is standard for almost all sports; I am currently using orange, but it would look better if it wasn't such a dark shade, I'm pretty unexperienced in the "color area", so anyone who can help with this is very welcome to do so. Thanks. Blackngold29 (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

New Arena football infobox

I created this one Template:Infobox Arenaretired, I combined the new NFLactive one, and the organization part of the Gridiron football person one. Hope you like it. Crash Underride 05:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

If anyone has time...

I just finished massively updating History of the Washington Redskins (use to look like this). I still plan on adding more stuff about their draft history, but since I can no longer stare at it for a long period of time, I was wondering if anyone could tell me what I should do next or improve. Also, some copyediting and other stuff that would help would be really appreciated. Thanks. Jwalte04 (talk) 07:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

List of Steelers coaches - peer review

I recently created the List of Pittsburgh Steelers head coaches. If someone could go over it and see if anything else needs added I would appreciate it. I would like to get it up to Featured list status. Thank you! Blackngold29 (talk) 20:40, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Champsionship navboxes AfD

Hey folks, there is an AfD discussion going on here regarding championship team navboxes (this one is in the context of hockey and the Stanley Cup). It seems from some of the comments that this may overflow to other sports projects (including SUper Bowl and NFL championship templates) so if you have any feelings either way on this issue, feel free to chime in. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

New multi-link stats template for external links sections

So I noticed that baseball players have a template in their External links sections that includes links to various stat websites. Well I don't know if there's an NFL equivalent, but I can't recall seeing one and I know for sure there isn't one widely in use on NFL player articles. To that end, I've created one and it's located at Template:Footballstats. It includes possible links to NFL.com, ESPN, CBS Sports, Yahoo!, Fox Sports, SI and Rotoworld. I'm also going to add links to CFL.ca and ArenaFan.com. If we all could start adding that to NFL player article, that'd be great. It'd definitely cut down on the space in the ELs section spent on various links.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Does this go for coaches too? I'm pretty sure www.pro-football-reference.com has every coach ever. I doubt sites like ESPN has the stats for Chuck Noll. Are there any other sites we could use for coaches? Blackngold29 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Didn't think about coaches, but now I remember I need to add PFR to this template.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

NFL first round picks

I tried to make a below template for all the NFL team first round pick templates. I ran into a problem because half of them use the {{navbox}} and half use the {{CFB navbox}}. The change I wanted to make was to add Template:NFL First Round Draft Pick template list to the bottom. The DFB half were a problem becuase something went wrong with my title color correction. The change has been WP:CSDed. However, part of the the problem is that the templates should all use the same style navbox. Then when one wants to make a change to all the templates it will be possible stylistically. All these templates should say see also {{List of NFL team first-round draft picks}} at the bottom. This would make my attempted change unnecessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

ALl-Pros 2

As I predicted, all that changing of the All-pros two editors did now needs to be reversed. The wesbite they used for verification has changed its date to reflect accurately the All-Pros. [3] Ted Hendricks is not an 11-time All-Pro. Is there going to be control of editors who are out-of-control? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLVI

I've been working on a draft article, here, when would be an okay time to turn it into an official article? Thanks for any input, I don't want to start this up too soon. HoosierState^Talk 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's a bit too early. i think you aught to wait bought a year. [lukethespook] | ^{[t c r]} 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is also too early, and you should have waited before publishing it on to the mainspace.--~SRS~ 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some help

could someone help me find some images to use in the article for Trey Lewis. Pretty much every image i've managed to come up with has been shot down by a certian wikipedian who's really stiff on image rules. [lukethespook] | ^{[t c r]} 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Team Mascots

I recently re-wrote the article on Steely McBeam, including pretty much everything that I thought was notable (and maybe a few things that were not, such as the arrest). It's still pretty short, as are most mascot articles. Would it be reasonable to merge all team mascots into the team's main article? After looking down the List of National Football League mascots it would seem most of the article's are shorter than the team infobox at the bottom. The mascot's are notable, but maybe not notable enough to have their own article. Blackngold29 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Drafted or Originally Drafted

A mediation case has been started on how strictly NFL player articles should be standardized. Some feel all articles should say a person was "originally drafted by..." while others feel they should just say the player was drafted by such and such team unless they've moved on to another team. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the word "originally" should be included. I see no reason as to why it should be. Simply saying "Bob Smith was drafted by Buffalo" is suffice. Saying "Bob Smith was originally drafted by Buffalo", seems to imply that he was drafted by Buffalo first (origianlly), but then another team came along and drafted him again (which is impossible as far as I know). Even if the player is traded it sounds fine to say "Bob Smith was drafted by Buffalo, then traded to Arizona." Unless a good reason is given as to why the word "originally" should be included I see it as making the sentence too wordy, and no need to discuss the topic further. (Can I also state this on the mediation page, as I was not invited?) Blackngold29 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally refers to the year, not the team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference "Bob was drafted in 1989" makes complete sense. Blackngold29 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say Originally, sounds better--Star QB (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? It makes complete sense to say "Bob was drated by the Bengals." Part of proper english is concise writing. Blackngold29 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally is entirely redundant, except for like 2-3 cases (Bo Jackson, and um, Bo Jackson, and maybe Bo Jackson too) where a player was drafted twice, players are only drafted ONCE. Thus, since there is no need to differentiate between separate drafts, there is no need to use the word originally. A player may have originally PLAYED for a different team, but he was only drafted once, thus originally is nonsensical in that context. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that wrong? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not what the sentence is saying or implying.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly what it implies to me, and I'm obviously not alone. Blackngold29 04:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "originally" is an adverb that modifies the verb "drafted". When there is only one draft that is relevent, why does it need to be modified? What two different drafts do we need to differentiate in order to use a modifier like the adverb "orginally"? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you guys are still wrong. Think about it this way. I'm doing about to do a video for my Miami Dolphins blog on the acquisition of Akin Ayodele. I will probably say something like "He was originally drafted by the Jaguars in 2002 and played for seasons with the team. He played the previous two seasons in Dallas." Imagine that being said aloud. It does not imply he was drafted more than once at all - it's simply a way of saying that while it's not 2008 and he's a Dolphin, he originally entered the NFL as a third-round pick of the Jaguars in 2002.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How about excluding the word "originally"? It still makes sense; does it not? Also, proper writing and speaking can differ. Blackngold29 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the word "originally" still makes no sense. If you said he originally PLAYED for the Jaguars, you'd be right. But it makes no sense with the word drafted. You could just say he was drafted by the Jaguars, but that he now plays for Dallas. You can say "he originally entered the NFL as a draft pick of the Jaguars" because originally is the modifier for the word "entered". Once you make it the modifier of the word "drafted" it makes no sense... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. Originally entered makes no sense either. Its redundant too. You can only enter once in this context. The only phrasing that makes sense with the word "orginally" is "originally played". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Still wrong.

And Blackngold - I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense without the word - it would. But I feel this is better writing so I'm going to add it until forced to do otherwise.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So if it makes sense without it, why add it? If an english major is called into the discussion, and he says it's incorrect to add the word "originally" would you stop with no complaints? Blackngold29 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My fiancee has a journalism degree from the University of Minnesota and has been an editor at a publishing company for several years now. She's sleeping now but when I get a chance (probably will be tomorrow night) I'll ask her about the grammar of it. Even if she says the grammar is wrong to add "originally" on every single article I don't think it'll matter though. He's too stubborn and has too much emotionally invested in this now. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I add it because I feel it is a better-written sentence with it. If an actual expert could prove me wrong and explain why my phrasing is invalid, then I guess I'd cease adding it. But I'm pretty confident I'm not wrong here. Writing is what I do. And considering Jayron just showed he didn't know what he was talking about by initially offering what he thought correct alternative that proved to be identical to my phrasing, we are currently without such an expert.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need an expert. You just need someone that payed attention in 9th grade English class. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I did. So I guess I win right?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but simply because something is your occupation does not mean you are good at it. I also paid attention in 9th grade english, and I would assume Jayron who was a Master's degree did also. Simply stating that he is incorrect because it doesn't sound right is not a very good rebuttal. As I stated above good speech =/= good writing. It is redundant, it makes sense without originally, and I still hold that is should not be included. Blackngold29 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stating he is incorrect is just a fact.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an opinion at this point. Either you are correct or we are; possibly both but I doubt it. Unless some evidence is presented that it is proper english to use the word originally is presented; Yes I feel you must present the evidence as you are the one who started the debate (by added originally); then I feel no further need to discuss this. Blackngold29 05:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously why is this such a big deal now, me and Chris have been doing this for a while and no one has complained or removed it before--Yankees10 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Had it been brought to my attention, I would have complained. I'm still waiting for evidence that it is proper english; if none can be presented soon there is no reason to keep this up. Blackngold29 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Black and GOld go here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) So you can contribute to the discussion there, it would be helpful, Jayron32 you, too.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What a coincidence, because I'm waiting for evidence that it isn't proper english, and if none can be presented soon there is no reason to remove it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayron already gave evidence, but you refuse to acknowlege it or present a mature rebuttal. Blackngold29 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) is a bunch of crap, the IP 67.137.0.28 went to all the users that agreed with not using originally, meaning everyone that goes there agrees with him, so what is going to be solved, when other users that agree with me and Chris dont see it--Yankees10 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So because there are people who disagree with you, it should be thrown out? Blackngold29 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayron didn't prove jack shit.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned neither have you. If you are indeed correct would that not mean that you should have no trouble proving your argument? Blackngold29 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Love it.. I take a fairly decent-length hiatus from Wikipedia.. and this is the first thing on my watchlist. If it's not too much to ask, could everybody all just think about this short question: is the word "originally" really worth a huge debate? Ksy92003 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. But I refuse to stand aside while people impliment improper english into Wikipedia. Blackngold29 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Is it worth this? It goes to the heart of wiki rules. Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Civil for openers. We have some users who I think break rules and the become uncivil, break specific rules and they seem to get away with it. It is my understanding this is not a dictatorship and it is apparant that chrisjnelson does not think the rules apply to him. Over this and other issues recently nelson and yankees10 have cursed me out, insulted by good-faith edits and other things. What I don't get is how a guy like nelson can be blocked a dozen or more times gets to stay. He is exactly the same as he was before he was blocked, maybe even emboldened to a degree. If he has not learned his lesson, why does he get so much say-so around here? He's made it clear he does think he's ever wrong, he's made it clear that if he wants to be uncivil, he will be uncivil. It is a matter of principle. Do wiki rules apply to all of us or are a few exempt. They may get their hand slapped, but there is never any real penalty, it seems to me, for uncivil behavior. So, are the rest of us supposed to cower? Are we supposed to try and consensus build though being insulted? So, User:Ksy92003, I simply ask how can good people stand up to something when little things that may get blown out of whack get looked at like all parties in the dispute are an equal footing? I suggest we are not. I suggest some have been uncivil and I suggest some of us have held our tounge and kept the rules and remained civil. Are those who keep the rules going to be punished? Are those who break the rules going to be punished? The more I read about wiki rules the more I like them. They present plenty of opportunites to work things out, but if some chose not to apply the rules to themselves then it makes it hard on the rest of us. Do we quit and give up because someone has more will-power to keep fights going? Or do we at least render our opinion? I wonder how many good editors have been lost through sheer attrition based on saying, "Is this worth it"? I simply ask for fairness and equity in this matter of uncivility and consesus, and the 5 pillars (i.e. good-faith edits). So, in the big picture this is worth it to me72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thing that's not an issue here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Response From An Expert: A Professional Editor With A 4 yr Journalism Degree

I asked my fiancee last night about this topic. She has two degrees: one is a Bachelor's of Arts in Speech Communications from Minnesota State University, Mankato and the other is a Bachelors of Science in journalism from the University of Minnesota. She's worked two years as an assistant editor at the American Journal of Kidney Disease when it was stationed in Minnesota, and now she's working as an Editor at Priority Publishing in Edina, MN. Needless to say, grammar is her life.

She said normally she wouldn't use Wikipedia or work on Wikipedia because in her field it's considered unreliable and sloppy, but since I've already gotten involved in this she'll help out. Instead of making a knee-jerk response she said she'd go to work and check her AP Stylebook and ask a couple of other editors at work so she could be 100% sure. While the ametuer journalist immediately says they are right because they figure they know better, the professional likes to get input from others. She asked two other editors at work today about this, one who has a Master's Degree and one who is a specialist in grammar. We just got done having a lengthy conversation on it.

“ She said normally she wouldn't use Wikipedia or work on Wikipedia because in her field it's considered unreliable and sloppy ”

I have to strongly agree with your fiancee on this point. Wikipedia is very unreliable. I've seen lots of information that is just incorrect and/or poorly sourced. Many of the sources that I look up don't even mention anything about the point that it is suppose to reference. It seems to me that most of the information placed on here is popular opinion rather then factual information. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Their Response:

It can be taken by a reader one of two ways: the first is to put the emphasis on drafted which would be making what is called a false statement on some articles because it would imply that they've been drafted more than once when in fact many have not. And you don't write things in articles as if they've already happened just because it may or may not happen in the future(WP:Crystal). The other way to take it would be to as Chrisjnelson wants you to take it which would be that they originally started at this team. This would also make it improper grammar because it is considered redundant and unnecessary. You should always use the least amount of words as possible to make your point across. A good rule of thumb on redundancy is that if you're reading a sentence, and by removing one word it still makes sense, then that word should be removed. Also keep in mind that some readers may see it as implyng they've already moved to another team (which is a false statement again).

My fiancee and the one with the Master's Degree took it as being drafted more than once, and the other person took it as this is the team they came from. All three of them said that if this article came across their desk the way it is now, they would take a red pen and cross the word "orginally" out because if it confuses the reader it shouldn't be in there. And adding "originally" in every article obviously confuses at least some readers here. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information about a popular topic to the layperson, and confusing the reader undermines that purpose.

Also, she was wondering if Chrisjnelson had an alterior motive, because she said consistency doesn't overpower readability. Consistency is generally used within the scope of the same article, not multiple articles. Nobody wants to read the same thing over and over again in every article. In a way she said she could see where he is coming from, because when you're in school you are expected to write a little wordy but when actually writing in your profession you want as little words as possible to create a better finished product.

Also Chrisjnelson, when you actually get in the field your articles will be edited by sometimes two or three editors before being printed (and they will often edit each other's work). If you are going to be this defensive and combative on edits to your work this field isn't going to be for you. But she wasn't too worried about that in your case because this is something they usually teach you to work with in years 3 and 4 in college. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, originally sounds unecessary/redundant. "<Player Name> was drafted in 2006" makes more sense than "<Player Name> was originally drafted in 2006", especially because in almost all cases you only get drafted once. Bjewiki (Talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Rivalries in the National Football League

I was wondering if a couple other editors on this project wouldn't mind helping me keep an eye of this article for a little while. Lately it's been subject to wholesale addition of rivalries which don't exist or are tenuous at best, and moments and games which don't seem to be significant (mostly by IP's, btw). I seem to be the only one who thinks it needs to be pared down and is trying to do so, as I don't want to see the article turned into a list of NFL fancruft, but I'd appreciate any help I can get. Thanks. --Highway99 (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

NFL Playoffs 49ers 39 Giants 38

A NFL game cannot end on a defensive peanlty so the zebras botched that call. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.218.53 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl and NFL/AFL championship navboxes

He folks, wanted to make you aware of an ongoing TFD regarding NBA championship navboxes here. This follows the TFD discussion that resulted in Stanley Cup championship templates being deleted. It's a pretty active discussion, and seems to be one that may affect other sports projects down the line. Feel free to chime in on the discussion if you are interested. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

This issue is currently under deletion review here. If you haven't already and are interested in this topic, please provide your input. If the deletion holds, it is likely that the Super Bowl and NFL/AFL navboxes will be deleted. - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics

I was wondering today about the absence of player statistics on season pages. Even the two GA NY Giants articles excludes them. I have worked on baseball and hockey season pages and all of them include player stats. I was wondering if stats were simply overlooked, or purposely excluded? I think that they should be added, unless there is some reason not to. Thanks! Blackngold29 19:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Ireland national American football team

It's not NFL, but maybe someone might know if it's real or not Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[4]. Jwalte04 (talk) 21:04, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw that, although I would be happier if they had more than 0 players, and their, and their contact number wasnt in Germany! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks

nominated List of Philadelphia Eagles first-round draft picks for featured list see here. --Gman124 ^talk 15:30, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks

why was the List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks page redirected to List of Chicago Bears players? --Gman124 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

It would appear someone has put the first-round draft picks on that page. Although to match other teams, it should probably have its own. Blackngold29 16:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

assessment review requested NFL Draft List Series

I've recently completed a lot of additions to the NFL Draft Series beginning with 1936 NFL Draft Thru 2000 NFL Draft concentrating mainly on completeness 1936 - 1996 I prefer not to asses these articles myself and feel many are B Class and a few may even be FLC. I've added {{section-stub}} to most opening statements and invite all to participate. I'm also aware that there are a few instances where not all first instances are wikified and some have quite a bit of redlink'd players. This has been a great deal of work, I've spent over a year on some of this, other have also edited in the interim and there is much more work required. In short all tables are now complete, have uniform data & style including HOF, acquired trades, lottery picks etc... so I think an assessment by someone other than myself is appropriate. Slysplace ^{talk ♫} 01:46, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Michael Demurjian

It's been suggested to me that this recently-created article is a hoax. I looked into it a little and found some evidence, but also found a place where his name should probably have been and is not. Would one of you well-informed folks care to dispose of this one way or the other? Thanks in advance. Accounting4Taste:talk 15:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a hoax. Nobody with that name ever played in the NFL. How to remove this article? Anson2995 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Project consistency

Can someone please point me to a manual of style being used by WP:NFL members? Please make a note on my talk page. Thank you, JBsupreme (talk) 18:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

New Template

Hey there, WP:NFL. I've put together a template for stadiums that have moved out of the "purposed" phase and have had physical construction started.

Use it as necessary! Thanks! -- Me^Holla! 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Cool. I put it on New Pittsburgh Arena. Thanks! Blackngold29 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Terrible Towel peer review

I have recently put the Terrible Towel up for a peer review. All comments are welcome here. Thank you! Blackngold29 17:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Chris Long (American football)

I put up Chris Long (American football) for a peer review. Please comment here. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:33, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Jack Youngblood

I'm trying to get the Jack Youngblood article up to GA status. Any help anyone can give me would be great. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:16, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Articles needing feedback

Just letting you know, there are two articles I'm working on that are in need of feedback. List of Oakland Raiders head coaches‎ and Denver Broncos seasons. Buc (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Indianapolis Colts WikiProject

I would just like to announce that I have created WikiProject Indianapolis Colts if anyone would like to join! HoosierState^Talk 20:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Notability discussion invitation

The Wikipedia:WikiProject College football project is having a discussion of college football player notability in reference to professional football leagues. All members of your project are invited to join in on the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Players notability expansion?.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

New Project Userbox

I created this one because the first's size is sometimes larger than other boxes.

This, {{User WikiProject NFL2}}

Gets this.

Hope you guys and gals like it. This is gonna be the one that I use from now on, hopefully. lol Crash Underride 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Good job. Im gonna use it from now on.--SRX--LatinoHeat 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC) I noticed that the box is still alittle bigger than I'd like, so I'm gonna work on that and get it to the 50 by 45 size that 98% or more use. Crash Underride 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC) Older FL issue Ok so there are a lot of NFL featured lists now (about 40 I think and always increasing). However looking through them today I noticed that and lot of the old ones (e.g List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks and Chicago Bears seasons) are of a much lower standard. Clearly they passed before the featured list criteria tightened is rules. I'd like to propose a project to get them up to the standard that they should be at. Buc (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC) You could list any lists that no longer meet the criteria on the WP:FLRC page. There are a lot of FLs and as you stated, I definately think some don't deserve to be so. Blackngold29 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC) That's for individual list. I'm talking about a whole bunch of them. Buc (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC) Just saying... if you don't think they're FL class, that's where to put 'em. Blackngold29 06:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Articles flagged for cleanup Currently, 981 of the articles assigned to this project, or 11.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Super Bowl XLI Super Bowl XLI has been listed as a GA, but while I was translating it to the Spanish Wikipedia I noticed that many references are now useless (broken links?). These are: Ref 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 42. That is nineteen references out of fifty one. Most of them are from NFL.com. Is there a way to recover those links? Poromiami (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC) Some info box help. Ok, so here's the thing. I have created an info box that's for AFL players only and it works just great, HOWEVER, I am tryin' to make one for af2 and I am havin' some trouble. Go here Template:Infobox_af2active. It works fine, but the problem is I have a mysterious > in the upper left hand side and I can't figure out why it's there. Also, I am workin' on gettin' all af2 team colors so that I can finish makin' a color template for af2, like the one use for NFL teams, that has the colors for CFL, AFL, AFL, and AAFL team colors. I need help finishin' up on those, I'm almost done with Template:Af2PrimaryColor. I need help with the other three, ALTPrimaryColor, SecondaryColor, and ALTSecondaryColor. I'd really appreciate any help I could get. You may also wish to go to the PrimaryColor one and make sure that the colors are a) right, and b) on the right template, making sure that the teams' main color (such as the Dallas Cowboys being silver, with blue font) is on the correct template. As I said, I would REALLY appreciate any help. It's very time consuming when it's just me, and I have a computer with very bad RAM and I sometimes get frozen up on a teams website for several minutes. So any help would be great. Thanks, Crash Underride 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC) All-Pros pt 2 Yankees10 again wants Second-team All-conference and First-team All-conference and Second-team All-pro and First-team All-pro to be combined. I say there is no source for that, there is nothing that can verify those numbers. I say that constitutes original research and maybe synthesis. I will not do anymore edits as long as no one else does. I say that the above categories are not all the same and cannot be limped in together that way and still be accurate. I think Yankees10 is wrong on this, while I understand his enthusiasm to "puff up" a players' real record, it is a disservice to the readers of wiki and to the players themselves. Saying a second-team all-conference is the same as "All-pro" as was the case with Curtis Martin is just not truthful. What does everyone say?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC) First of all I am not the only one, and secondly I believe that they should not be seperated because an All-Pro is an All-Pro--Yankees10 21:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Would you please cite a source that a Second-team All-COnference and and All-pro are the same thing. I know your opinion, you know mine. I have many sources that back me up. If a guy were a 3-time First-team all-pro and a 2-time Second team All-Pro you can say he was a "5-time First- and Second-team All-Pro. Is that what you want to do? That way at least it is labeled. We don't want wiki to be a "buyer beware" place in terms of statistics do we?72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:35, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [5] Example: Ted Hendricks is not an 11-time All-Pro 72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:51, 21 June 2008 (UTC) The way I see it, no source, no combining of All-pro teams72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:41, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Archived discussions on All-Pros so the cud isn't chewed again As you can see there their souce no longer verifies combining of All-pros. No source, no combining72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC) [6] What now? Yankees10?? Are you finding a source? You have your view and I have mine. But I really think if you realzie that the way pro-football reference has it is the accurate way.72.0.36.36 (talk) 22:29, 21 June 2008 (UTC) Theres no need for a source in combining all-pros--Yankees10 23:26, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I'm neutral on this one, sorry. But Yankees is right an All-Pro is an All-Pro. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2008 (UTC) Yankees10 has no source. Things have to be WP:verifiable, right? Don;t you agree?72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:15, 3 July 2008 (UTC) A source is not needed for simple math and that is not original research.►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC) I thought you gave up. Wikipedia:Verifiability is the gold standard of wikipedai. So is neutral point of view. COmbining All-Pros with All-Conferences means you are doing the adding and you are adding things that do not have a common denomenator. Your simple math is a bad analogy. Yesterday 7 elite sports writers responded to an e-mail, none agreed with you. You said there couldn't be any who would disagree with you. To that I add: quotes from three four five six former All-Pros. I GOTTA BELIEVE THAT 1ST TEAM ALL PRO SHOULD BE HELD AS A HIGHER LEVEL OF ACHIEVEMENT THAN 2ND TEAM ALL PRO. OTHER THAN A REPUTATION TYPE VOTE, I SAY #1 IS JUST THAT. THE BEST. WE WOULD ALL HAVE KILLED FOR HONORABLE MENTION My feeling has been that the First Team honor is the highest. Second ain't bad,...but it is second, no matter who it is second too. That said, it is an honor to be listed period. higher honors are 1st team.....pretty obvious....what's the catch? I can say with a doubt and would venture to say that all would say the same thing. It is definitely not considered equal between 1st and 2nd team. While both are great honors, the 1st team is a much greater honor. Not just a bit. Making all-pro was a special honor given to the very best at thier respective positions, as you know. Both are great honors, but first-team is a cut above the rest. Chris, I understand you point. I dismiss it is inaccurate. Combining of All-pros is not verifiable and may even violate a NPOV because you are making a player look better, or more honored than he actually is. Also, your adding of them together makes wiki look like cheer sections for a player. Read Wikipedia:No original research If a sportwriter were to come to wiki and see Ted hendicks is an 11-time All-pro he will assume all the articles are inaccurate. False information is not encyclopedic, either. Since there are no experts who agree with you (and you can email them yourself) you should back off this one. You are wrong and your edits really ruin the credibility of wikipedia.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Ted Hendricks is a 9-time all-pro (if you combine 1st team and 2nd team), not 11-time. The other 2 seem to be All-Conference selections.Rlendog (talk) 22:22, 6 July 2008 (UTC) No.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC) No, what? You have been crushed here, look you have no evidence whatsoever. You cannot cite one source that thinks it is okay to combine All-pros. Not one. You have to give this up. I thought this was SO not worth your time.72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:57, 4 July 2008 (UTC) I have not been "crushed" at all because you still do not understand what's going on. This can be seen by the fact that you continue to argue things and provide quotes for things we both agree on. The only problem is, what you're arguing and what your quotes say is not the issue. And to clarify, the discussion is not worth my time. I'm still not changing my editing style in this case. Now this does not mean I'm going to go out of my way to IMMEDIATELY make tons of related edits on various player articles to attempt to start conflicts like someone did yesterday. It just means that if I happen to be editing an article and I get to this topic, I'm going to edit as I always have been I've already proven it's completely satisfactory. The end. And I mean that literally. I'm not replying to this stupid discussion again and I've taken your talk page off my watchlist. There is no point interacting with someone that does not appear capable of comprehending reality. So really - the end.►Chris NelsonHolla! Well, good, why would you have me on your watchlist anyway? Kinda weird. Probably how Pats1 followed me around. Chris reality is you are wrong on this. It does not mean you are stupid, just wrong. All you would have to do to find verifiable information is find a paper encyclopedia or some source that shows it is kosher to combine them. I understand your point 100%. You are just wrong and you cannot ever be right on this unless you change your view to standard, acceptable practices when it comes to listing NFL all-pro teams. I am not out to get you, but this needs to be done right.72.0.36.36 (talk) 05:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Don't flatter yourself - any page you edit gets added to your watchlist. Mine has thousands.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:52, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Okay, fair enough72.0.36.36 (talk) 06:06, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS. The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class. The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects. A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here. Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC) Request input on draft page images It's apparent that many newer drafts have one off images, and while requests have been made for some vintage or era appropriate art in the earlier draft pages I've had no luck finding anything appropriate. I Just edited the NFL Draft format proposal with the wikiproject image for illustrative purposes and thought immediately this is a possibility for those earlier draft pages. Any thoughts or objections? Slysplace talk ♫ 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC) I don't know if having the same color for Pro Bowl and All Pro is a good idea, because one is pro and one is college. Also does that mean Pro Bowl in the season they are drafted or at any point throughout their career? Overall, though it's a good start. Blackngold29 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC) That Draft page proposal was a rough draft and I created it some time ago (with little input from others). I added the Project image to the draft today. I agree on the color issues however I'll point out I took that cue from other pages within the series. My personal preference is the later, any point in career should apply. Some of the Early era draft pages have appropriate foot notes as to pro / college / HOF etc.. and I've tried to elaborate on much of them. My request for input at this point is as to images for the early era 1936 - Modern era 1989 which have none. It seems trivial I'm sure but is often considered a requirement to boost an articles assesment. Any input on that is appreciated. Slysplace talk ♫ 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC) All-Pro is not college. Hence the word 'pro'.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Oops, yeah, I was thinking of "All-American". Blackngold29 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC) List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks at FLRC Hello, I nominated the List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks at WP:FLRC. I believe some changes are needed in order to keep this list featured. Please, respond here. Thank you.--Crzycheetah 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC) Fearsome Foursome (football) I was wondering if anyone thought it might be a good idea to break this apart by team: Fearsome Foursome (New York Giants), Fearsome Foursome (Detroit Lions), Fearsome Foursome (San Diego Chargers) and Fearsome Foursome (Los Angeles Rams). --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC) Sources for an article I intend to start Does anyone know where I can find some sources for Fred Swearingen, as I was intending to create an article for him. I tried googling his name but got a whole lot of other Fred Swearingens mixed in. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Who was he? A coach? Player? Cheerleader? Blackngold29 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Did you try adding 'nfl' to the search? I got some hits that relate to the NFL.[7] ;) --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  23:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC) Swearingen was an official best remembered for being the referee for The Immaculate Reception game, as well as an official that made a controversial pass-interference call against the Cowboys in Super Bowl XIII. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC) I agree that Google is a good source to use, you might also try Google books it is a good resource. Blackngold29 16:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC) 2008 NFL rookie symposium at AFD Just to let you know the article 2008 NFL rookie symposium has been listed for deletion. Personally I think it should be included as a section in an overall NFL rookie symposium article, then each years event can be added to that article. --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC) I would agree. There should be a main article on it, and then if anything notable happens/changes it can be added.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC) You should make your feelings known about this article in the article for deletion listing. --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC) INVESCO Field at Mile High a priority article With the Democratic convention weeks away, and the nominating acceptance speech to take place at INVESCO Field at Mile High, this seems like a good time to get this article in shape. If anyone knowledgeable about the stadium and its history could improve the article's references and perhaps expand the article, it would be helpful for the curious who wander onto the page. Thanks.Johnelwayrules (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Input on article I'm working on: Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks I was inspired to create this article after seeing "List of Chicago Bears starting quarterbacks." Obviously, this article is a lot more expansive than that artilce, but I also DO NOT think this is a list. Is it OK to have an article describing the Chiefs' QB history as well as providing lists and statistics? Please note the title does not include "starting" quarterbacks because the article also includes information on the Chiefs' history of notable backup quarterbacks. This also includes all of the player's statistics with KC and records for the position. Does this somehow violate Wikipedia's policy on notability and format? You can argue that we'll have to create articles similar to it in order to go along, but you can see List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a stand-alone article in that format. Please be easy on me--I'm just asking to see if what I did was for something, and it won't just get thrown away. As you can see, I've busted my ass on writing this article with expansive research. So please don't tell me straight up that it should be deleted--maybe we can work something out and keep it, maybe just trim it. I think this is totally ready to be a GA-status article and maybe even eventually a featured article. Oh yeah, I'm fully aware of some minor mistakes that may be present in the article at this time, especially the "Life after Trent Green" section (it may repeat itself or be out of order). I'M STILL WORKING ON THIS ARTICLE, I just wanted to get some feedback and make sure I'm not putting in all this effort for absolutely nothing. Thanks a lot and any help would be of great assistance. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots As a courtesy note, the above article that is within the scope of your project is being discussed for deletion. Please feel free to voice your opinions. Thanks, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC) Use of Remember the AFL a copyright violation? I have noticed a number of articles concerning AFL players and coaches are (or began as) cut and paste jobs from [Remember the AFL]. However, it is not clear if this violates copyright. Their copyright states "©2003 American Football League Hall of Fame All rights reserved. Duplicate in any form you like, if you're an AFL fan. You have the permission of the American Football League Hall of Fame. Please credit/link to: http://www.remembertheafl.com" On the one hand, this does affirm a copyright, on the other hand, it give anyone the right to duplicate in any form (provided one is an AFL fan). Ideally, of course, these article should be rewritten and cited to multiple sources, but is it cool to leave them up until this is done? Thanks-Johnelwayrules (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC) I do not believe it is a problem because many of those edits were actually made by the guy who runs that site, editing under User:RemembertheAFL and User:SugnuSicilianu. So in fact, he has essentially released his own content under the GFDL by adding the same stuff here on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks, that helps -- I'll just leave them up for now - between his disclaimer and his own editing, it's safe to say he's nice enough to let us use his stuff.Johnelwayrules (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC) Scoring summary Does anyone think we could include a scoring summary for upcoming Regular Season games? Here's what I had in mind, using the Pit Philly game on Saturday Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh - Preseason Week One — Scoring Summary First Quarter PIT - B. Roethlisberger pass short left to S. Holmes for 19 yards, Touchdown (10:32) PHI - D. Akers 28 yard FG (3:11) Second Quarter PHI - D. McNabb pass short middle to J. Davis for 3 yards, Touchdown (13:00) PIT - J. Reed 20 yard FG (3:37) Fourth Quarter PIT - J. Reed 24 yard FG (12:02) PIT - J. Reed 50 yard FG (7:32) Running score PIT 7-0 PIT 7-3 PHI 10-7 TIE 10-10 PIT 13-10 PIT 16-10 I think it would be good info to have, nothing too extensive, but it's there if you want it; but at the same time it's hidden so it's not taking up a lot of space. All info taken from the Official NFL recap. Thoughts? Blackngold29 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC) I've used this in the 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season page. It's similar, but not collapsible like yours. Note that I don't include "yard" after the numbers of the play, like "Gonzalez 26 pass from Huard". I like your idea though, I think they should be included. Scoring summary Q Team Time Scoring play Extra point Score 1 KC 9:39 FG Rayner 32 KC 3-0 1 CIN 7:39 Houshmandzadeh 42 pass from Palmer Graham kick CIN 7-3 1 KC :53 Gonzalez 3 pass from Huard Rayner kick KC 10-7 2 KC 6:27 Johnson 8 run Rayner kick KC 17-7 2 KC :00 FG Rayner 20 KC 20-7 4 CIN 13:54 FG Graham 33 KC 20-10 4 KC 8:03 Gonzalez 26 pass from Huard Rayner kick KC 27-10 4 CIN 5:03 Houshmandzadeh 30 pass from Palmer Graham kick KC 27-17 4 KC :18 FG Graham 36 KC 27-20 conman33 (. . .talk) 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC) It seems that up to this point Scoring summaries have only been used for playoff games, so maybe we could use your style for them. Perhaps add a few columns and make it real descriptive. Blackngold29 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC) I'd hate to take credit for this, but I originally got the idea from whoever contributed to the 2007 New York Jets season article. The problem with these is that they take up too much space in the game summary sections. Check out this to see how I formatted the scoring summaries so that they would fit nicely into the article Maybe we can make them collapsible? conman33 (. . .talk) 06:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC) It actually originated on 2007 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, not the Jets page Doctorindy (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC) FLRC Chicago Bears seasons is a Featured list removal candidate. BUC (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC) Invitation to notability discussion WP:CFB invites all interested Wikipedians to participate in the general player notability discussion going on right now. The question at hand is, "what kind of guidelines can be set up to help clarify notability of active college football players?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC) Fred Swearingen article update I started up the page for this controversy magnet of an official yesterday, and am mentioning so anyone with more knowledge of the subject can help out. WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC) Gene Upshaw In the past 2 hours, mnay one-edit IPs have added claims about Gene Upshaw's death to his article. To this point, I have only been able to find a report from Clear CHannel, and none from the major news or sports outlets. Several users have privately expressed concerns to me that this may still be a hoax. Mr. Upshaw's bio page has been subjected to some pretty vicious vandalism in the past. I do not use WP:ANI noticeboards, as the admins always seem to be the ones who respond treated me as if I'm the vandal! (I'm serious - I haven't used ANI in well over a year!) However, I don't know any admins who work within this project who can step in, protect the page for the time being if necessary, and allow the truth to sort itself out. ANy help onthis would be appreciated. I'm going inactive for about an hour, but I will chaeck back then. Thanks for whatever anyone can do in this situation. - BillCJ (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC) His death has been confirmed by NBC and ESPN broadcasts, I'm sure there's a reliable article out there now. Blackngold29 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Thanks. It took about six hours, but confirmation did finally come once the East Coast news cycle began. Definitely one of those stories you wish wasn't true, but at least we do nknow the truth now. - BillCJ (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER for a proposal about making Notable Player sections into official guidelines.  RGTraynor  17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC) Cleveland Browns alternate jersey I noticed the Browns' supposed "alternate jersey" on the Cleveland Browns article. Can someone give me a source that says that's their alternate jersey? They've worn it twice in the past two years. If anything, it's their throwback jersey, to the '50s (I believe) when they wore numbers on their helmets. Their actual alternate jersey now is a white jersey and brown pants with brown socks. Wlmaltby3 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC) Redundant list articles We have two lists of quarterbacks that have thrown for 200 touchdowns. One of the two should be deleted. Here are the links to the two articles. I favor keeping the more detailed one and deleting the less detailed one: List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 200 career touchdowns Stylteralmaldo (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC) A Merge would be the more appropriate solution, with the lesser page becoming a redirect to the larger one. Bring it up on both pages, and see if there are any objections. - BillCJ (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for National Football League Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7. We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Request for Comment - Lucas Oil Stadium Hi there. I am posting this here because Lucas Oil Stadium is currently in an edit war, and is a part of your WikiProject. The war has started over the inclusion of "The Luke" as a nickname for the stadium. Please see here for archived discussion, and here to add your comments. Thank you. -- MeHolla! 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC) Adding play by play link suggested in similar tables for other teams as with this edit where I added play by play link to the game by game reference data we provided (the first link). The similarity in format of the file name (building) and accessing parts of the retrieval url, suggest this might make a good table-element template... given the nfl.com id# and the week, the template could build both links, and like my example, present them as "clean" plainlinks. OTOH, spaced out vertically as I did, the span class, etc. formatting and url's are easily editable and readable, so there isn't a strong reason to templatize here either. Cheers // FrankB 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC) Use of in-stadium photos There was in issue brought up by another user here on the Ed Hochuli talk page about the validity of using photos inside the stadium on Wikipedia. This person claims that when you buy a game ticket, you agree not to use video/pictures for commercial purposes according to NFL policy. I know many articles use photos taken during games, so this could have a significant impact. What do you think? RyguyMN (talk) 15:17, 21 September 2008 (UTC) I recall hearing about a similar issue during a Featured Picture Review, Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/20070616 Chris Young visits Wrigley (4).JPG, in which a user brought up some legal jargon pertaining to taking pictures in stadiums. The issue was never really resolves as far as I know. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC) The Denver Broncos tickets policy includes the following: "The ticket holder will not transmit or aid in transmitting any picture, account or description (whether text, data or visual) in any media now or hereafter existing of all or any part of the football game or related events. Breach of the foregoing may result in legal action against the ticket holder." So, technically, even if I text-message my friend "Brcs Scr!", they could sue me. I imagine the policy is similar for all the clubsJohnelwayrules (talk) 18:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC) I've never heard that one before, but according to a 2007 Pre-season ticket: "The ticket holder will not transmit or aid in transmitting any picture, account or description (whether text, data or visual) in any media now or hereafter existing of all or any part of the football game or related events." Which is exactly what Johnel just said. I always thought that meant video; not still pictures, and have never heard otherwise. I mean anyone whose watched a night game from the blimp angle has seen thousands of flashes from pictures being taken. Blackngold29 22:01, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Strictly interpreted, the policy prohibits the use of still pictures to transmit a depiction of the game. The fact that most (all?) stadiums allow you to bring a still camera but not a video camera probably tells us the intent of the policy, which is not to prohibit photos for personal use, but commercial - i.e., they don't want anyone else making money off of it. But it is written so broadly that not only my sharing of photos but even my text message of an "account or description" could be considered a violation. At any rate, the issue here seems to be whether or not using pictures taken at a stadium constitute "fair use." I think that's a case-by-case basis. To my mind, putting a picture I took at the stadium of, for example, Jay Cutler passing the ball, on the page Jay Cutler seems like fair use (it depicts the subject at work). Using that picture on Football (American) may not be fair use. That's just my guess.Johnelwayrules (talk) 22:32, 22 September 2008 (UTC) NFL Expansion Drafts I started pages at 1960 NFL Expansion Draft, 1995 NFL Expansion Draft, and 2002 NFL Expansion Draft. If anyone has a round-by-round source for the 1976 NFL Expansion Draft, that would be great. I can only find a alphabetical list, but the Seahawks and the Buccaneers took turns like the Panthers and the Jaguars did in 1995.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC) I added the 1966 NFL Expansion Draft. That's five I have included, does anyone know of anymore?--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:38, 28 September 2008 (UTC) I found another: the 1961 NFL Expansion Draft for theMinnesota Vikings. I started it, but need to finish it later. Any others?--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 06:16, 28 September 2008 (UTC) Template:CurrentNFLKickers up for deletion See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 30#Template:CurrentNFLKickers. delldot ∇. 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Good picture? Flozell Adams and Marc Colombo leaving the field at Cleveland Browns Stadium after a week one win over the Browns. Is this a picture that is good enough to use on Flozell Adams' and Marc Colombo's articles?I took it from the stepps up to section 501 in Cleveland Browns Stadium. Crash Underride 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC) Well, does anyone think it's a decent picture to use for the Colombo article or not? I need answeres people. Crash Underride 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC) Well, its better than nothing :p At least it portrays the front of the specified subjects. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  18:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC) I'd say be WP:BOLD and use it! A low-quality picture often is better than none, and when a better one comes along from an enthusiastic editor, we'll welcome it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC) It's better for Columbo more so than Adams. Though I am also of the belief that a low-quality pic is better than no pic.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Template:Infobox NFL season I was looking around and I notice the Template:NHLTeamSeason box, and I was very impressed by the box. Not only was I impressed by the infobox, but it seems the NHL team season articles are better structured than our NFL articles. If there is someone talented enough to make an infobox for our NFL team seasons to mimick the ones of the NHL, I think it would be cool. I don't like the current ones in use. They seem vague and not up to par with other major league sports around the world. I suggest that for our Champions banner that you will notice in their example, we use to division, conference, NFL, Super Bowl champion color scheme from the Chicago Bears seasons/Cleveland Browns seasons legends. --OSUpharm11 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC) I goofed around with the templates last night, and I hope I made one successfully. I have posted the mock new template I have been thinking about on 1933 Chicago Bears season. --OSUpharm11 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC) New team websites coming over the next 3 years... According to the Bills website, they are the first team to switch to a new kind of "NFL Internet Network" website. And all other 31 teams will be switching to similar ones over the next 3 years. So everyone, keep your eyes peeled. http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/buffalobillscom-launches-new-look-and-feel/8aaff36e-73b0-4525-90cd-f157f92e5ce1 It's really advanced and high-tech, but I like it so far. Jc121383 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC) It seems a lot of sports teams are starting to incorporate more features like video into their sites, NHL.com has been re-vamped for the season and looks terrific. Hopefully it'll give us easier and better ways to cite things, etc. Thanks for the heads up! Blackngold29 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Would be nice if all the NFL team sites were the same and had the same features, kind of like MLB.com does. Makes finding info such as transactions a lot easier, and the updates tend to be better as well.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Vai Sikahema article needs help Vai Sikahema was a NFL player for eight seasons. However, the longest stretch of prose on his article is about a celebrity boxing match earlier this year that Sikahema won in the first round. That means the majority of his article covers at most 3 minutes of his life. Some NFL history buffs might want to go fill out his football career to provide the proper balance to the article. Gentgeen (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC) All-Pro Template I have created a template called Template:NFL All-Pro Teams, although there are really only a few years of All-Pro on Wikipedia (2000-2007, and for some reason, 1979). Most of the data for these teams can be found at here: [8], although you have to click a few links to get to each All-Pro Team. Tell me what you think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill shannon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC) Looks good, maybe don't include the links at the bottom. Compare: I also really like the templates for the Pro Bowl starters. See, e.g., {{2008 Pro Bowl NFC Starters}} We could do one for each year. I also added an All-Pro link to the General NFL Template--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:13, 13 October 2008 (UTC) Pipelinking NFL Seasons into dates I have noticed a lot of pages that have a year written as a pipelink to that NFL season. Like this:2002. But the Manual of Style entry that deals with lists specifically states not to link years like that. That was a critique of the current feature list candidacy of the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft. Initially I was hostile to the suggestion to change it, but that was before I read that entry in the MoS.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC) Selectivity on All-Pros Drew Pearson (American football) is a perfect example. His "honors" were perfectly listed. However, for some reason, the "combining" did not take place with him. If the Alan Page "11 All-pro" model were to be followed then Pearson would be a 5-time All-Pro, but even after and update, he is listed as All-pro in 1975, 75, 77. That is 3 times. So, for him, the "new" and flawed rules don't apply, but for others (who some editors may like) they get their All-pro resumes puffed up. Like was mention potential synthesis 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC) I don't understand how this can be considered an issue. "All-Pro" implies that you are the best in the league at your position. As in, if we were to come up with the single best team in football, who would be on it. to have someone listed, as Jack Youngblood is, with more Pro Bowls than All-Pros is ludicrous. If anyone wants to add second team All-Pros, then no problem. To quote Pro-Football-Reference, "On the player and team pages, the words "all-pro" now mean first-team all-pro, according to the Associated Press all-pro team from 1940--present or the UPI team from 1931--1939."--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) For example, someone earlier said that Dan Hampton's pro football hall of fame entry lumped his 1st and 2nd team All-Pros together. But actually, it was Ed O'Bradovich in his introductory induction speech who said that, in the entry on Dan Hampton, they separate mention into first and second team appearances.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 07:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC) Possible hoax While working on cleaning up Category:Possibly living people, I noticed an article on a fellow by the name of Andrei Ocho Cinco who is claimed to have been a wide receiver for the Kansas City Chiefs from 1985-1995. A Google search suggests that this may be a hoax, as well as "Andrei Eight Five" being a strange name, but I admit my ignorance of the Chiefs and perhaps I am missing something. Any one know anything? Cheers, CP 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC) It's vandalism, it just needs to be speedy deleted.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Done. Thanks for the confirmation! Cheers, CP 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC) Haha! Not only is the name hilarious but the fact that it's under "Possibly living people" makes it even better. Both a great and terrible job at vandalism, whoever did it. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Unique Situation of the Houston Oilers I realize Wikipedia doesn't split pages for NFL teams that have relocated. However, the Oilers are a unique case amongst NFL teams. They are the one and only NFL franchise (in at least 40 years) whose team identity has completely vanished. Yes, they became the Titans, but there simply isn't a team called the "Oilers" anymore, whereas other teams that have relocated have either kept the team name (Colts, Rams, Cardinals), or the city from which the team moved eventually got their team "back" (Browns). Since the inception of the Super Bowl, the Oilers are the only franchise to simply cease existing under their old team name once they relocated, never to be resurrected (since the Titans' owner "kept" the rights to the Oilers name and Houston now has a completely new team). Because of this exceptional situation, perhaps the Oilers should have their own page. ChargersFan (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC) I do not understand why the Houston Oilers cannot redirect to the Tennessee Titans, as it currently does. This situation isn't really all that unique. Until the Houston Texans formed in 2002, the "Texans" were a defunct team name (Dallas Texans became the Kansas City Chiefs in 1963). There are many other more obscure names, such as the Kansas City Blues. They dropped that in 1925 and no NFL team has decided to call themselves the Blues ever since. -- kainaw™ 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC) The Oilers were a presence in the NFL and in the city of Houston for well over 30 years. The AFL Texans changed their name (when they moved) after just three seasons. The AFL Titans also became the Jets (without moving) after just a few seasons. And both of those team names were later used by other franchises (albeit with different team "themes/colors"). The longevity of the Oilers, followed by their disappearance, is unique in recent NFL history. ChargersFan (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC) That doesn't answer my question: Why can't the Houston Oilers title redirect to the Tennessee Titans article? As for your point, you've gone from claiming that this case is unique to the Oilers to claiming it is unique to the Oilers if we only consider teams who used the name for a long time. How long? The Triangles used their name for 9 years and I don't see any city bidding to use the name any time soon. -- kainaw™ 23:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC) I didn't answer the question because: #1 You never asked a question (until your last reply), and #2, the point is completely moot. "Houston Oilers" already directs to the Tennesse Titans article, so obviously there's no reason it "can't" redirect there. I'm just making a suggestion which I believe would make Wikipedia easier and more efficient to use for those who want to learn about the Houston Oilers without having to scroll through a bunch of Titans' information. It's just a suggestion, not a demand. And by the way, in my original suggestion, I did state " Since the inception of the Super Bowl..." (which came after the early identity shifts of the teams you mentioned) so I really never changed my claim at all. I made a suggestion (notice the word "perhaps" in my initial comment), and I've stated my reasons for making it. You obviously don't agree. Okay, that's fine, I didn't come here to argue, I came to try and improve Wikipedia with a suggestion. ChargersFan (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC) As I said in many other similar discussions, we are basically copying what the official team[9] and NFL references are doing: grouping both the history of the entire team together from 1959 to the present. Officially, it is still the same continuous franchise, with the same team records and so forth. This is based on official references already published from the official web sites (see also Wikipedia:Verifiability). So I find the arguments that we should split the page because the team is "the one and only NFL franchise whose team identity has completely vanished" and that it is a "exceptional situation" is more POV or original thought to me. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Thank you for the explanation. ChargersFan (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC) Constant vandalism on Detroit Lions pages The Detroit Lions page and the 2008 Detroit Lions season page have been constant targets of vandalism this season to due to the Lions' winless record. I strongly believe that the protection levels of both pages need to be raised very high to prevent future vandalism attempts. So if any adminstrators / moderators are reading this, please do so. Thanks and happy editing.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC) You can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hope that helps. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I just did and they denied me. I guess we have to keep our eyes out for vandals ourselves. GO LIONS!TomCat4680 (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC) I just tried again. If anyone is as passionate as stopping vandalism against the Detroit Lions page as I am, send a message to the adminstrator User:Tanthalas39. He's a Lions fan so maybe he'll change his mind if enough people tell him how they feel. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC) update: Admin Bearian semi-protected it until November 9. Hopefully it will scare off the vandals, at least for a little while. GO LIONS! TomCat4680 (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Other Stat Lines Is there a reason we cannot list other stat sites in the infobox? I read the discussion above on this issue, and one question that was raised was this: "Well are there really things some provide that others don't? ►Chris Nelson 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)" To answer that, yes, there is: Pro-football-reference.com has a lot of stuff that nfl.com does not have, such as rankings like each season in the top ten of almost any stat category, all-pro and pro-bowl appearances, etc. I understand the result of the discussion was to ensure that nfl.com should get top billing, but I don't read the discussion as deciding to only use nfl.com, until the end when the result of the discussion was just that. No one really argued against permitting more than one to be listed in the infobox, but that somehow was the "result' of the discussion. Actually there seemed to be sympathy for adding other stat sites if anyone wanted to take the time to do it. "It is possible (and probably likely) that some people will eventually raise the issue of "why just one" on display in the box." Juan Miguel Fangio ►Chat 07:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)" That was the entirety of the discussion as to whether to permit more than one site to be listed. The rest of the discussion was over whether to have stat lines in the infobox at all, and if so, which one to use. I guess I am that eventual editor that is raising the "why just one?" idea. I agree that nfl.com should be used and should get top billing. I am not in any way arguing for the removal of nfl.com, just for the ability to add pfr.com as well. I would like some discussion on that specific issue, not whether to use nfl.com, that is decided as far as I can tell, but whether to permit the use of another stat page if anyone wants to add them. I modified the infoboxes to permit the listing of more than one stat service if desired. It only shows those if someone takes the time to add the code for that site, if there is no code, nothing is shown. See Tony Romo for an example of what it would look like. That is, if someone doesn't come behind me and change it. It just seems like there is no reason not to provide more information, good, useful information at that. --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:04, 22 October 2008 (UTC) But if NFL.com gets top billing, and all players have an NFL.com link, other links will eventually never be used. The point with keeping them all the same is that visitors to ANY player article should be able to know what kind of info there are getting and where they are getting it from. I use PFR often and it's a great site - this is not about PFR. It's about having NFL infoboxes, some with NFL.com links, some with PFR links, some with ESPN links, some with Yahoo, and so on and so on. It seems to be the best strategy is to use one website for everybody's link, so the kind of information provided is the same every time.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC) I would think that it would be that all of the boxes have nfl.com links. I just don't see what's wrong with also having pfr.com links. With them being on there, I would think that some people might wonder why, and when they click on it to investigate, they would discover that pfr offers some more info about the player.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC) Order of categories The user Jwalte04 believes that the order of the categories for NFL articles should be in alphabetical order. The way that is currently done is to put them in this order:birth year, living person, birthplace, there position, college, the teams they played for in order of tenure, and if they were a Pro Bowler. What order do you think we should use--Yankees10 01:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I just feel like alphabetical order is the way to go because a first-time editor can understand the ordering process instead of figuring out the chronological order, as well as anyone wanting to add a cateogry can easily put it in properly. You dont have to remember a specific sequence, rather you just have to know the alphabet, you know what I'm saying? Jwalte04 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I just realized with the Template:Lifetime it automatically is out of order because the birthyear goes right avove the living person category.--Yankees10 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Ok well I can bend on this. How about everything under Living people cat is alphabetical? Jwalte04 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC) I'm partial to the chronological method myself. While I can understand the logic behind the alphabetical method, I think we can at least all agree that something good about the chronological method is it groups all similar categories (ex. NFL teams played for) together. That is one big thing I'd hate to lose by switching to alphabetical.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC) But a player's categories aren't always limited to football-related categories: What about players who wrote books, starred in movies, won a Grammy, became activists, were elected to political office, murdered someone, appeared on Dancing with the Stars, etc...? How would you order those cats? I vote for birth year > living persons > alphabetical. —xanderer (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Good point. Second. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC) That situation happens to 1 player out of 100, and if it did they would go behind the sports categories because these things happen after there NFL careers, with an exception to Jason Taylor--Yankees10 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Alphabetical is too arbitrary. One could change the order of a biography just by renaming a category. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! I have never read an encyclopedia that structured biographies in simple alphabetical order. At least chronological order gives the article some structure that relates to the person's life. I vote for chronological order of the person's NFL career, then other things from that person's life in order of importance. Usually the the person was an NFL player is what makes them notable to begin with, and other notable things they do were enabled by that initial exposure. Look at the article on Jack Kemp: Early life, Marriage and family, Football career, Political career, Post-political life. With someone like Jason Taylor, who has simultaneous categories, start with the category that started first, here playing career (in full), followed by his dancing career.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Changed the archive timeframe I changed the archive timeframe from 7 days to 30 days. Once a discussion is archived, it can't be edited. 7 days is too quick for consensu-building and general discussion. I also added the suggestion on the archive bot's page to keep archiving into one archive until it reaches 250K, then having it automatically start a new archive. The way we had it set up was described by the bot page as, "[w]hile simplest, this is probably not the best option - the [way it is set up now] is most common." --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Bears-Packers rivalry I would like to expand and improve on the Bears-Packers rivalry. However, I need help on the article. I am a Bears fan so to be able to provide a full neutral point of view from both sides I am calling out on any Packer fan Wikipedia members to join me and assist me in expanding and improving this article. Thanks, --Happyman22 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC) BTW, I reverted your inclusion of a Hall of Fame table in Bears-Packers rivalry. Each team's individual article notes their HoF players, and there's no need to duplicate it in an article that is supposed to be about their rivalry. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC) I'm not a Packers fan, but the best way I find to remain NPOV is to cite everything you can. You might find yourself writing things that are boring to read like "The Bears defeted the Pakers ten consecutive times." And try to avoid things like "The team performed [well, poorly, great]", just say "The team scored 85 points in the game"; not exactly entertaining reading, but it gets the point across and WP has no obligation to be entertainment. Hope that helps! Blackngold29 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC) NFL Lore One of the goals, according to the project page, is a complete history of the NFL. There are many topics that fall outside a standard retelling of the history of the NFL. For example, it is not necessary in any way to include Mean Joe Green's Coke commercial. However, anyone who knew anything about football (and many people who didn't) knew about that commercial. It quickly became part of NFL lore. We have an article title National Football League Lore. If you check it, you will find a list of games that some people think are cool and a list of rules that some people think deserve nicknames, such as the "Chad Johnson Rule". I have suggested rewriting the NFL Lore page to meet Wikipedia standards (because a list of questionable factoids doesn't). Those active on the NFL Lore page are too worried that their favorite game from last week might be deleted from the list of cool games, so no discussion has taken place. I believe that the NFL Lore page, if rewritten in narrative style, is a good place to accompany the history of the NFL article with the extra events (games, rule changes, legal issues, and even commercials) that don't really belong in the main history article. Anyone else interested in discussing this? -- kainaw™ 03:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC) All inclusive infobox I have created an infobox for active American football players, that is inclusive of all the major football leagues. It includes entry and debut information on af2, Arena Football League, National Football League, oh, and the Canadian Football League. As well, it contains draft information for the NFL and CFL. It also includes a place to list the players high school, which then has a place for awards, and highlights. Then the college section is the same as before, except it has it's own highlights and awards section. As does the professional section (originally the default section). It also includes six stat labels for the AFL, NFL, CFL and af2, in alphabetical order. As well as, an expanded external stats link section, to decrease the number of links in the external section. Not to mention the external links section is placed in alphabetical order, for the most part, not to mention a neatly organized hour glass shape, which was mostly by luck. Crash Underride 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Good info, but, uh, what's the infobox's name?? - BillCJ (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Yeah, sorry, I forgot about that. lol It's at Template:Infobox American football active. Crash Underride 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC) Please don't start using a different infobox, at least for NFL players. That goes against the entire purpose of this Project, which is to harmonize the NFL player pages. The current infobox has places for CFL and AFL team info is needed. Or edit the current infobox if you would like.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC) The current one does not have a place for the Arena Football League and CFL debuts, it's just "Professional debut" which is meaningless to some players as they debuted in a little known league like the Indoor Football League (IFL) or something like that (Darnell Dinkins did). Plus all it has for those leagues are a place in the links section and in past teams. Crash Underride 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Links to seasons in infoboxes Just to be clear, the consensus when previously discussed here, was to wikilink the season years to that NFL season. I would also like to throw my vote as in favor of doing so, and note that most of the player pages I have seen are following consensus on this.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:41, 31 October 2008 (UTC) I've changed my mind and also believe that there should be no links, because why should there be links on retired and not active, makes no sense--Yankees10 02:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC) First of all, the original poster wishes to discuss linking years in the current player NFL infobox, while the link he provided to an old discussion refers to the RETIRED NFL infobox. User:Yankees10 can confirm that (and does there) as he is the one that began that discussion. Secondly, I do know this was discussed before and the agreement was to not link years in current player NFL infoboxes. I simply don't see the point in having random years linked (say, 1994-2007) but not having any of the years in between present to be linked.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:19, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Why would we have it different ways in the two infoboxes? The two infoboxes are almost exactly alike. And there was no distinction made between the two in the discussion, which was simply titled Links to Seasons in Infoboxes. Also, in that discussion, an example was given of a player with a listing of Dallas Cowboys (2005-present), which would make no sense if the discussion did not include the NFL active infobox. (The discussion was also that a link to present was not a good idea, btw.) I understand that linking the seasons doesn't make sense to you: because your argument now is the exact same argument that you made in in that discussion, "Why link 1994 and 2007 when ALL the years in between aren't linked? ►Chris Nelson Holla! 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)" And it was addressed then. And the vote was 4-1 in favor of linking the seasons in the infoboxes. It seems to me that you just still disagree with the consensus so you are going to edit however you feel. You admonished me repeatedly to quit ignoring the consensus on this issue and reverted my edits. But actually you are the one who is doing just that. Initially I took it that you had remembered the discussion incorrectly, but now that I have shown you what the discussion was, you have dug in your heels and claimed that a full discussion on this issue was really about something else. I think that I have demonstrated what the consensus on this issue is currently. I have shown where this was discussed, without any distinction as to which user box is at issue. If you can find where this was discussed since the discussion when the infoboxes were first created, please let me know, because I have looked through the entire project archive since then and found nothing. A stated goal of the infoboxes in that initial discussion was "to create continuity between all of the player articles (active/retired, all-pro/3rd-string) (emphasis added)," so I fail to see why it would be the consensus to link seasons in the retired infoboxes but not in the active ones.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:06, 31 October 2008 (UTC) Yankees10 created the topic, I think he knows what infobox he was referring to. I don't care to go sifting through archived discussions, but I do know that the consensus for the active NFL infobox was to not link the years. You can find it if you want.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:25, 31 October 2008 (UTC) It seems you won't be reasonable about this. I can't find the discussion because it doesn't exist. Let's just take this to another forum. --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:51, 31 October 2008 (UTC) No it definitely does.►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:17, 31 October 2008 (UTC) [[The original discussion, in which Yankees10 participated, resulted in a vote of 4-1 to link the seasons in the infoboxes. Even if he changes his mind now, that would be 4-2, as I am also voting in favor of the idea.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 16:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC) As I said before, the vote was for the retired NFL infobox. Perhaps a vote on the active infobox would result in the same thing, but it should still be voted on here. The standard practice for the active infobox from Day 1 has been to not link them, so any change to a standard for an infobox on thousands of articles should be voted on here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:58, 3 November 2008 (UTC) Standings Templates Hello, I would like to get everyone's opinion on the standings templates. I added a link to the standings on NFL.com, and then added the date that the template was last updated, but it was reverted. This is how it is done on the College football templates. There are three possible versions: AFC South W L T PCT PF PA STK Tennessee Titans 9 0 0 1.000 220 117 W-9 Indianapolis Colts 5 4 0 .556 191 197 W-2 Jacksonville Jaguars 4 5 0 .444 198 186 W-1 Houston Texans 3 6 0 .333 209 254 L-2 The old version↑ AFC South W L T PCT PF PA STK Tennessee Titans 9 0 0 1.000 220 117 W-9 Indianapolis Colts 5 4 0 .556 191 197 W-2 Jacksonville Jaguars 4 5 0 .444 198 186 W-1 Houston Texans 3 6 0 .333 209 254 L-2 Standings on NFL.com The current version↑ AFC South W L T PCT PF PA STK Tennessee Titans 9 0 0 1.000 220 117 W-9 Indianapolis Colts 5 4 0 .556 191 197 W-2 Jacksonville Jaguars 4 5 0 .444 198 186 W-1 Houston Texans 3 6 0 .333 209 254 L-2 As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com Or the new version↑ The third one lets editors clearly see when the template was last updated. Once again, the college football templates use this. Thoughts? Opinions?--Richmond96 (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC) I agree with the third one being the modt useful and accurate.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 17:59, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Not even sure this needs to be voted on. Go for it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC) Not so fast; I've disagreed with this twice now. There's no point to having a "last updated date" to the template. That entire movement needs to stop on WP, even on the roster templates. It is understood that the information is going to be up-to-date. It's not like we have to attach a tag to the top of Barack Obama saying "this article was last updated at 7:00 PM November 23, 2008." These things are tedious to maintain. And in the realm of standings templates, games are only played once a week. And as far as the whole "wait until all the games are played" thing goes, that doesn't make sense either. There's nothing wrong with updating the template as the games finish, since that is truly what is done. Also, I know I supported the "NFL.com standings" link initially, but I don't see the point in it now. It's not like the roster templates where the depth chart and transactions link augment the template. This link simply brings the reader to a copy of what is on the template, rendering the thing rather pointless. In all, I think the latest edits by Richmond96 are making what should be a very simple template into one that carries a questionable editing "policy," excessive links, and yet another "last updated" date that needs to be maintained. Just KISS. Pats1 T/C 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Yeah that makes sense, it's no different than any other article and thus does not a last updated date.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Oh, Chris, I've known you too long to be fooled by your sarcasm. :D Pats1 T/C 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Maybe we could just have the update date in the article. (noinclude) --Richmond96 (talk) 17:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC) You mean on the template page itself? What's the point of that, though. You still have to update it. Why not just look in the article/template history. That accomplishes the same thing. And as we've seen with the roster templates, most people completely forget to update the date. It's an unneeded nuisance. Pats1 T/C 17:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I wasn't being sarcastic, you convinced me.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Okay, so then they should be taken away from the college football standings too? --Richmond96 (talk) 18:21, 11 November 2008 (UTC) After reading Pats1's comments, I am also convinced, in the interest of less work to be done, that the bottom two links don't need to be there. Nor on the college templates, I guess.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Wow, I feel awfully persuasive. Perhaps I should run for President next. Pats1 T/C 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Nah I just didn't put much thought into it initially and it's fine on the surface.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Yea, I agree with Pats1, but what about the link to NFL.com? ~Richmond96 t•c 01:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Since that's not changing, I don't see why not.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC) I actually think it does look better without it. Besides, Pats1 has already removed it. ~Richmond96 t•c 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Template:NFL Year I created a template which could be very useful in NFL article. Hope you guys enjoy! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC) I think it's just as easy to type [[1997 NFL season|1997]] --Richmond96 (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC) Dave Meggyesy The Dave Meggyesy article that I started needs some help. I can find lots about his book and the related controversy, but almost nothing about his college and NFL careers. The pro football databases do not have defensive statistics for the 1960s, except for the number of games played. There are a couple of Google News hits that say he was an All-American at Syracuse, but I'd have to pay for an article in order to see the details--such as whose list he was on. If anybody has access to sources of Meggyesy's performance at St. Louis or at Syracuse, please add it to the infobox or start a new section. The article still seems stubbish for the NFL and college football projects, although I classified it as at Start for WP:BIO. BTW, If the deleted section about race was put back into the NFL article or elsewhere, some of the Meggyesy references would probably be usefull.--Hjal (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC) Articles under GA review Hello there, the articles Calvin Johnson (American football) and Terry Bradshaw which fall under the auspices of this Wikiproject, have come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk pages. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the articles will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain their status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC) Major Notability Discussion ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written. There is a very big discussion here. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes. You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC) List of (NFL team) first-round draft picks I was wondering, how did you guys get into a consensus about making the draft pick articles smaller? I am asking this question because I am trying to get WP:HOCKEY to also shorten their lists, but they want it just the way it is. The discussion is right here. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC) Using Image:Wikiproject NFL.png on NFL draft articles Before this starts to become an edit conflict, I am posting this issue here to gain some consensus: The issue is whether or not to use Image:Wikiproject NFL.png, the logo for this WikiProject, on NFL draft articles as an image placeholder in which we do not have a logo yet.[10] My argument is that it looks pretty bad on the article because it looks very unprofessional, like a poor man's version of the NFL logo. I am especially concerned about how newbies and users on mirror sites think about this, who might feel that we I would prefer no logo at all in that corner of the page, or some sort of infobox where an image is not necessary. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Prior to the placement of the image in question on the NFL Draft articles the discussion pages were each tagged with image requests for more appropriate art. Eventually we could hope that would happen. The rational for the use of the current image is that its available, and fair use. Further Good article criteria suggests "Illustrated, if possible, by images". More recent draft pages, some featured lists, have individual images appropriate to year and keeping within the scope of this project the addition of the image is an attempt to organize and standardize this series of pages. Slysplace talk ♫ 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC) I don't think it should be used. It's not even the real NFL logo. ~Richmond96 t • c 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC) Of coarse it's not even the real logo. Which explains fair use and public domain, there isn't much else available on commons. If you think we should use the "real NFL logo" good luck with the Non-free content rationale. Slysplace talk ♫ 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC) I don't mean we should use the NFL logo, it just looks unprofessional. I think it should just be left blank. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC) By that logic The 'real" NFL Logo used in 2008 NFL Draft and 2008 NFL season as well as National Football League should also be removed. Maybe we should remove all of the copyrighted images used in the draft series articles starting at 1990 NFL Draft through 2007 NFL Draft Each used only once. Or add Fair use rationale for use in the article 1936 NFL Draft through 1989 NFL Draft to the Current NFL Logo [11]. User:Zzyzx11 used an automated program to remove the existing image rather than comment it out without discussion or consensus based on his opinion that it "looks like an unprofesisonal, poor man's version of the NFL logo on mirror sites" This boils down to whether an image adds to the quality and professional look of the article or is it just fluff. If fluff remove them all. If copyright issue, remove them all. If not get consensus, start discussion before removal or Be bold and actually make an improvement no matter what the commitment to get it accomplished. Maybe we should use the Logo, other articles do. Slysplace talk ♫ 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC) AFL-NFL merger: hyphen or en dash? Hi, I was wondering if the term "AFL-NFL merger" should have an en dash instead of a hyphen. User:Gary King just moved the page to use en dashes, but I wanted to know from you all. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC) 2009 Teams Is it too early to create '09 team pages? When should we start? ~Richmond96 t • c 00:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Considering that the '09 season starts in September, I say we should create it about 2 months or so after the 2008 NFL season is over. Its hard to predict the future from 9 months of the 2009 NFL season.--SRX 01:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC) Sounds good, thanks. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC) {{2009 NFL season by team}} already exists. Couldn't they be created now? ~Richmond96 t • c 16:47, 14 December 2008 (UTC) Yeah, but if we create them now, they will most likely be deleted or redirected/merged somewhere else because of WP:CRYSTAL.--SRX 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC) List of National Football League team uniforms Any thoughts on creating a page like this? I created one in my sandbox here. ~Richmond96 t • c 02:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC) This serves no real purpose but to show images, it could never go to FLC and in addition, there is no prose.--SRX 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Um, whats a prose? ~Richmond96 t • c 02:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Wording, see WP:PROSE.--SRX 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Oh, thanks. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC) Weird coincidence? Take a look the Clarence Williams disambiguation page. I was browsing some pages and noticed there are four running backs with the name of "Clarence Williams". To me, that is way too weird to be a coincidence. I went and did a Google check, and I can't seem to find verification that there really were four Clarence Williams (five if you count the lineman). Help please? Tavix (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC) That is pretty weird...must be a popular name. All five of these players have their own NFL.com stats page - you can find a link to their respective NFL profiles on the infobox or in the references/external links sections of their articles. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC) I've made it a little less hectic. One player was listed primarily as a tight end (and never had any NFL carries) so he's now at Clarence Williams (tight end). I've also had Clarence Williams (Buffalo Bills) moved to Pooh Bear Williams, as this is the name he's under on Pro-Football-Reference.com and it seems to pass WP:COMMONNAME.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Okay, thanks for your help. Tavix (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC) Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Cleanup listing There is now an automatically-generated cleanup listing for the project on the main page project page in the To Do section. Here's the link again:Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Cleanup listing, it's pretty interesting. Knock yourselves out, I'm going to start on them tomorrow.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Lists of NFL starting quarterbacks I and a few other users have been writing articles of lists of NFL starting quarterbacks, by season and by team. Check them out at lists of NFL starting quarterbacks. More people helping write these lists (starting on the redlinks) would be appreciated! :) —Lowellian (reply) 21:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC) What's a good reference to start with when creating one of these lists? Gary King (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Try Database Football and Pro Football Reference Category:National Football League starting quarterback navigational boxes may also be helpful, but I think different lists have different criteria (i.e., starting for the season v. backups who happen to start). See Template talk:BroncosQuarterbacks for a discussion concerning the use of backups.Johnelwayrules (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC) I wrote the one for the Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks but had to split it into two articles (see History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks) because I didn't think a simple list would do justice for events like the Gannon-Grbac controversy and also Montana vs. Elway on Monday Night Football. My format for the list just has the number of games listed next to the starters, but check out List of Washington Redskins starting quarterbacks because I think their way of listing the QBs and stats is best. I'm going to probably change it to this way over time. conman33 (. . .talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Come to think of it, I think I'm going to keep it at this format because it looks like other team pages have adopted the same thing (Green Bay, Baltimore, Jacksonville, etc). It looks like this might be the template by default since everybody's using it. conman33 (. . .talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC) Simplifying NFL season templates I am working on a project to help simplify the number of templates needed to show every NFL season ({{1988 NFL season by team}} and every template like it), here are example pages: User:FMAFan1990/1988 NFL season User:FMAFan1990/NFL season 1988-1993 User:FMAFan1990/NFL 1970-2001 User:FMAFan1990/NFL 1988-1993 If anyone could help me fix what I am doing wrong, thanks in advance. FMAFan1990 (talk) 23:31, 30 December 2008 (UTC) I like the idea, but I think its a little too much work. Whats wrong with the way it is now? ~Richmond96 t • c 01:59, 31 December 2008 (UTC) there are so many templates now, the idea is to reduce them (oh and could you make any appropriate edits to fix what I am doing wrong in my examples?) FMAFan1990 (talk) 04:23, 31 December 2008 (UTC) I don't see anything wrong with them. ~Richmond96 t • c 05:03, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Try clicking the "edit this page" on each of them to look for a problem FMAFan1990 (talk) 05:55, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Yes, I know how to edit a page. I still don't get what's wrong. ~Richmond96 t • c 16:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Could you pleases find someone that can help? I could help if you just tell me what is wrong with them. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Oh, I see what's wrong. I don't know how to fix it. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:26, 1 January 2009 (UTC) Try moving it to its real intended namespace to see if it will cure the problem. –Howard the Duck 15:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC) I don't get it. What is this for again? Pats1 T/C 22:19, 5 January 2009 (UTC) Picture for Logan Mankins I was just browsing through WP and saw that Logan Mankins' profile picture is pretty ridiculous. Here's the photo. I was just wondering if this is the best picture available because it's pretty silly to have a mug of the guy and he's basically not even noticable. I'm just pointing this out there. If it stays, that's cool, I just think it's kinda funny. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Selected statistics Are they designed to be the same for every player at a given position, or can they be varied when relevant? For example, for kickers, does it have to be FG made/FG attempted/FG %age (FG attempts is redundant if FG made/FG %age are both there). I'd think something like FG made/FG %age/Total points scored would be more useful. Samer (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC) Super Bowl MVP panel I was curious as to how the Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award is determined. I know that it's a combination media/fan vote, but who is on the media panel and how many of them are there? And are they sportswriters or people from radio/TV broadcasts? All of the articles I found on the Internet are several years out of date. Does anyone happen to know this? Giants2008 (17-14) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC) According to the Superbowl website (http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/43/mvp-ballot/landing) The fan vote counts for roughly 20%, with on-site media members representing the other 80%. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer your question directly, but it seems to suggest people other than just sportswriters. Gentgeen (talk) 00:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Divisional Playoff/Game What is the second round technically called? In the past few months, I have created head coaching tables for at least 15 coaches (current and non) and I have put "Divisional Game" in their playoff bracket if they lost. Someone told me that this is incorrect and that it should be "Divisional Playoff". So for instance, we would say that John Fox lost to the Arizona Cardinals in the Divisional Playoff - rather then game. Anybody help on this one? Thanks Aquamelli (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC) Technically, either one can be the second round. The divisional playoff is the second round if you were played on wildcard weekend, but also be the first round if your team had a bye week and was one of the top two seeds. I would say, for instance that the Cardinals played their first round game against the Falcons on wildcard weekend, while when that same Cardinals team played the Panthers, the Panthers were playign their first round game though technically it's the second week of playoff action it was Carolina's first game. I would say it's called the Divisional Playoffs not Divisional Game. Divisional Game would sound like there is only one game when technically there's four of them. Playoffs make it plural saying there are more than one games that take place on the weekend. I may have made this a bit more confusing, but I tried to give my input. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC) If it helps, the Official NFL Record and Fact Book uses both "Divisional Playoffs" and "Divisional Playoff Games" interchangeably. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC) The way I understand it, there is the Wild-Card Round, the Divisional Playoffs, the Conference Championships, then the Super Bowl. I don;t think that any of them are officially termed first or second rounds for the the reason given by Conman: that would depend on whether a team got a bye.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC) Sounds good to me - thanks gentlemen Aquamelli (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC) The names of the rounds go back to the playoff system implemented in 1978, with 5 teams from each conference qualifying. The league has never bothered to change those names since. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Chargers in the playoffs? CHARGERS ARE OUT AFTER WEEK FOURTEEN —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.56.203 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC) Why is San Diego still listed as a possible (if unlikely) playoff contender? As of 12/8/08, they have three games to play, and they are 5-8. At best, they will finish 8-8. There are already two teams, listed as second in their divisions, with 9-4, that must finish higher than San Diego. Therefore, they have been eliminated. Thank you for your consideration. Alvin P. Bluthman apbluthmanaol.com The Chargers are still in the hunt for a playoff spot because they could still win their division. Jc121383 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC) It looks like the Chargers did the impossible. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC) Why does the 2008 NFL Season page say in the milestones section, that the last 8-8 team to go to the playoffs was the 1985 Browns? They were the last 8-8 team to win their division, but there have been multiple 8-8 teams in the playoffs since then. Oran0007 —Preceding undated comment was added at 00:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC). Because it is wrong. The Rams made the playoffs in 2004 at 8-8, the Lions in 1999 at 8-8. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwayrules (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC) Hello, people Basically, I'm working on spanish wikipedia. I'm currently translating Hall of Famers. I have translated about 100 american football articles, but you have no clue how much info is needed about this sport in spanish. See you later. --Ahabvader (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)