Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 15

Schedule Templates

Just want to point these out. We could start using these for the 09 season. I was going to create them. but someone else already had.

Only a couple of pages use them:

• Template:NFL Schedule Start
• Template:NFL Schedule Bye Week Entry
• Template:NFL Schedule Entry
• Template:NFL Schedule End

Any thoughts? ~Richmond96 t • c 22:01, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

I made all of these awhile back. Although I like the one that is on 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season#Schedule. That being said, your designs would take less time to put in, which would definately be good for some of the lesser updated teams. blackngold29 22:25, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

the Bears list is missing Mike Hohensee and Steve Bradley —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.21.78 (talk) 15:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Review requested

I was wondering if someone else could go and review my work on the article about Seattle Seahawks Long snapper Jeff Robinson. I'd like someone who's impartial. Also, if you could have a look at my recent major contributions to National Football League player articles, I'd really appreciate it. When I expand and article from a stub, I ALWAYS classify it as a Start class article, even though there's a possiblity it could be higher. If you have an questions don't hesitate to leave them on my talk page, I enjoy hearin' from ya, except you Chris, lol, just kidding. Crash Underride 20:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

One comment is I don't really think there should be a "retirement" section. Just because he spent the season out of football doesn't mean he was retired, even if he thought it was likely. I'd just put it at either the end of the Rams section or the beginning of the Seahawks'. In the Ram section it'd be like "Following the season, Robinson became a free agent and spent the 2006 season out of football." Or in the Seahawks section, "after spending the 2006 season out of football, Robinson signed with the Seahawks..."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:48, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I tweaked some things, let me know if you have any comments or concerns.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I saw, looks good. I should have caught that about the retirement section. It looks good. Probably the best article for a Long snapper ever, lol. So have a look at my other major contributions through my link above, and let me know what you think, or if I sould fix anything. Crash Underride 18:42, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Question

I was looking at the archives of this talk and I first went to archive 3 which had discussions from 30 November 2005 to 2 March 2006. And then the 4th archive starts at 15 January 2008. So what happened to the discussions from 2 March 2006 to 15 January 2008? Why aren't they also archived? --Gman124 ^talk 03:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Move Proposal of talk archive

Ok I found it some of the talks are on archive4, archive5 and achive6 so I would like to propose the following five moves.

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/archive4 --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 4
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/archive5 --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 5
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/archive6 --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 6
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 4 --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 7
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 5 --> Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 8

Thank You. Gman124 ^talk 03:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Also please note that "archive4" and "archive5" contain older discussions than "Archive 4" and "Archive 5" Gman124 ^talk 03:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

• Does anyone obeject if I go ahead and move the pages? --Gman124 ^talk 22:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
  • I have performed all the moves. --Gman124 ^talk 01:18, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Reggie Ball under GA review

Hello there, the above article, which falls under the auspices of this Wikiproject, has come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk page. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the article will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain its status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 00:26, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

A good article on an awful player.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:40, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

LOL.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 00:43, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

The Comeback Move

Example 1

Back in April, Bucs moved the article describing the Oilers-Bills wild-card game from "The Comeback (American football)" to "Buffalo Bills-Houston Oilers 1993 playoff game", ultimately moved to the present title ("1993 Buffalo Bills-Houston Oilers Wild Card playoff game") by Highway99. The reasoning used for the first move was that, supposedly, there was no real proof this particular game is commonly called "The Comeback" (verbatim quote).

But then, I did a search and found some of this. I may look for more on this tomorrow.

ScoresReport Article from the Bills' own website

And I believe every single video about this game refers to it as "The Comeback". What I'm wondering is whether or not it would be wise to move the article back to "The Comeback (American football)"? WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 02:27, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

As a Buffalo Bills fan myself (I know, I feel sorry for myself too), I've always referred to the game and heard it referred to as "The Greatest Comeback in NFL history." Jc121383 (talk) 04:39, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps if it was further qualified by stating that in within the team history of the Bills and refer to news paper articles and NFL articles that reference the game as such. There are so many great comeback games over the history. In fact one of the best known "greatest Games of all time" titles was given to the Colts Giants game in the Pre Super Bowl era. AdalcbscribeAdalcbscribe (talk) 18:45, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion of Colts-Patriots rivalry

Hi guys, I just wanted to drop in to say that the article on the Colts-Patriots rivalry is up for deletion. Thought y'all would be interested. SMSpivey (talk) 22:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

why is the project deleting articles key to football interest. COverage of topics about items such as this are important and it goes to the driving forces behind interest in sports at all. thnx 67.83.134.124 (talk) 16:39, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks at FLC

List of San Francisco 49ers first-round draft picks is currently a Featured List Candidate. --Gman124 ^talk 02:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Notable Undrafted Players

Until now, any undrafted player who made an NFL roster has been eligible to be listed in the Notable Undrafted Players section of the draft in which they were eligible but not selected. There has been discussion at 2008 NFL Draft to limit the inclusion into this section. I brought that discussion here to get wider input. If we are going to limit the inclusion criteria, I think that they should be set objectively so that we do not have endless debates as to what makes a player notable enough for inclusion.

As I see it, the options would be one or some combination of those listed below:

1. Making an NFL roster.

2. Seeing actual playing time. (May be hard to verify)

3. Garnering official game stats.

4. Becoming a significant contributor to the team, such as the nickel back. (May be hard to verify)

5. Becoming a starter on the team.

6. Gathering votes towards an award such as Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week or NFL Rookie of the Year.

7. Being selected for an award such as those in number 6 or teams such as the Pro Bowl or an All-Pro team.

There is an argument to be made, with which I happen to agree, that since every player who makes an NFL roster is notable enough to have his own article, then he should be listed as a notable undrafted player. Many of the drafted players who are listed will not make an NFL team at all nor even merit their own article.

That being said, I think that if consensus is to limit the inclusion in this section, then numbers 5, 6, and 7 would be the bare minimum for inclusion. Please chime in so we can get a uniform standard.--2008Olympian^chitchat 20:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

My vote would be for something along the lines of being a starter. Anything beyond that (awards, Pro Bowls, etc.) would mean instant notability for inclusion. But making an NFL roster isn't inherently "impressive" for an undrafted player. Dozens of undrafted guys play in the NFL every year, for every team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:40, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what User:Chrisjnelson said. —Lowellian (reply) 05:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that seems to be the most reasonable approach.--2008Olympian^chitchat 22:21, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

We'll have to manage this closely, and set the criteria quite stringently. Do we include only offensive and defensive starters, or do we include starters on the special teams also? Rookies generally garner quite a bit of playing time on special teams while sometimes not even being on the 2-deep roster. So, I'd say that a rookie who has started at least 4 games (a quarter of the season, to account for players who were started out of necessity for a game or two due to injury/suspension/etc and that might not be considered generally notable) on either offense or defense, including kickers, punters, kick and punt returners, can be included on the list, and instant notability is garnered for players receiving All-Pro status. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:32, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• - The article is about the 2008 NFL Draft. Therefore the drafted players are truly all that belongs in the article. Anyone who wasn't drafted really doesn't belong in that article, because they have nothing to do with the 2008 NFL Draft. However, an undrafted player who makes the Pro Bowl is very notable, so that player deserves a quick mention and that's it.

- What needs to happen is another article, perhaps entitled "Notable undrafted NFL players" needs to be created. In that list can contain any undrafted player to make an NFL roster, or start, or whichever, organized by year. On that articles talk page we can argue over who is notable enough, but to me it should contain any undrafted player with a Wikipedia article.

- But please see the common sense. As I said, an article entitled NFL Draft 2008 should be about who was drafted, not who wasn't. --MrShamrock (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

• What players were missed is definitely part of the subject of the draft. I don't see any support for removing the section or considering it not to be a part of this article. And there was a a list of them already when these sections were added to all of the draft articles.

As for which players should be included, I see Mastrchf91's point. I think that starting for a quarter of the season wold be a pretty good, or if a player is now the permanent starter, for example in Dan Carpenter's case, the team cut veteran kicker and went with just him. A player won't get an official start for special-teams play unless he is the starting punter or kicker. And this is easily verifibale, for nfl.com keeps games Started as an official stat, so 4 GS would be enough.

I would also think that if an undrafted player sets a verifiable NFL record, that should qualify him as well.--2008Olympian^chitchat 23:07, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

2008Olympian, players not drafted in the NFL Draft are not part of the NFL Draft. They are undrafted. Unless you expand/explain your point, you are mistaken. --MrShamrock (talk) 23:19, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

My point is that no else but you is arguing to remove the section to another article. Let me give you another example. Go to Affliction: Day of Reckoning. There is a whole section about changes in the lineup card: in other words, fights that aren't actually going to happen at the event. But it is understood to be part of the discussion of that event. I don't understand how it is difficult to see that a reader could easily wonder what players were missed in each season's draft and that would be info that would naturally be located within the draft article.--2008Olympian^chitchat 03:53, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Here are some articles about the 2008 NFL Draft, yet they focus on undrafted free agents:

1. Kapadia, Sheil (May 2, 2008). "Haynos finds fit with Packers". Baltimore Sun website. Retrieved 2009-01-18. With the final few picks going off the board Sunday evening, Haynos' phone started to ring. The Dolphins, San Francisco 49ers and Green Bay Packers wanted Haynos to sign on as an undrafted free agent
2. Lee, Robert (November 5, 2008). "Versatile linebacker Gary Guyton is a keeper". Projo.com: The Providence Journal website. Retrieved 2009-01-18. "I can tell you that we were strongly considering him along with Bo [Ruud] in the seventh round and we ended up taking Bo," Belichick said. "But those were two of the players that we were talking a lot about. When the draft was over, we went back and Gary wasn't drafted, so we came back on him, and of course his question was, 'Well, why didn't you take me in the seventh round?' –– and that was a good question."

Read these entire articles, and you will see that the discussion of who didn't get drafted goes hand in hand with those who did.--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:15, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

The notion that UDFA's have nothing to do with the draft is not entirely right. However, there's nothing particularly impressive about undrafted guys making a roster, which is why there must be higher standards for a notable UDFA section.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:20, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

This article might be illustrative as to the level of playing time required: Undrafted players have huge role for playoff teams, where it gives an All-undrafted team (with honorable mentions): it actually uses the phrase "Notable undrafted free agents".--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:01, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey, you voted for being a starter, I agreed, as did Lowellian and Mastrchf. That was a unanimous decision behind that requirement. How is that not consensus? Then Mastrchf asked how many games, and argued for at least four. I thought that fine, and no else said different. So I took the time to verify that everyone had at least four games. Carpenter kicked every field goal for the Dolphins. The only outlier was MrShamrock who argued that none of the players should be included because the article was about drafted players, which you and I soundly rebuffed.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well when I voted starter, I meant a regular starter, a guy that has earned a starting spot and keeps it for at least a season. For example, a large reason Wesley Woodyard started six games was because the Broncos' linebackers were decimated with injuries. For the most part, he's still just a special teamer and could easily (in fact, more likely) never be a starter in the league. As of now, I don't consider him a particularly notable college player.

Additionally, as good as Peyton Hillis was when he started for the Broncos at tailback, he only ended up starting due to multiple injuries at the position and likely will never be a long-term option at tailback. If he becomes a long-time starting fullback, I'd be fine with his inclusion. But as it stands, he's started a handful of NFL games and, like Woodyard, it was due to a number of injuries. I just don't consider that the same as earning a starting job and keeping it for an extended period of time.

Carpenter I will agree on though, since even though kickers don't "start" games he did hold the Dolphins' job for an entire season. And odds are he'll probably keep it beyond 2008. So there's certainly an argument for him and I wouldn't really contest his inclusion.

I don't mean to fight you on this, I just don't believe undrafted players are particularly notable just because they do these things that lots of undrafted guys do. It's impressive for an undrafted player to earn a starting job, make a Pro Bowl, etc. It's not impressive for an undrafted guy who is primarily a special teamer to start a few games because four guys ahead of him got hurt in a short span.

I didn't really watch the talk page closely so I didn't see all of the discussion and didn't put a ton of time into it. However, I'd be more than willing to continue discussing it there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:22, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Si, I want no battle, I have no dog in how this is decided, I am just trying to follow consensus as best as I could divine it. I think a "regular" starter is what Mastrchf wanted as well. Actually, I think that of all of the undrafted free agents who played, to whittle it down to five players is pretty tight, considering we had twenty on the list at one point. Gary Guyton played a lot and didn't make it, nor did BenJarvus Green-Ellis, and he had over 100 yards one game.

As for those who have so far, Mike Tolbert was the starter most of the year and would have started more if he hadn't been hurt. Peyton Hillis was the only undrafted Diet Pepsi NFL Rookie of the Week this season and isn't he number one on the Broncos depth chart? And isn't Davone Bess a regular starter now? If you want to vote for more games started to be required, I would back you. We should bring the discussion to the main talk page, however, to modify the existing discussion.--2008Olympian^chitchat 08:41, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Tolbert there could be an argument for as well, though I still don't think he's started enough to warrant inclusion at this point and I doubt he ever starts a ton with Jacob Hester around.

As for Bess, I think he could have a future as a slot receiver, but he didn't start until Camarillo got hurt. Don't think he's worthy yet.

And again, when it comes to guys like Green-Ellis and Hillis, they started, but primarily because of injuries. It took injuries to Maroney and Morris for Green-Ellis to start, and injuies to Selvin Young and Ryan Torain for Hillis to start. It's entirely up in the air whether either has a long-term career as a starter, and 10 years from now, if Green-Ellis never plays another down, will it really be notable that he had 200-something yards on a mediocre average as a rookie? I don't think so.

Like I said, I just think earning a starting job is the key thing here. If making a roster as an undrafted guy isn't notable (and I don't think it is) then neither is starting due to injury, because there really is no difference there. Any player on a roster would start eventually if enough guys went down.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:49, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I didn't realize that Hillis had filled in at RB when he got his starts, I thought he was the starting FB. As for Tolbert, he started all season at FB despite the presence of Hester. I'd say put him in, because he definitely earned the starting spot this year. That would be all of three players, down from a list if twenty.--2008Olympian^chitchat 09:02, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

Well Tolbert appeared in 13 games and started just over half, seven. That seems borderline to me. I think the thing to do when asking yourself if a guy is a notable undrafted player right now is to try and think of how it would seem a decade later. If Tolbert never played another down, he'd have 11 NFL carries and seven starts. Like I said, I think it's borderline. If he maintains a starting fullback job into next season, then I'm all for his inclusion. But right now I think I fall on the other side of the fence on him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 09:09, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

We can always remove him later if he goes bust, but as of right now he's the clear starter.--2008Olympian^chitchat 02:43, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Well only starting half his games played isn't a clear starter IMO.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:58, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Just making sure you know that Hillis was drafted. 7th round by the Broncos. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 18:02, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Haha, how'd we all miss that?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to put Bess's case back on the table. The guy did start 6 games at WR, was the full-time starter as a KR/PR, and hauled in 54 passes...most by an undrafted rookie in 13 years, and second most in NFL history for an undrafted rookie (Wayne Chrebet, 66 in 1995). Only two rookie WRs had more catches than he did and both of them were second rounders (Eddie Royal and DeSean Jackson). Short of making the Pro Bowl, I don't know how an undrafted rookie could be more notable or worthy. User:CShashaty 11:26, 2 February 2009

Six games is not a lot, especially since it only happened due to injury, and it would not make him notable 10 years from now. He also was not the kick returner, only the punt returner. Starting a few games and coming up well short of a record an undrafted rookie record isn't notable enough. He'll need to do more to be notable 10 years from now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:28, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Granted, the GS alone is not what makes Bess notable; the case here is not that...it is rare productivity relative to 90 years of NFL history (btw, there were 60 kick returns and Bess had 14 of them). I look at this section and believe it is weak. If the consensus is that Bess doesn't belong, then we should raise the bar and remove every other "notable" except Smith. That would clean up all ambiguity. How is an undrafted kicker or FB starting 16 (or almost all) games more notable? IMO, it really isn't THAT notable. I believe the section should show rookies that accomplished something of merit. IMO -- GS would be one litmus test, another would be productivity relative to peers in the draft class, another would be some accomplishment of real merit. If a guy satisfies one or more, they're in. My point would be that if someone wanted to learn something about the 2008 draft class and they wanted to see if any undrafted rookies did anything (and not many even make the final rosters), they should be able to see a list of guys that accomplished something of reasonable significance. Suppose David Tyree had been an undrafted rookie who didn't start a game but caught the winning TD in the Super Bowl? He'd fail the GS test but who would argue the he wasn't notable? User:CShashaty 13:36, 2 February 2009

Well games started isn't my whole argument either. It's the longevity of notability. Clifton Smith is a Pro Bowler and thus is notable, and will always be to an extent. If Davone Bess fell off the face of the earth (unlikely, but possible) would he really ever be a a "notable undrafted player"? No. David Tyree making what many consider the best play in Super Bowl history gives him lasting notability. 10 years from now, we'll all remember it. 10 years from now if Davone Bess never plays another down, I'll remember him because I'm a Dolphins nerd. But will he be notable in the scheme of things? No, not really.

Essentially, my two criteria for notability:

1. A notable, lasting accomplishment, like Smith's Pro Bowl or Tyree's catch -and/or- 2. A sustained starting job with a team. Not a few games and not just due to injuries to other players. I'm talking multiple years and an EARNED spot.

I feel this is a good way to go with this.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Determining what the consensus is

Chris, you can't just change the article based your decision to post some criteria and unilaterally decide that "this is a good way to go on this." There has been three or four other editors in addition to you and CShashaty that have weighed in. It's consensus, not who posted last, that controls.

The problem we have is that this is the most recent draft we have had, so of course it is the most difficult to judge who are the notable undrafted players. The standard that you guys are trying to promulgate is either too restrictive, only those who make pro bowls, or too forward looking: is this play notable in the future? has he played multiple years? I would argue that who is notable now may not be in a few years. "Multiple years" as a starter is too high a bar. That's about the average for an entire career in the NFL. Most players will be drafted players, so we are talking about mostly longshots to even make a roster. Look at this article:Undrafted players have huge role for playoff teams, which is from the NFL.com and gives a pretty good outside opinion on what is a notable undrafted player. Sam Hurd? He's not a starter, but he's on their list. If a player doesn't get drafted, but is a career journeyman in the league, I think that would be enough.

I voted initially to let everyone who makes an NFL roster to be on the list, but other editors said that bar was too low. So I gave several possibilities. Three other editors: Lowellian and Mastrchf, and Chrisjnelson agreed that being a starer would be the minimum. That was a unanimous decision behind that requirement.

Then Mastrchf asked how many games, and argued for at least four. I thought that fine, and no else said different. So I took the time to verify that everyone had at least four games. Carpenter kicked every field goal for the Dolphins. The only outlier was MrShamrock who argued that none of the players should be included because the article was about drafted players, which you and I soundly rebuffed. Then changed his opinion and wanted clear starters, which was aligned with Mastrchf's position earlier, so I went along with it.

Now Chris has changed his opinion on starters to needing "multiple years." Well that cannot be aligned with Mastrchf's guideline, nor along with what I and Lowellian had agreed to, because we were deciding how to choose from a pool of players who by definition had only started one year.

We also have to now consider the opinion of CShashaty, who wants to include Davone Bess, who started 6 out of a possible sixteen games. That is another opinion that is more aligned with the opinion of Mastrchf, who asked for four games started. So we are still unanimous as to the requirement of being a starter, the question remains how to determine who that is? I am going back to agreeing with what was initially proposed: if the player a suffucuent number of games started, no matter if it because of injuries (heck, Duane Thomas didn't smell starting until Calvin Hill got hurt), then it is enough. The best thing is that it is easily verifiable. So, we are at:

Last year's starters (unclear game-number determinant): Lowellian Four games: Mastrchf, 2008Olympian Six games: CShashaty, 2008Olympian Multiple years: Chrisjnelson

I understand Chrisjnelson's point about how it might look 10 years from now. I would consider this to be a continuing standard: the player must start at least one-fourth of his possible games. So, a two-year player would need to have started at least eight games, three-year twelve games, etc. So a player may come off of the list if he doesn't keep it up. I could also go for six games per season, but consensus at this point is for one of the two. Let's see if CShashaty, Mastrchf, or Lowellian weighs in again.--2008Olympian^chitchat 21:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

The recap was pretty pointless. We all know what has happened. But the more I thought about it, I realized that the players other than Smith simply did not have sustained notability and so I removed them. I'll happily continue to debate it because I think my view is the best one for the article.

Simple question - can you honestly say that, if Mike Tolbert does not play another down, would you look back at him from 2019 and think of him as a particularly "notable" undrafted player? I'm willing to bet not one person here would say yes to that. And, if that's the case, then we should all be able to agree that he does not current merit inclusion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:47, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I really don't have the want to get into another huge consensus discussion. I'd recommend a combination, really. Multiple years as Nelson says is undoubtedly necessary. But we also cannot wait multiple years to finally add them. Perhaps somewhere between 6-8 games started in the first year (instantaneous criteria as mentioned above), and maintaining notability throughout the next few years. We cannot include every player obviously, but in the same way we cannot exclude every either. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 22:56, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Why can we not wait a few years to include players? I don't see the downside.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Notability is a fine line. I agree with you that they must be notable, but some of these are notable now. Will they be notable later? Some will, some won't. We can always remove the ones that won't be. I would much rather have a few possibly non notables in now than wait 3+ years to determine firm notability. 3 years is quite a long time, anyway. Mastrchf (^t/_c) 01:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I completely disagree. Either a player has had a notable career to this point of they have not. And the likes of Bess, Carpenter and Tolbert have not. Until there have sustained notability, there is no reason to include them here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

I wish that recap had been pointless. If you "know what happened," Chris, then you need to respect the consensus that evolved in that discussion. That you think that your view is best for the article is irrelevant. Consensus is what matters. That's three opinions for a requirement of six games started, one that is just for a starter without giving a game determination, and one for waiting a few years. Please don't try to force your version over a community decision. If a player has six games started, then they can be included. If they don't have twelve games next year, then they can be removed.--2008Olympian^chitchat 00:28, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

There's been no consensus. We only have a few people who have voted, no one thinks the same exact thing and you misunderstood my vote. So there is no consensus and I'm doing what's best for the article.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me, based on the summary that 2008Olympian put together (thank you), that 4 games (or roughly a quarter of the regular season) is CLEARLY the consensus threshold. I can support this position (that's at least 3 of 5 opinions, maybe 4 of 5). Let's implement it and move forward. --Cshashaty (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Hell to the nah.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:43, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Plus, this guy is only going against me because I'm the only one who will point out that he writes awful, unintelligent articles on Phins.com.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Super Bowl navboxes

Lest I violate 3RR, I wante dto throw it to the group to come up with a standard for inclusion in the Super Bowl navboxes. As you can see over at Template:Super Bowl XLIII, I've been engaged in a disagreement about who belongs in these templates. I'm not sure if it's been ironed out prior to this, but I thought it would be good for the group to make a call one way or ther other. The main dispute is whether or not player that are on the practice squad or IR and nver play a regular season or post-season game should be included in the template. I fall on the side of not including these players, as they obviously were not active for the Super Bowl and did not accumulate any meaningful on-field contributions during the year. This would be akin to the World Series championship templates including the entire 40-man roster on the template, even if some of the players never saw maor league action nor played in the playoffs. I agree that players on IR who played significant and/or starting roles prior to their injury should be included (like Jeremy Shockey in Template:Super Bowl XLII), though with players that played sparingly (1 or 2 games or a handful of plays) before going on IR should not be included either. Thoughts? I just hope everyone's input can help end future edit warring. Thanks. - Masonpatriot (talk) 05:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Well as far as I know, the standard is to do active roster only. I'm not in favor of it, but that's how it's being done.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:24, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It should only be the active roster and coaches for that game only. I don't like, however, how the categories are setup, can the categories be made to the side similar to how they are here?--TRUCO 01:50, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

All the players get Super Bowl rings and all contribute to the championship. I think it's ridiculous that if Tom Brady plays 18 games, leads his team to the playoffs but breaks his leg in the AFC Championship and goes on IR before the Super Bowl, he's not on the template for the Super Bowl champions team. He'd still be a contributor to the championship season and gets a ring.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, if they get rings then they should be included on the template.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 02:20, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Chris, I agree with you on the Brady example and that really isn't the issues (see Jeremy Shockey in the SB XLII template like I listed above). But I just don't see how a player like Marvin Allen a PS squad player who never even sniffed the playing field and was never on the active roster, or Charlie Batch (who was on IR for the whole season and also was never on the active roster) belong in the navbox. Like I said above, what would be like World Series navboxes including the entire 40-man roster regardless of whether or not the player played in majors that season, nevermnd the playoff roster. Just my $.02. - Masonpatriot (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Considering 40-man roster players are in the minor leagues, I don't consider it the same thing. Players like Allen receiver Super Bowl rings and ARE Super Bowl champions. They do contribute to the team by working on the scout team during the week and acting as the opponent's players in preparation for the game. If we're going to put that they were Super Bowl champions in their infobox (which we do, since it's true) then why not have them on the template?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:16, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Ejection (sports)

From this article

American football A player who makes intentional contact with an official (e.g. touching the official to get his attention) will be ejected, and along with the ejection of the offending player comes a 15 yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against the offender's team.

Is this correct? It would seem extremely arbitary and unlikely that a player who taps an official on the shoulder and points out his shoelace is undone would get ejected from the game. If it is correct this needs to be cited to a reliable source. Exxolon (talk) 01:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox colors

There's an ongoing discussion about colors used in infoboxes here. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:57, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Nelson, the colors definitely should not be removed. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Infobox color modification

I have proposed changing the colors of player template here. It is just an extension to the colors discussion that was posted there and about which was informed one message above. see here please. --Gman124 ^talk 23:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks in FLC review

Hey everyone. Just a heads up, but List of Kansas City Chiefs starting quarterbacks is under an FLC review, but looks like it needs a bit more support to be promoted to be a Featured List. Anybody who can drop by and add suggestions or a 'support' vote will be much appreciated. Go here to give feedback. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:32, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Jack Youngblood under GA review

Jack Youngblood is up for GA for the second time. I have to admit, the first time it was up, it was pretty bad. Yet, I think it is a pretty good article now. I had one person post their opinoin thus far and would like to hear from others. --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks to those who helped with the article. It obtained GA status. --Pinkkeith (talk) 15:35, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

How best to represent coaching trees

J. Matthew Bailey and I have been having a discussion of the best way to present "coaching tree" information on NFL coach pages, as well as how much information is appropriate to present. I feel that it's valuable to understand what position (i.e. at how high a level and on what side of the ball) an assistant served under a mentor. My thinking is that this bit of information is valuable in weighing how much influence that mentor might have had on the mentee (e.g. a def. coord. under a defensive-minded head coach might be perceived as more of a "disciple" than an defensive position coach under an offensive-minded head). Mr. Bailey counters that this is unnecessary duplication of resume information which should be in the coach's infobox.

In addition, we are attempting to determine whether this information is best presented in a simple bulleted list or in a table. I guess the question of how much detail to provide weighs on this choice as well.

Here are a couple of examples:

• Tabular style with resume details: Mike Tomlin
• List style w/o details: Tony Sparano

Another option (and probably the best) would be to create a visual family-tree type diagram (as seen for Marty Schottenheimer but this approach is much more difficult to maintain and seems more appropriate for retired coaches.

Which of these approaches do you think best serves the purpose? Or do you have other ideas? Please share your opinions.--Deejayk (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

A-class articles

I don't know if anyone noticed this or not, but there is discussion about A-class articles being a higher grade then GA-class articles here. Basically the A-class articles are assesed by Wikiproject. For example see Military History WikiProject. Is this something we would like to do as well. That way we can go from getting an article as an A-class and then to a FA-class instead of going from GA-class and then FA-class. --Pinkkeith (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on use of team colors in sports infoboxes

Please stop by and voice your opinion in the ongoing discussion on the use of team colors in sports infoboxes.--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:17, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Question about endashes

I was wondering if somebody could clarify when we use endashes on WP for NFL pages, and sports pages in general. Say the Dolphins had a record of 11 wins and 5 losses, would it be 11-5 or 11–5? I've been told that records use hyphens (11-5) but game scores (Dolphins beat Seahawks 21–19). Do we use endashes for everything or just scores? This is really confusing and I've run into this problem way too many times when my articles are under peer review where some say endashes for everything and some say endashes just for game scores. I've already read up on WP:NDASH but still not sure what the hell to do. Thanks conman33 (. . .talk) 23:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

I always use endashes for scores or records. I agree the dash page is confusing, but I've never had a problem with a GA or FA review. blackngold29 23:15, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd use the – whenever you'd use the word "to". So a record is more a "and" situation (11 wins and 5 losses), while a score is more a "to" situation (Dolphins beat Seahawks 21 to 19). Personally I'd lean more towards endash for score and a hyphens for records... --Bobblehead ^(rants) 23:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Redskins alumni website

Someone added Redskins Alumni Network to many pages in wikipedia. I have deleted it every time because it is a social networking site. I just wanted to double-check: I am right about deleting this, right? Jwalte04 (talk) 16:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Yes, god yes.--2008Olympian^chitchat 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Haha, fantastic. Jwalte04 (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Articles to Create

I just thought I would let people know, I created a list of players pages who dont have articles at Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Articles to create, so if anyone is interested, feel free to check the list and create them.--Yankees10 17:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Colts page

Someone needs to fix up the Colts page. The history section is way too long. ~Richmond96 t • c 23:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:06, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Superbowl winning Head-Coaches

Is there a reason there is a List of Super Bowl head coaches and another list called List of Super Bowl winning head coaches List of Super Bowl head coaches already contains the information provided in List of Super Bowl winning head coaches. But I just wanted to make sure if there was some reason for having two similar looking lists before doing something. --Gman124 ^talk 02:59, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Looks like List of Super Bowl winning head coaches should just be merged into List of Super Bowl head coaches because the first one doesn't have a reference list, and like you said, they're both technically the same thing. conman33 (. . .talk) 08:09, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

merged the artcles there was also an afd about this Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Super Bowl winning head coaches. but no one did anything after the afd was closed. --Gman124 ^talk 15:50, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Depth Charts

The depth chart that was just added to 2009 Washington Redskins season looks like a big, sprawling piece of doo-doo. Anyone up for making a tighter depth-chart template?--2008Olympian^chitchat 20:32, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

There shouldn't be a depth chart on that page at all right now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Why not? The are currently on the team pages. Not the wiki team pages, the actual team's internet sites.--2008Olympian^chitchat 22:37, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

Not all of them. Some teams don't post them during the offseason. For example, the Steelers and Dolphins. Others leave them up from the previous season but ignore them until the next.

It's simply hard to verify since teams don't practice/play games, and it's not really relevant until camp rolls around anyway. Plus, it was decided long ago that this wasn't really the place for depth charts.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:12, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Tender Offers

OK, I honestly can't find any other place to post this question, so if it's in the wrong place, please let me know. I've been vigorously editing the 2009 Indianapolis Colts season article and today have been doing the same thing to the 2009 Arizona Cardinals season article. I've got 7-10 "free agents" to add to the list on the Cardinals article, and i'm checking their website, and they all say "tendered one-year offer". I have no idea what that means and would like some clarification. Does the "tendered one-year offer" mean that the player has accepted a one-year offer with the team, and they are no longer a free agent, or that they have been offered a contract and nothing further? I know the details of what distinguishes an UFA, RFA, and ERFA from each other, i'm just confused about the term "tendered". Any help would be appreciated. Thanks! Manningmbd (talk) 06:06, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

A RFA or ERFA must be tendered an offer, otherwise they become a UFA and can sign with any team. By tendering them offers, the team retain their rights and can either match a team's offer (in the case of RFAs) or force a player to re-sign with them or not play at all (in the case of ERFAs, who have no negotiation rights with other teams). "Tender" means the offer is on the table. He still has to sign it for him to officially re-join the club and be under contract. Players that have only been tendered are not under contract.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Free agents

For the list of free agents for each team, please see the official list here.--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:03, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Based on a quick glance, that thing isn't complete.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:08, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Naming conventions

Moved to WT:Naming conventions (sportspeople) § Naming conventions

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

[User: Tavix] has written a thoughtful commentary on naming conventions for football players at WP:FBNC. There has been a discussion on several user talk pages about this, but an admin wanted consenus, so it needs to be on a non-user page. Please weigh in.

• Comment: Tavix is dead on in how he is naming these articles. "American, Canadian, etc. football" distinguishes the articles from what "football" is known as in 90% of the world: soccer. This has been how the player articles have been named at WP:NFL for a long time. WP:QUALIFIER states pretty clearly that

  It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach).

  --2008Olympian^chitchat 00:50, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The relevant guideline is WP:NCP. The ongoing effort to clarify its implications for sportspeople is at WP:NCSP. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I believe that American/Canadian etc. football is better than football player, because although I think it's stupid, most countries call soccer football, so "football" fans can become confused by this.--Giants27 ^T/C 00:52, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Football does not mean soccer. It is an umbrella term for many sports. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for proving my point. :P--Giants27 ^T/C 00:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

That is why it is good. There is no reason to disambiguate the code of football until there is a clash of names of two people with the same name who are both notable for playing football. The default dab for football players should be (football player) and WP:QUALIFIER makes that clear. The dab describes the person not the sport. The disambiguation rule is to use the most general, descriptive dab. This is a wise guideline for many reasons, one of which is that for players of multiple codes of football, there is no reason to define the code of football until there is a clash of two people with the same name who both played a form of football. I repeat that there is no reason to define the code of football in the dab unless there are two people with the same name who both played a form of football. The dab does need dabbing. In fact, it is harmful and would lead to ridiculous lengths to do so. The rule is, rather, to use the most general, descriptive, dab that would not have another article of the same name. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, you're creating too much work. Just disamb all the American, Canadian, etc. football players the same way. Why have two different disambiguations? Uniformity is a good thing. "Football" is useless as a disamb.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:08, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Believe it or not, a lot of players play multiple codes of football. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:17, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

It does not happen often, and when combined with the infrequent need to disambiguate and that usually one particular league dominates that player's experience, it is going to be obvious which league name to use.--2008Olympian^chitchat 01:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

And why not the other way around? Just disamb all the American, Canadian, etc. football players the same way. Why have two different disambiguations? Uniformity is a good thing. Use (football player). Then if there are two football players with the same name, the disambiguation can be chosen. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First, that's the way most of the articles are currently. Second, a football player is a soccer player to 90% of the world. --2008Olympian^chitchat 01:34, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The dab is not an article and does not describe what the article is about, it is simply a method to have different file name for two articles with the same name. The lead of the article describes what the article is about. The only places we find these dabs are on disambiguation pages where they are accompanied by a description and when an editor is making a link in an article. There is nowhere for someone to be confused by the dab (football player) meaning soccer anyway. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Note: because of WP:NPOV, we can't use "football" as every other country besides Canada and the United States uses "football" for soccer. Since Wikipedia is a worldwide collaboration, we can't do that. So, we must move on to a more suitable dab. Obviously (Canadian football player) is much too long of a dab and because of WP:QUALIFIER, we must use a simpler, and more general dab exactly what you say so we shorten it to (Canadian football). There shouldn't be a problem if a person played both codes, so you would use (gridiron football). Tavix (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, no. Football is not exclusive to soccer. It is an umbrella term that encompasses many forms of ball sports. A neutral point of view recognizes that it not owned by any particular code but is rather a general encompassing word similar to using "musician" for the many meaning that has. WP:DAB and WP:NCP endorses using the most general, descriptive word for the qualifying term. Secondly, I don't buy that Canadian football player is too long of a dab. I don't actually have a big problem with the term "gridiron" but there are more preferable steps before resorting to that one. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Yeah, actually 292/294 countries use "football" as soccer. Just because you live in that little bubble that doesn't refer to soccer as football, doesn't mean that you are right, and 99.3% of the world is wrong. Tavix (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

What happened to your WP:NPOV and WP:WORLDVIEW? DoubleBlue (talk) 04:59, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• I still use it. Can you explain?

This is from a... I can't even say the s-word... fan, even though it might be ambiguous, if I understand it correctly this is about "Thomas Edward "Tom" Brady, Jr. (born August 3, 1977) is an American football quarterback for...", am I right? I think the best usage would be for all different codes to use this style "is an [[United States|American]] [[American football|football]] player" for american american football players, and go by the players sporting nationalities common usage, so for example the only european american football player I know of Morten Andersen would've been when he was active "is a [[Danish people|Danish]] [[American football]] player", and somone like Clint Dempsey would be (as it is) "is an [[United States|American]] [[Association football|soccer]] player", just how I would do it ch¹⁰ · 04:36, 6 March 2009 (UTC) Opps, this seems not to be about that... But I think my last comments still show what my preference would be, American american football players go on "name (football player)", for example danish am. football players would be on "name (American football player)", American soocer players on "name (soccer player)" or perhaps "name (footballer)" ch¹⁰ · 04:41, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

While I have long been a proponent of "American football" and "Canadian football" as disambiguations, and while I still remain against "football player" as one, I think there is a better way. Quite simply, I think the disambiguation should be "gridiron football".

For starters, that is where the sport is located in this encyclopedia, so it definitely makes sense.

Secondly, it does away with the confusion caused when players player in multiple leagues, such as the AFL, NFL, CFL, etc. It seems to me this is a simple, hassle-free disambiguation that would never need to be revisited again.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 09:00, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I still think the first step should be (football player) but if there is another player with the same name who plays a different code of football, then I agree that (gridiron player) is a good idea and I support that. It also follows the idea better of going from the most general to the more specific. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:14, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You're clearly sticking to this thing about describing the person, not the sport, but tell me - what is the downside to a disambiguation of "gridiron football"? Why is that worse than "gridiron player"? And, why would it not be better, since some people are not just famous for playing the sport, or not famous for it at all?

For example, what if there was another Tony Sparano and his page needed to be disambiguated? You couldn't use "gridiron player" since he wasn't notable for that. He wouldn't have a Wikipedia article based on his playing, as he would not meet notability guidelines. So you're suggesting "gridiron coach"?

What about someone like Jeff Ireland, who was a placekicker at Baylor. Once again, his playing career is not notable on Wikipedia, and thus he would not have an article here if that's all he had done. He's also never been a football coach. But he's been an NFL scout and is not a general manager. So what do you suggest? "gridiron executive"?

I feel like you are so concerned about this line you find in a policy about the disambiguation describing the person, not the sport, that you're not entertaining the idea of which disambiguation is the most productive or simply the best. You're content just saying "because that's the way it is."

But quite frankly, if you or anyoen else can tell me one downside to a disambiguation of "gridiron football" for all gridiron football players/coaches/executives of all gridiron leagues, I'd love to hear it. From my view, there isn't one.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

OK: The problem with "(gridiron player)" is that the term is not that familar to Americans and Canadians, and it's not what they call their sports. (Tanatmount to calling all "footballers" as "Soccer players".) Secondly, the "sport" is not "gridiron football", but American football and Canadian football - 2 separate but closely related sports. The Gridiron football article is about the term and its use in other countries outside of North America, not the sports. Just use the name the sports actually go by in the countries in which they were developed and primarily played, same as with "association football". But if someone still prefers a more general term, just use ("ball player)". That should solve the problem when there are no other ball players with the same name, and it covers most multiple sports players too, other than Hockey of course. - BillCJ (talk) 18:45, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

If it's a relevant enough term to have an article in this encyclopedia, it's relevant enough to be a disambiguation, plain and simple.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:51, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

No, not really. It certainly won't be very popular, so you're just going down a dead-end with it. - BillCJ (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Well I don't believe that at all, so I guess we'll see what others thing.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:37, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

The reason that I prefer player is that every biographical dab in Wikipedia outside of hockey and the recent moves in baseball and football describes the person and there is a significant benefit and ease in keeping that pattern. It is also grammatically correct. I do think that gridiron coach and gridiron executive would be acceptable if those cases ever came up.

My first reaction to gridiron player was actually the same as BillCJ's actually; that, in North America, it is treated more as a somewhat quirky nickname than a real term but I have come around that it is actually a useful world term that is really used as an umbrella term for the different codes of football like NFL, CFL, Arena, and flag football. These general terms are good and useful when speaking to a world audience and are not so foreign to others that they cannot be explained easily.

Another reason why the most general dab is preferred is the Wiki principle and semi-automatic linking that underlies it. Editors are supposed to be able to simply type along and put square brackets around John Brown and even if they forget to check if it goes to the direct person, it should go to a disambiguation page. If they are thinking while they are typing, "Well, of course there are other John Browns" and type John Brown (football player), then that should either lead to that one football player or if there is more than one, then to a disambuiguation that will lead to the correct one. It is kind of like the concentric circles of a target. If there is a single person with the name, the bull's eyes occupies the entire target, if not, each ring should get one closer to the target. In that way, I assert that (football player) is the best most general dab and agree that the next step, should a person find that page to be a dab, is to find John Brown (gridiron player) beside John Brown (footballer). DoubleBlue (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

"outside of hockey and the recent moves in baseball and football," shows that when it come sot sports, WP:QUALIFIER has it dead on that in sports, it should be the sport that is the disambiguator.--2008Olympian^chitchat 06:12, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I can tell you that the editor who wrote the line from QUALIFIER that you are quoting, disagrees strongly with that interpretation. All biographical dabs should describe the person. The recent change to QUALIFIER was made, more or less, to account for baseball's aberration. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"All biographical dabs should describe the person."

My question is: why? If it works well that way, then fine. If a guy is famous for being a physicist, then his page can easily be located at "John Smith (physicist)" rather than "John Smith (physics)." But why add "player" to an athlete's disambiguation when it's unnecessary? "Baseball" or "football" gets the job done just as much as "baseball player" or "football player", if not more so considering they can be used for any person notable in the sport like coaches or executives, rather than just players.

All you keep saying is that dabs should describe the person, and you fail to provide any argument for why that method is better, or why other methods are worse. Do you just blindly go along with everything and never ask why?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:57, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Obviously I don't just go along blindly and never ask why. I guess that you don't know me at all :-) Anyway, the fact that it's been the standard and the way it's been done across Wikipedia makes it easier for editors to select the dab correctly and does not double the possible dab choice. (i.e. Is it John Brown (musician) or John Brown (music)? John Brown (politician) or John Brown (politics)? ) An additional point is that it does make sense, grammatically speaking, to read the person's name followed by a parenthetical description. DoubleBlue (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

There is no grammar issue.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:22, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Also, you still haven't answered the question.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

• Chrisjnelson has it correct. Tavix (talk) 01:44, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Some analysis and comments

Since I noticed some move-warring a few days ago by some of the people involved in this discussion, I have been attempting to prevent further edit-warring until the issue is resolved. Not having a strong opinion on these issues and not being involved in editing any of these articles, I feel I can act neutrally. I have the following comments so far:

1. There seem to be two related but distinct issues here.
   1. Whether or not to use the word "player" to describe the person, or whether the name of the sport is satisfactory.
   2. The level of disambiguation required. (E.g. Canadian football, gridiron, football, ball player, sports player).
2. These issues have been discussed at length at various other venues (including WT:NCSP, WP:ANI and various user talk pages) but the conclusion does not seem to be clear.
3. There are many valid arguments for the various methods, and the discussion here has been calm, well thought out and constructive.
4. However the page history of articles such as Ken Johnson (Canadian football) shows some disgraceful behaviour.

I have the following proposals:

1. Take this discussion back to WT:NCSP. That is the correct venue for this discussion. To prevent disjointed discussions, this thread would be copied in its entirety and then closed here.
2. While this issue is being discussed, there should be no moving of pages which are relevant to this issue. It doesn't matter if a particular page has never been moved before - it may still be considered to be edit-warring. If this proposal is supported I will take a strict line on any editors who choose to continue to move these pages without consensus.
3. If no agreement is reached within a week or two, we can consider opening the discussion up to the wider community by requesting comment.

Your thoughts on the above are welcomed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:27, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, and concur. - BillCJ (talk) 10:56, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Agree. DoubleBlue (talk) 13:03, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm just waiting for the assent of a few others involved in this discussion. If they could just indicate whether they are happy with the above? Thanks, — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:35, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Tavix?
• Chrisjnelson?
• 2008Olympian

I'm fine with all that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

• Sure. I have already posted some comments in that discussion, which seemed to be going nowhere, but I will see if this furthers the discussion.--2008Olympian^chitchat 16:13, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm good with it.--Giants27 ^T/C 19:34, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thousand of freely licensed photos

Take a look at this photo stream from Flickr. There are almost 7,00 photos, all taken by a professional sports photographer (all of them his), and they're all licensed as CC-BY-SA. So if you have any need of a good NFL picture, I would advise you look through this treasure trove of images. Also, if you could add any newly uploaded photos on the Commons to Category:NFL photos taken by Keith Allison, that would be great. Thanks, Noble Story (talk • contributions) 01:38, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed changes to FL criteria WRT length and content forking

See Wikipedia talk:Featured list criteria#Revised criteria III. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:01, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

List of NFL champions

I have nominated List of NFL champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks, where editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:19, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Season list article titles

Resolved

 – All lists moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Per Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Naming conventions, lists' titles should normally start out as "List of..." The season articles currently do not follow this convention; I propose that we move all the lists to comply with this guideline. WikiProject NBA supported these moves unanimously. In the interest of consistency, especially with our featured lists, I think these lists should be moved. Dabomb87 (talk) 01:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

To which articles are you referring?--2008Olympian^chitchat 04:44, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Carolina Panthers seasons, Chicago Bears seasons, Cleveland Browns seasons, etc. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. I doesn't matter to me one way or the other, and I would support either convention (with or without the "List of..." bit) so long as the convention is used consistantly within the project (i.e. all 32 teams use the same titling convention). --Jayron32.talk.contribs 00:54, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I would definitely move all 32 lists, as I have done with the NBA lists (save for one that needs an admin to nove it). Dabomb87 (talk) 01:49, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, I always wondered why season lists never followed this format. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:42, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

If there is no objection in the next two days, I will move the season lists. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The naming convention was recently changed in NBA season lists, and I have no strong feelings on it either way. My only wish is that one standard be applied to season lists for all sports. Giants2008 (17-14) 02:51, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, let's make them standardized according to the above-named convention. Move them.--2008Olympian^chitchat 05:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) All right then, seems that we have consensus, I will move the lists (you all are welcome to help) in about 9 or 10 hours. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Done all except for Oakland Raiders seasons; I could not move that list because it can only be done by an administrator. Please !vote there. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:38, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, all done. Dabomb87 (talk) 12:33, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

Jay Cutler

I'm posting a discussion page comment here in order to hopefully garner more expansive discussion regarding a current issue with the Jay Cutler article. A user is editing Cutler's birth place and birth year, stating that Cutler was born during 1981 in Georgia. However, as I said in the discussion page there, almost every sports website (which includes NFL.com) states Cutler was born during 1983 in Indiana. The official Broncos website lists Cutler as being born in Georgia; however, it's the only website that states he's apparently from there, which leads me to believe that there might be an error on that site. Anyway, if some of you out there could please engage in the discussion on that page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Luke4545 (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I remember on a Christmas eve game Cutler actually said himself that he was born in Santa Claus, Indiana. ~Richmond96 t • c 15:11, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

The birth year was an accident, I never meant to make it 1981.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:56, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

GM of the team?

Heads up from an article from the Washington Post:

"Each team has a line for "GM" on its Wikipedia profile. Thirty teams have a person's name in that slot. For the Redskins, the GM role is currently being filled by "none...Now, sure, this is sort of a creation of Wikipedia's warped collective mind. The Cincinnati Bengals' GM is listed as Mike Brown, although the team Web site doesn't suggest this to be the case. (He's described there as "President," and no one is listed as GM.) The Colts' GM is listed as Bill Polian, whose title is also officially "president." The Cowboys' GM is listed as Jerry Jones, which is true, but possibly not any less depressing than the situation in D.C. Al Davis is listed as the Raiders' GM, and whatever his real title is, it's not good."

I would change this myself, but I'm not filled with NFL info right now, so maybe this could be addressed (or discussed at least) by someone else. Noble Story (talk • contributions) 14:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – I've updated the GM field for both the 'Skins and the Pats. I've also updated the doc for the infobox to indicate that this value should not be interpreted as just a person who has the title "General Manager" but the person who makes the team's personnel decisions. I think most teams have gone away from using the "GM" title, and replaced it with something like "Executive Vice President of Football Operations" of "Director of Player Personnel".

The case for listing Vinny Cerrato is pretty clear (although one could argue that he's merely a Snyder puppet). The Pats situation is a bit less clear-cut, since it's likely that Bellichick will be the one who runs the team's draft (for instance), but Caserio holds the title of "Directory of Player Personnel", so I think it's appropriate that he be listed as the GM. -- Deejayk (talk) 18:16, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, the guy says that he's not the GM and blames WP for not listing him as such. He's quite the reporter. blackngold29 19:20, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

What an idiot for even writing about this.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:12, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

"Reporters" like this are a big reason why newspapers are failing. -- Deejayk (talk) 21:32, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

By the way Deejayk, Directors of Player Personnel essentially never make personnel decisions. The wording of the title is deceptive, that's not what they do. And Belichick is 100% in charge of personnel decisions in New England.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:41, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessing an article

I didn't notice a section or page for requesting an assessment of an article like some other projects have so I'll post it here. Would anyone mind reviewing Herb Adderley? I recently referenced a lot of info that was there, and added (with ref) a decent chunk more. I'm guessing it may now be higher than start class.--Rockfang (talk) 20:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I would call it a C now. More than one source would really help, but it's not too far from a B. blackngold29 20:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Possible new categories

How about [[Category: Multi-sport ahtlete]] or [[Category:NFL players who have been in legal trouble]] (or possibly [[Category: Sportspeople in legal trouble]]). What do you think? RF23 (talk) 22:07, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The first one seems okay, the other two sound like a violation of WP:BLP. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:13, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I geuss i don't see how. the criteria would be players who have been convicted of a crime (O.J. Simpson, Mike Vick, ect). RF23 (talk) 22:22, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Request / Suggestion re: current season roster templates

Hi I think when current team roster templates are updated, the appropriate season articles should be updated too, under trades, free agents signings, key roster losses, etc. sections, with a reliable source of course. Same for coaches and staff ones if notable. Thoughts? TomCat4680 (talk) 13:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 NFL Draft: Don't jump the gun!

Hi I saw on 2009 Detroit Lions season#2009 NFL Draft that the Lions drafted Matt Stafford #1 overall. They poorly sourced it to an article from October but The Detroit News article I found (here) said its NOT official yet. Please make sure that all 2009 articles don't jump the gun like this again. I suggest no charts get filled in until the draft is completely over at midnight Sunday. Also they should all contain the {{current event|section}} tag. TomCat4680 (talk) 06:15, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

The Super Bowl definetely won't be at Template:In the news anymore...

...at least not that easily. There has to be public upheaval of some sort for it to be included. Same for the World Series, NHL Finals and the NBA Finals. –Howard the Duck 06:47, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Merge coach templates?

There has been an idea that was brought of at WT:HOCKEY about the merging their current head coach template and the coaches by team template. So, does anyone else think that {{NFLHeadCoaches}} and {{NFL head coaches by team}} should be merged? Links to the coach lists (from the the second) could be added next to the coaches' names (in the first) instead of a link to the team. Every place these are used, there will already be plenty of links to the actual team article. We would slightly modify the heading of the first one just by removing "Current". The idea was created by — Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ), so big ups to him. The current NHL head coaches template is at Template:NHLHeadCoach. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 20:43, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Is anyone going to comment on this before I start merging the templates? -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 05:18, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to merge both templates by tomorrow if no one comment or replies. -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 19:03, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Like the NHL and MLB ones, I support! blackngold29 19:05, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

You could merge them right now if you want, since I'll be busy in real life the whole day. someone finally answers. ;b -- [[SRE.K.A.L.|L.A.K.ERS]]_{call me Keith} 19:08, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Expert quotes on player articles

There is an ongoing dispute between User:Yankees10 and me, so I'm asking you guys for some additional opionions. Yet I do not want to split up the debate, so please consider leaving your comment at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Expert quotes on player articles. Thanks. --bender235 (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Confusing Lions trades help request

Can someone please fact check 2009_Detroit_Lions_season#2009_NFL_Draft. I'm confused about how they acquired pick 115. Thanks. TomCat4680 (talk) 17:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Like this. "From Washington through New York Jets" blackngold29 17:37, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Logo articles for teams

A user with a penchant for splitting article sections without discussion has created Logo article for the NFL teams. THis was reverted several times by a single user, who then approached an admin, who blocked the splitter for not discussing the situation at all. However, all this was done without discussion of on the NFL team pages that I watch (Titans and Falcons), nor any discussion here, nor any notice in the reverts of the discussions on the user's page. The project should at least have been notified of such activities. It seems to me that an acticle on the logos of each team would be useful, especially if they cover historical logos too. Do such articles already exist? Comments? - BillCJ (talk) 23:03, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the existing ones are in Category:NFL Logos and uniforms, all of which were created by this same user. I did not revert these six splits because they are of substantial length. Of course a team's logo is useful information, and it's great to cover historical logos too, but the question is whether they should be split. Most other teams have less information in the logo and uniform section, so there is no need to split this specific section. I feel that unless there is a significant amount information and the main article is extremely long, this should be kept in the main article. Actually I think that most of the time it would be more appropriate to split the sprawling history sections than the shorter and more integral logo sections. As I mentioned to you, some of these may also violate fair use because the images of logos and uniforms have rationales only for the main team article. Cheers, Reywas92^Talk 23:22, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Broken links

I may be wrong but the link for the details of the nfl seasons (the links to "nflhistory.net") they all broken or something like that; I only checked them from 1920 to 1942 and none of them works. I think those files were moved to the Pro Football Researchers page, for example this one is for the details of the 1942 season. I don't usually edit on english wikipedia, and instead I edit on spanish, and there is so few info about football there that I already fixed that detail in spanish wiki. ¿Anybody wish to fix this little detail here in english wiki? I have a lot of work trying to translate any information about football to spanish. See you later. --Ahabvader (talk) 20:34, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Adding a "current" parameter to {{NFL team}}

Anybody object to adding a "current" parameter to {{NFL team}}, similar to what is used on {{Infobox football club}}? For an example, see the bottom of the infobox for New York Red Bulls and the other MLS team articles. I ask because a couple of people are starting to enforce strict rules on the use of {{Current sport-related}} and the other Temporal templates. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 01:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, since I noticed that there have been a few reverts with the temporal templates, I went ahead and added the "current" parameter to {{NFL team}}. Feel free to change or comment on the formatting. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Player's Height & Weight

How come a player's height and weight aren't inculded in the Individual biographies? These stats are always present in pro football books, articles and websites. Can we add them in? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yozick72 (talk • contribs) 10:48, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think we should add them to retired players' infoboxes because height and weight changes during the course of a players career. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Good Article reassessment

Tom Brady has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here. Wizardman 16:47, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:2008 All-Pro Team

There is a debate over at Talk:2008 All-Pro Team as to the best format of the article. Feel free to comment--2008Olympian^chitchat 07:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Olympian 2008. Please come and join in the discussion on this article. I htink it might be important at some point.Thanks. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 08:48, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Brandon Marshall's nickname

I'm currently having a dispute with an IP regarding the inclusion of Brandon Marshall's nickname, "The Beast." The nickname is sourced and has been in the article for a while. Anyway, the IP is claiming that because other players may have that same nickname, along with the fact that he feels Marshall "hits women," that somehow justifies the removal of the nickname. I don't want this to lead to any 3RR-based blocks; so, I'm hoping there are users out there who would be willing to watch the article and/or offer their own thoughts on the matter. Thank you. -- Luke4545 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate

I have nominated List of Minnesota Vikings seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. BUC (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Propose upgrading the Template:Infobox NFLretired template to use Template:Infobox

I've started a discussion here, proposing that we upgrade this template to use Template:Infobox. Please discuss. Gary King (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Advanced NFL Stats‎

I stumbled upon the Advanced NFL Stats‎ article while looking for something else. I was not sure if it belonged on Wikipedia, so nominated it fr deletion. Your input on whether it should stay or not would be greatly appreciated. This AFD discussion can be found here, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Advanced NFL Stats. Thanks for your time. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  22:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Salaries

Hi, should i add the player's salaries into the player's infoboxes. --Saffi2k7 (talk) 01:00, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I find it rather irrelevant and possibly too much of a pain to find.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:09, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I expect a large problem is nailing down how we define "salary". Just base salary? With yearly incentives? With signing bonuses? Should signing bonuses be for the year signed or pro-rated across the length of the contract? A more objective number might be a player's salary cap figure, but that's flexible to a lesser extent, and I don't know that it's fully publicly reported in any event. — Lomn 14:01, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Image query

Is Cato June in File:Bush Congratulates 2006 Colts.jpg? If not is there an alternate version with him in it?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 03:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Jerry Rice

I am interested in massively editing, with the help of others, the List of NFL records held by Jerry Rice. It is rife with irrelevant material (i.e. factually accurate, but insignificant) that simply obscures more pertinent accomplishments. The records are also quite literally gerrymandered to boost Rice's accomplishments (and, ironically, they don't even need boosting). Simply because Randy Moss now holds the single-season receiving touchdowns record, is it necessary to say Rice holds the record for most "Touchdown receptions in a season by a player with 73 touches or less (22)"? We certainly wouldn't consider it a record on John Doe's page if he had the most touchdown receptions in a season by a player with 58 touches or less. It's simply irrelevant.

For example, when Rice has scored more points than any other non-kicker, it's simply unnecessary to have all six of the following listed as records:

• Only player with 1,000+ points & 600+ receptions
• Only player with 1,100+ points & 1,100+ touches
• Only player with 1,100+ points & 500+ yards rushing
• Only player with 1,100+ points & 50+ yards receiving
• Only player with 1,100+ points & 500+ from scrimmage
• Only player with 1,100+ points & 500+ all-purpose yards

I propose editing the page to look more like List of career achievements by Brett Favre, which is well organized and well sourced. I don't want to start making changes without getting additional opinion. J. Matthew Bailey (talk) 23:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Playoffs articles renaming?

Why are articles of the certain playoffs, like the NFL playoffs, 2008-09, named as such? Why aren't they 2008-09 NFL playoffs?--Truco ₅₀₃ 23:13, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, but it makes more sense to me. ~Richmond96 t • c 01:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The naming convention dates back to when the first NFL playoff articles were created back in February 2005. Off the top of my head, I remember there were very, very few sports season articles back then like there are now -- these playoff article were one of the first ones. But back then, there were many election articles already created like United States presidential election, 2004, so that is where the titles were based on. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well those are very distinct topics, which have nothing in common so they should not be compared. The NBA articles don't use our format, they use the one I proposed above. Which would be the 2009 NBA Playoffs-->2009 NFL Playoffs.--Truco ₅₀₃ 16:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I realize that they are very distinct topics. I was merely answering your first question about why the NFL playoff articles were originally named that way. As I said, they were one of the first sports articles detailing a specific tournament or season – and so the only prominent naming convention model at the time were the election and political articles. As more and more of these season sports articles were created using the YEAR SUBJECT naming comvention, the NFL playoff articles with the SUBJECT, YEAR format never got changed. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:08, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm sorry. But do you agree to change them?--Truco ₅₀₃ 17:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• The NFL playoff articles have now been renamed to be consistent with the other season sports articles. Zzyzx11 (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

• I was gonna wait for more comments before we did the renaming, but what the hell, its the most accurate and bold thing to do. Thanks!--Truco ₅₀₃ 18:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Denver Broncos first-round draft picks at WP:FLC

I have nominated List of Denver Broncos first-round draft picks at WP:FLC and would like to receive from the NFL experts comments/concerns about the list here. Thank you.--Crzycheetah 06:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

File:Chicago Bears logo.svg

I guess in the midst of copying and pasting fair use rationales, someone forgot to replace important text on the rationales. For example on this Chicago Bears logo:

• On the main Minnesota Vikings page it illustrates the logo that is currently used by the team.

Someone might want to go through the logos, helmets, uniforms and other copyrighted images of the NFL articles and see if any other errors like this exist. — ℳℴℯ ε 23:15, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

CfD nomination of Category:Canadian Football League free agents

I have nominated Category:Canadian Football League free agents (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:25, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl champions nominated at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Super Bowl champions for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Matthewedwards :  Chat  16:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Reserve/Retired

When a player retires he is placed on the Reserve/Retired list if he still has a contract. He is removed only when the team releases him. But why is it when a player is retired he is list as Did Not Report instead of Reserve/Retired (e.g. Jake Plummer). Is it that they are under contract and still obligated to report even if they are retired. Ositadinma (talk) 18:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I want to add weight to this subject, especially regarding Jake Plummer. There is no reason to keep him on the Buccaneers roster on here. Both parties have come out in the media to say they have come to a settlement and cancelled the contract. The league has accepted his retirement papers and he is officially retired. He now falls into the same catagory as many players that have come before him. You do not see all these players, such as Mike Alstott, listed in this section of the roster. I have repeatly tried to change the entry on the page but users keep changing it back with no good reason! jitsugreg (talk) 09:23, 28 August 2009

However, he hasn't be placed on reserve/retired like Alstott has, so that argument has no weight.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:57, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Plummer is still listed in the NFLPA active salary database, which is a publicly-available fraction of the much larger, not publicly available official salary and contact database that agents use. This is important to note, and this is the reason why Plummer is still listed on the roster, as well as guys like Quinn Pitcock. When Plummer is removed from that database, or when something comes across the official transaction wire on ProFootballWeekly.com (the only one on the internet; team websites and NFL.com are not official) that says Plummer has been released from Reserve/Did Not Report or Reserve/Retired, then that will be changed. I should note that many teams have many players on reserve/did not report and reserve/retired. Occassionally, you'll see transactions pop up on ProFW for teams releasing guys from those lists who haven't played in 10 years; obviously those guys weren't on our rosters, but they weren't in the NFLPA database either. Plummer is in the NFLPA database still, and that's why he's still on our rosters. We strive for pinpoint accuracy, and quite frankly what Plummer and the team has said doesn't matter because it simply isn't official business. Pats1 ^T/C 18:49, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Concerning FedEx Air & Ground NFL Players of the Week

Eldorado Owens keeps trying to add a huge list of Players of the week to this page. I was wondering if you guys thought this was appropriate or if the list sould be put into a table.--Tim1357 (talk) 20:13, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand what I'm doing wrong? The data is accurate. I'm trying to make the page complete. I thought you deleted the information the first time because I didn't put it into a table...so I made tables and reposted. Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado Owens (talk • contribs) 04:41, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh , it looks like the problem resolved itself. Thanks--Tim1357 (talk) 02:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oakland Raiders GAR warning

Oakland Raiders has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 16:25, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:27, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Bills uniforms

Sorry if this isn't the right place to discuss this, but the Bills uniforms are shown as Blue jersey with white pants and white jersey with blue pants. While the Bills do sometimes wear these combinations, it is very rarely, and they almost always wear blue on blue and white on white. I just thought that those two combos should be included in the page.

Category:African American players of American football

While not strictly an NFL-related issue. Category:African American players of American football has been nominated for deletion, along with a sister category for African American players of Canadian football. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:36, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Starting Quarterbacks for the New York Giants

I was amazed that this page didn't exist nor does one for the Philadelphia Eagles. But I went ahead and created it here so I hope you all like it! —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 05:52, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

List of New England Patriots seasons at FLRC

I have nominated List of New England Patriots seasons for featured list removal here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. --Cheetah (talk) 23:14, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1

Please feel free to comment at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Cato June/archive1.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

This FAC has had only two commenters state an opinion.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

New roster template

I created a new roster template for the College football WikiProject more info (announcement here). I believe I have customized it enough for the NFL. Well, I guess the only customization is making the class column optional. You can see the new template in action at the 2009 Oklahoma Sooners football team article.

• Template:American football roster/Header
• Template:American football roster/Player
• Template:American football roster/Footer

Any feedback would be welcome appreciated.—NMajdan•talk 03:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If needed, I might respond quicker if posted to my talk page or the talk page of the template. I don't want this page.—NMajdan•talk 20:59, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

NFL Players of the week & month

I'm pretty new to editing wiki, but wanted to create a page for NFL weekly awards. The NFL hands out awards to 6 players each week...offensive, defensive and special teams player of the week for each conference, AFC & NFC. In addition, the NFL announces a monthly winner for each, awarded for September, October, November, and December. And lastly, there is a monthly award given to the offensive and defensive rookies of the month.

The offensive and defensive awards started in 1984, and special teams was added in 1993. I have most of the data, but there are some considerable gaps in the 1980's and early 1990's that would need filled in. The info can be found in yearly NFL Record & Fact Books (for instance, I have the 1991 record & fact book which includes all of 1990's winners). The rest of the info I have was obtained from recent team media guides that include it. I have 100% of the awards info from 1997 to 2009.

I don't even know if this is the right place to bring this up, but since there is a page for FedEx air & ground weekly awards, and pepsi rookie of week awards, i thought it would be appropriate to have a page for this NFL award. If somebody who edits NFL pages frequently could let me know what to do, that would be great

thanks

PS: sorry, i don't know how to include my user name like others have, but my user name is Eldorado Owens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado Owens (talk • contribs) 07:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

What's the deal here? Can anybody give me an answer on what to do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado Owens (talk • contribs) 27 November 2009 (UTC)

You can create it if you want, no one is really stopping you. Just make sure it's good enough not to get deleted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I guess my main concern is I have some holes in the data...it's not complete. I'll create it...I just wonder if there is anybody who has older NFL record & fact books to fill in some of the holes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado Owens (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

17 weeks for the entire history of the NFL? Way too much data, my suggestion is to not create since this info is pretty much useless in the big scheme of things.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Lawsuit

The NFL is a copyrighted name. Shouldn't/couldn't Wiki be sued for infringement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatumstevens2 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

No because the NFL prevents the use of it by other leagues, not encylopedias or the media. If you use that logic then ESPN would've already been sued. So, absolutely not.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a serious question? That's like asking if Wiki, or any other encyclopedia used for information purposes, could be sued since Microsoft, Macintosh, CBS, CNN, ExxonMobil, etc. are copyrighted names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Starting Lineups in Seasonal Articles

User:Ethan9456 added starting lineups (like this) to each 2009 Philadelphia Eagles game, but they were very bulky and I did not see the purpose of adding them to all NFL pages. Could someone look into this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Definitely inappropriate. Delete on sight. – PeeJay 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Absolutely unnecessary and obtrusive. Remove any without prejudice.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

New bot request

I have requested a bot that would go through various templates and replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) in certain parameters. Any other suggestions, approval or even disapproval would be appreciated. Also, if I missed any template, please add it to the list on the Bot request page. Thanks.—NMajdan•talk 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Do all infobox templetes need changed?

Do all infoboxes need to be changed to NFLactive? For example; does the infobox NFL Player need to be changed or not? Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

It would help, just don't change Template:Infobox Gridiron football person to NFLactive because WP:CFL uses it and the project has yet to accept NFLactive (the name may have something to do with it...)--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Thoughts on a strange category just created?

this Enigma^msg 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally dont like it--Yankees10 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

It seems kind of pointless. ~Richmond96 t • c 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Sonny Shackelford

What's your opinion on players of the United Football League, like Shackelford who otherwise fails WP:ATHLETE, and as far as I could see didn't really play on that league neither. Secret ^account 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

The UFL is a professional league, so yeah he is notable. If you see here he did play.--Yankees10 01:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Merger

Anybody willing to merge 4th and 2 into Colts-Patriots rivalry?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Switchover all Infobox NFLretired to Infobox NFLactive

Do all of the NFLretired infoboxes need to be changed to NFLactive infobox? I want to make sure. Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Yea. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check Bob Griese to see if I changed it right. Please tell me what to change or fix so I will know in the future. Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Just some minor things, but overall very nice switch.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reply! I will now start changing others now. Southwood Paul (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for being willing to do this. Giants and I were the only ones who have done this. At the rate we were going, we weren't going to finish switching them over until 2013 or so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to be a bother, but I have a quick question. On the article Otto Graham how should his two numbers be formatted? Right now it just has a comma inbetween his two numbers. Thanks Again! Southwood Paul (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

I've replied on your talk page.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Do we use the same format for a coach? Southwood Paul (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes except if they didn't play then no number and you replace the former teams field with former coaching jobs.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Woah, hold on there. Why are we changing all the infoboxes to active? This makes no sense to me. Wizardman 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

The Infoboxes are being changed to nflactive now becuase the infomation will work in this template. I got this off of the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League poject list. I asked a few questions and user:Giants27 and user:Eagles247 confirmed the switch. If you have any questions you should ask them.

P.S. If you converted any back please put it back to nflactive. Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Where is something about John Matuszak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.47.147 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Why? I just realized today that the infoboxes getting changed. So what's up with that? Who decided that this should be done? Actually I don't think it's a good idea that infoboxes of former NFL players who are now coaches get changed to "NFLactive". I also saw that the infobox of former 49ers HC Bill Walsh (a coach who never played in the NFL) was changed to "NFLactive" . "Height", "Weight" and "Last played" don't make any sense for a coaches infobox. There is the "Infobox NFL player coach" around. Don't get why those have to be changed to "NFLactive" too. Could someone enlighten me please? (Armchair QB (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

It's being done to unify all the infoboxes. Admittedly the NFLactive name is poor now but until we can get consensus on the name then it'll be that. Plus, the coaching years field allows for the move of coaches to this infobox. And to put it honestly switching infoboxes is a pain, for example a player retires so: Change #1, NFLactive → NFLretired, he then goes into coaching so: Change #2, NFLretired → NFL player coach. Takes to much work as little as you may think it is when the infoboxes can just be combined into one.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree though that the Height and Weight shouldn't automatically appear on the infobox even when it is not added, especially for coaches. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Follow-up, I've added a coaching debut and final year field (see Bill Walsh (American football coach) as an example for it). Also on the height/weight thing for coaches, I agree but I'm not completely sure how to make that change to make it removable. However User:DoubleBlue may know, so you may want to drop him a line.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Alright. And also, would the debut have to be as a head coach or can it be an assistant coach? Because there are numerous assistant coach pages out there who have never been head coaches. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

The wording I used is neutral for either assistants or head coaches, so either way.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't Bill Walsh have debuted in 1966 then? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, if "switching infoboxes is a pain" it's not exactly comprehensible why you are now trying to switch all the infoxboxes which have been created before, may it be "NFL player coach" or "NFL retired". Honestly said that statement doesn't make much sense to me. But anyway, I don't have a problem with the name "NFLactive". Nor do I have much problems with the idea of switching the boxes of retired players (who are no longer involved in football). I just think that this infobox isn't exactly adequate for coaches. So do I get that right that you also plan to change all the infoboxes of current or former NFL head and assistant coaches (even those who haven't been NFL players) too? Honestly said I'm not in favor of that. Actually I would prefer that for coaches the "NFL player coach" infobox would be kept or that the "Infobox Gridiron football person" would be used. Just trying to voice my opinion on that matter. And just again the question: Was the idea of switching the infoboxes discussed somewhere before? (Armchair QB (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC))

Yes, it was discussed on my talk page (in August I believe) along with the talk page of the template itself.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

We have a new issue. See Vince Lombardi. He never played in the NFL, and it says "No regular season or postseason appearances" right before his coaching debut stuff. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

All-American in infobox

I tried to get some opinions at WP:CFB, but no one has responded to a stylistic disagreement among the editors of Brandon Graham about how to discribe his All-American Status in his infobox. The disagreement is between whether it should say

"All-American (1st-team: Rivals, Scout; 2nd-team: WCFF, TSN, AP, SI, CFN)" or

"First-team All-American"

I assume you NFL guys know the that NCAA only recognizes certain A-A list which it uses to describe who was A-A, consensus A-A (at least half these lists) and unanimous A-A (all these lists). According to the five lists that are recognized by the NCAA Graham is a consensus second team All-American with no first team recognition among any of the five that count. His only first team recognitions are by "unofficial" lists that do not count towards consensus or unanimous AA status. I feel it provides disinformation to the reader to describe a consensus second team player with no official first team recognition as "First-team All-American". Opinions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Template NFL navbox

What is the purpose of {{NFL navbox}}? Compared to {{navbox}} it has zero additional features, plus it does not have a "titlestyle" parameter which means {{NFLPrimaryColor}} et al. can't be implemented. IMHO we should delete this template. And with {{CFB navbox}} it's just the same. --bender235 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, it's pretty useless.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

This edit explains why I/we created CFB navbox (colors!). At the time, colorizing the vde links was quite a chore. If the navbox now has all the features of the CFB, then sure, incorporate it. MECU≈talk 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Playoff appearances

Should every team's list of playoff years indicate the current year if they clinched a playoff berth, even though they haven't physically been in the playoffs yet? (Example) Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I think its fine. ~Richmond96 t • c 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Mac vs. Mc

How should we list players names in roster templates by the DEFAULTSORT way that lists Mc's like Mac's (McCargo before Maybin in the Bills template) or the alpha way which is used already?

What is with Chris? Mac comes from Scotland/Ireland meaning of son. Mc is an contraction of Mac, some say the difference between Protestant and Catholic in Great Britian. But that was hundreds of years ago and people whoes names begin with an Mc are pronounced; McDonald, McGee, McCargo, etc. Not; MacDonald, MacGee, MacCargo, etc. If they wanted to be pronounced with an a then their would be one in their names, since names/pronounications change over the centuries (Some names are still pronounced with an a like, McElrath, even though having no a). But, I don't know what Chris is talking about alpha wise since Mc is a contraction of Mac (and it is by a player by player basis). What I am saying is that they should be listed alpha wise in terms of the alphabet, not by pronounications/contractions. Ositadinma 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris is saying that is how wikipedia works with DEFAULTSORT, which is true, but these players names are on the templates not in categories. Ositadinma 20:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree; DEFAULTSORT is something different. Pats1 ^T/C 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Take it to WT:NFL so there can be consensus although I think that going the DEFAULTSORT way is best since mostly the "Mc"s come before the "Ma.."s.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

If it is how Wikipedia sorts people's names for categories, why would we not sort names that way anywhere else here? Consistency makes the most sense.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, but most people don't know that Mc is short for Mac, and not alphabetized the right way on the templates, besides it been the way it's always been sorting by alphabet on the templates; not contractions in WP until you brought up Richmond McGee and Pats1 told you about the Bears and Bills. Ositadinma 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Not having done it until now (because none of us noticed/knew better) is not reason to avoid doing it correctly now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

All this over a punter... Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you people can do whatever you want, since you make the rules Ositadinma 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Timing of Game

Is there a section and/or page listing the various rules regarding when the game-clock stops or continues during an NFL game? I am looking for something detailed which includes: rushing plays, completed passes, incomplete passes, players running out-of-bounds, injuries, sacks, team time-outs, penalties, false starts after a play where the clock does not stop, measuring for a first-down, first play of the 2nd or 4th quarter. Some of these are obvious and known to almost all, but for some I am not so sure.Juve2000 (talk) 02:09, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if this page has all you're looking for, but have a look here. – PeeJay 09:45, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

NFL color templates

During the last couple of days, I spent quiet some time implementing the NFL color templates—{{NFLPrimaryColor}}, {{NFLSecondaryColor}}, {{NFLAltPrimaryColor}}, and {{NFLAltSecondaryColor}}—on several NFL roster navboxes. However, User:Ositadinma reverted most of that changes. My question is: was it correct to implement those templates? --bender235 (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Update: It turned out that User:Ositadinma only edited those navboxes because User:Chrisjnelson reverted my changes on those color templates. I switched a couple of team colors to actually have alternative colors for some teams that previously had identical colors on the main color template and the alternative color template. Yet the question remains the same: do we implement those color templates to all navboxes and other templates relating to NFL teams (even if, in some cases, main colors and alt colors are identical)? --bender235 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, some teams like the Colts and Jets only have one color as a primary (blue/green) and white as a secondary color. If and only if, all of the colors on the four color templates are right can we implement them, if they are wrong then no. Ositadinma 20:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I don't get it. If those colors are wrong, we should correct them on those templates. Why shouldn't we? --bender235 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying that if the colors are wrong on the color templates and not changed and implemented on a template were the maneul web colors are right, then we should not implement them. In the end all that matters are that the colors are right, weather by the color templates or manuel web colors. Ositadinma 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

So, in the end those colors template just should have the right colors. Because it doesn't make sense to have all those team templates (whether be roster navboxes or something else) that have their colors adjusted manually. --bender235 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the colors don't look good. You have the Ravens with black background/gold text secondary scheme. Both technically team colors, yes, but it doesn't look good in the template with the primary color scheme. Some teams just look better with only one scheme, which is why the secondary scheme matches the primary scheme in some cases.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, who decides which color schemes "look good" and which don't? Because I'm wondering why black/gold looks good in Steelers templates, but apparently doesn't look good in Ravens templates. --bender235 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

The first criterion for what "looks good" ideally should be as per WP:COLOR: color combinations should have adequate contrasts so the text can be readable against whatever background it is printed on. Unfortunately, I do not see those general readability and accessibility rules practiced on a regular basis regarding these templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I decide. And it looks good in a Steelers template because THOSE are their colors. Black is very much a minor color in the Ravens scheme and looks too "Steelers-ish" in their infobox.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, you decide? I guess you must have applied for ownership of those color templates. Anyway, I've got a compromise in mind. How about adding a feature to {{Infobox NFLactive}} that for some teams (like Colts, Packers, Jets, ...) it does not use the colors in {{NFLAltPrimaryColor}} and {{NFLAltSecondaryColor}} at all, allowing us to leave different colors in there and implement those templates to roster navboxes and others. --bender235 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Better idea - don't change anything. Man, glad we solved that one.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Seriously, who put you in charge of this? You do not own these templates. As a matter of fact, those main color templates and alt color templates should have different colors, in order to implement them effectively in navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I personally didn't mind the changes except for the Ravens. They should stay with "purple" (or whatever they call it) with gold because the infobox coloring are for team identification and could look good as well. So, having both Pittsburgh and Baltimore with the same color scheme is problematic. On the other hand, the Lions and Raiders looked okay while I didn't get a chance to see what the Redskins, 49ers etc. looked like but they do sound strange. Implementing the change is okay with me but if we don't then that's fine as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In the recent changes, Baltimore and Pittsburgh do not have the same color scheme. Black/Gold is only used as Baltimore's alternative color, the main color scheme is sill purple/gold. --bender235 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. If that's the case then I'm perfectly okay with the change considering it isn't the same as Pittsburgh's.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Bender235, why not put a 1px border around the roster boxes using the seoncdary color? Do one here soo we can see how it looks. Most teams have 3 colors anyway, with white being the color of their numbers. Look at the retired number infoboxes to get an idea of what I mean.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. --bender235 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

See the above thread.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, okay. But actually I was talking about the {{Infobox NFLactive}}, not the roster navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Acutally, the roster boxes and the {{Infobox NFLactive}} could use the three colors like the retired boxes in the thread above. There are only 32 teams so there is no reason that it is too much work . . . I think the primary color with a 1px or 2px border would show the colors properly. The Ravens would be purple with a black border and so on/Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Some of the combinations just look like crap. The Raiders' secondary scheme looks too close to the free agent/retired colors. The Ravens' secondary scheme doesn't look like Ravens colors because black isn't major color of the team (except when they wear the black jerseys occasionally). There was just no need to fuck with the colors, and I'll keep reverting.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That Raiders scheme does not look like the FA scheme, because there still is the main color scheme above it. As for the Ravens, their team colors (see Baltimore Ravens) are purple, black, gold and white (not to mention they're wearing black helmets). Anyway, neither you nor me should decide whether we use this colors, but the members of this WikiProject. --bender235 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Well no one has had a problem until you came along, so it makes the most sense for it to stay how it's been until you can get people to change their minds.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

I guess you people can do whatever you want, since you make the rules Ositadinma 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Actually no. Just because you initially made these color schemes does not mean they're set in stone. --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Chrisjnelson, please consider my suggestion from above. We could add a little feature to {{Infobox NFLactive}} that decides for what team it should use main and alt colors, or only main colors. You could name those teams right here, if you want, and I'll work to implement this feature. --bender235 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

In fact, I just programmed that feature. So feel free to decided which teams should use alt colors and which don't on {{NFLusealtColor}} (just delete the Alt for those teams that shouldn't). I hope we have this dispute is settled now. --bender235 (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Accessibility dispute

@Zzyzx11: Could you please name the color combinations that fail WP:COLORS? --bender235 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I haven't been keeping up with this discussion. You can use some of the online tools listed like AccessColor to test readibility. The main ones that had major failure problems were the Panthers and Saints colors (which have now been fixed). Some like Browns, Steelers, Bengals, Eagles, Ravens still get a warning that they are a bit under the web standard recommended limit, but so does the average Wikipedia navbox. 18:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Alternate color scheme poll

  Saints Main Color Scheme    Saints Alternate Color Scheme      Panthers Main Color Scheme    Panthers Alternate Color Scheme  

I'm looking to collect some opinions on whether we should use the alternate color schemes on {{Infobox NFLactive}} for Saints and Panthers players. Right now it's basically User:Chrisjnelson he decides on his own and brooks no dissent, which is why I'm asking fellow members of this WikiProject to pass a remark on this. Right now neither team's infoboxes use the alternate color scheme (see Drew Brees, Julius Peppers). --bender235 (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

If the Saints ALT was black text and gold background then I'd support but the way it stands, I don't like it. The Panthers on the other hand look okay to me.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

But the Saints do have three team colors (Black, old gold, white), don't they? I think old gold/white looks good and passes WP:COLORS in my eyes.

I like the old gold/white. Still, a black 1px border would make it ideal.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 23:21, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

  Like this?   --bender235 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, exactly. That is sharp, shows a teams' colors and is easy to read.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Another topic: I intended to change the Broncos main color scheme from  this  to  this  to make it more distinguishable from  the Bills ,  the Colts ,  the Giants , and  the Patriots . Opinions? --bender235 (talk) 20:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

It kind of hurts my eyes to look at it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

There was a discussion on Template talk:Infobox NFLactive (it might still be there, if not check the archives) in which it was determined that the Broncos and Bears colors needed more contrast thus they were changed.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay. I didn't know that. --bender235 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In my opinion, the Panthers colors are extremely hard to read the way they are. (See: Template:Carolina Panthers). ~Richmond96 t • c 00:21, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

But those are their team colors. Do you have any other combination of       and   in mind that would pass WP:COLORS? Maybe something with a border,   like this?   --bender235 (talk) 16:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think that would work. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:07, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, like that. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:37, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I'm not quite sure how to implement that in CSS to make it work on both infoboxes and navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Statweek

Simple question: should we use the statweek parameter of the {{Infobox NFLactive}} to give a more accurate "as-of-date" for in-season stats, or shouldn't we? --bender235 (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't because it's simply unnecessary. I remember I asked around when putting together the infobox (don't remember where, if I do I'll post a link here) and there wasn't consensus to keep it in since we couldn't figure out how to make it work. However, it's more or less just extra code that doesn't add anything truly valuable to the reader. If it's main use is to have a accurate "as-of-"date" feeling then that's surely unlikely considering not every player article is updated weekly and Wikipedia is not a statistical site. Do the stats serve a purpose? Yes, of course. Do they need to have the notice that they haven't been updated for the past week? No, that's what the NFL.com link is for.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:11, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, those player articles don't get updated weekly, but nonetheless we should denote the "up-to-dateness" of stats, just like we denote links with a "Retrieved on [date]". --bender235 (talk) 01:15, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bender. All stats for active players should be marked with an "as of" date. Otherwise you get stat zealots adding +1 to appearances stats even though someone's already done it or not done it for some time. If we are to keep stats accurate, we need to know when the last time they were updated was. – PeeJay 01:35, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

It's useless. There's no reason to have it. Just look up the stats - if they're outdated, update them.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:28, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

To my knowledge, only offensive lineman have appearance stats so that's not really the point considering the NFL.com link right below it is up to date.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:46, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I was only using appearances as an example of a stat that might need updating. Anyway, Wikipedia isn't just here for its editors; it's a valuable reference tool for other readers too, so if they see stats without an "as of" date, they're going to assume that they're accurate as of today's date and inaccurate information will disseminate throughout the internet. – PeeJay 10:02, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

I second that. --bender235 (talk) 12:14, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Pro Bowl player list

Is there really no list of Pro Bowl players anywhere? Surprising. It could be sortable by team and position, etc., etc. Wknight94 ^talk 15:55, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If you mean a list page that includes every Pro Bowl player since the first Pro Bowl was played, then I'm not surprised since it is a major, major task – and nobody has bother to work on it yet. In fact, most of the Pro Bowl articles from 1951 Pro Bowl to 1994 Pro Bowl currently do not have their respective player rosters posted either. Therefore, in the words of {{Uw-sofixit}}, feel free to make those changes. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 18:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Is http://www.pro-football-reference.com/ considered a reliable source? Wknight94 ^talk 02:49, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not official, but they get their infor from the NFL official encyclopedia, there may be errors . . . but I think it is reliable.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Category:Los Angeles Raiders seasons

Why does this category exist? Surely, since the LA Raiders was just a temporary name for the Oakland Raiders, all of the articles in Category:Los Angeles Raiders seasons should be moved to Category:Oakland Raiders seasons? – PeeJay 18:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

As an addendum, shouldn't Category:Cleveland Rams seasons, Category:Los Angeles Rams seasons and Category:St. Louis Rams seasons all be merged too for the same reason? – PeeJay 18:59, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

National Football League Comeback Player of the Year Award

Tom Brady

Is there a way to keep people from putting Tom Brady as this award winner. PFWA awards come out in a week or week and a half. We don't know if Brady won this award. Tom Brady did not win the PFWA Comeback Player of the Year, he won the AP Comeback player of the year. The one that is listed here is the PFWA Comeback player of the year . . . it's two different awards with the same name. I know it is confusing, but the PFWA award comes out in a couple of weeks, Brady may win it, and be the winner of both . . . but's let's not put him on the list until we are sure he wins it, okay?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

retired numbers

I'd like to make a suggestion that the navboxes for retired numbers for NFL teams have a 2px border in the team second dary color to mimic the jersey of the team.

examples:

As people can see the way with white lettering (if a team uses white numberals better matches the look of the team, is easier reading. I was told that the retired numebrs are meant to match the current roster boxes of the teams, I see no need for such a restraint, but I wanted to show a few examples of how this looks better.

I realize it is a small thing and whatever the consensus wants is fine. I think these boxes are different in that not every team retires numbers and the borders on Nav boxes add a little something to the display without being too busy.

Look at the examples above, the purple backgroud with yellow letters is dull, mundate and is not the mark or character of a vikigns jersey. It's just a simple remdention of the team colors. If the technology exists to look a little cleaner, sharper, then I am in favor of doing it. It makes the wiki NFL stuff look more professional to average readers, rather than just the editors. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I like how they were before because I dont understand why should they be any different from the roster templates.--Yankees10 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I like the new way because there is no reason they have to be the same as the roster templates. There are no rules. Roster templates are for rosters, these are for guys who have retired numbers. Different templates for differant uses. The only time people see the roster templates is when they are on the team page. When they see the retired number tempaltes they are looking at a player article. These look sharper, more colorful and yet are not busy. I think they look cool.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree that they look cool, however they may be a little too distracting as a template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

ANother idea, 1 px border rather than two. I like toe 2px border, it captures the color and looks sharp, but for those who think it may be a bit too busy here is what 1 px looks like:

I agree that they may be too distracting, but if absolutely necessary, then the one above my comment looks fine.--Truco ₅₀₃ 21:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The 1px looks good. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I quite like the 2px borders, and given the choice I would support a change to the template to include them. However, if the consensus is that 2px borders are distracting, I would happily defer to the group judgement. – PeeJay 02:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I also like the 2px borders best. could this be used for other NFL team related templates? ~Richmond96 t • c 03:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

It should be 2px, but if nothing else then 1px. It looks much better and is not too distracting. What is distracting is the old look. I vote for the changeMcDanny74 (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it could. That way, both primary and secondary colors could be used on roster templates. It is easy to add a border of the secondary colorBigmaninthebox (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

My preference is the 2px. Very nice in my opinionRussFrancisTE81 (talk) 02:35, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Can someone go ahead and apply the 2px border to the template titles now? Surely the above discussion counts as a consensus. – PeeJay 02:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll make corrections per consensus here.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:22, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Out of interest, would there perhaps be consensus to apply a 2px border to the titlebars of all NFL navboxes? Seems strange having just one type of navbox having the border, when we could apply it to roster, season, head coach, first round draft pick, and starting quarterback templates too, don't you think? – PeeJay 11:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree they should all have them, that was the whole reason to why I disagreed with the change at the beginning. The roster templates should have them too.--Yankees10 17:00, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, well just to show you all how it looks, I've changed every Minnesota Vikings template (with the exception of the roster and staff templates) to use a 2px border around the title bar. Check them out at Category:Minnesota Vikings templates. – PeeJay 18:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Those look great to me. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

1976 Tampa Bay Buccaneers

I have changed this navbox to the 1976 colors, looking for input. Looks good, and reflects the inagural season better that the 1997 colors. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

That looks good. ~Richmond96 t • c 01:35, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Gaines Adams

Resolved

can anyone keep an eye on Gaines Adams? Some reports of his death, but haven't seen any RS confirmations. May be worth keeping an eye or two on. StarM 16:34, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

It's confirmed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, ESPN just got it. Took my above forever to post with server lag and other issues. Came back to strike and saw your comment. Resolved for now. StarM 16:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the WP 1.0 assessment system. On Saturday, January 23, 2010, the WP 1.0 bot will be upgraded. Your project does not need to take any action, but the appearance of your project's summary table will change. The upgrade will make many new, optional features available to all WikiProjects. Additional information is available at the WP 1.0 project homepage. — Carl (CBM · talk) 03:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Updated nav boxes

I figured out how to integrate the 2px border into the roster and staff templates. Take a look and see what you think. Then, if you guys like it, perhaps the change should be rolled out across the entire league. – PeeJay 01:05, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

PeeJay, I started a new topic, so we can discuss. I like what you did. Again, I think the VIkings resoter thing looks better, but I am with Pats1 i nthat all the roster boxes need to be the same. But I like the border, but also try a 1px, too. Maybe you could post a few examples here for people to look at.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:36, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

Vote for either (A) the old way, (B) PeeJay2K3's way or (C) PeeJay2K3's way for all but the roster and staff templates:

• C I will go with B Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• C B - I've changed my vote to B. I think it is best to keep things consistent and now I actually think its looks better. I like it for navboxes, but not for the staff and roster templates. ~Richmond96 t • c 01:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

That could be a fair compromise. Nav boxes yes, roster and staff, no. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:55, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

• B - You could say I'm biased, but remember this wasn't my idea to begin with. Anyway, I believe that if these changes are to be implemented then they need to be across the entire pantheon of team templates, not just the navboxes; and I'm not just saying that for consistency's sake, I actually think the 2px border suits the roster and staff templates. – PeeJay 01:57, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• C B - I like it all around on all the boxes. It shows the colors well without looking cluttred. I vore for "B"-I will change for sake of consensus McDanny74 (talk) 21:16, 16 January 2010 (UTC)McDanny74 (talk) 07:53, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
• C B - with the possible exception of the roster and staff teplates as Richmond96 suggests. The new way is better for everthing else.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 23:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
• Comment - I still vote for C B, but it may not be a good idea to use that color scheme for every team. A good example would be the Jacksonville Jaguars, where the font color is white and the background is teal. I don't think either of the team's other colors, black or gold, would look good on a border. Also, what about teams that only have two colors like the Steelers, Raiders or Colts? ~Richmond96 t • c 02:47, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I'ts not a problem. The Steelers have white in their scheme, the numbers. The Colts for years had silver as a secondary color and the Raiders can use silver font with silver border, it's not a problem. The Jags would be teal, white font, with black border. that's that their jersey;s look like anyway, teal with back trim.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 23:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Could you show us an example of what the Jaguars templates would look like with a black or gold border? And for teams that only have two colours, I would suggest that the primary colour be used as the background, the secondary colour used as the border and the font colour should be the same as the numbers on the team jerseys. How does that sound? – PeeJay 09:50, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

• I like the design and would actually vote for C, but we somehow have to implement {{NFLAltPrimaryColor}} into this. --bender235 (talk) 03:28, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The Jaguars templates would look like this:

Black

Gold

Actually, the black looks pretty good, and it does match the team jerseys well. I also think for some teams, like the Steelers, it would be better to only use two colors:

As for using jersey letter colors for the border, what about the Steelers whose numbers are white? White just blends in. Also, I think silver does look good for the Colts. ~Richmond96 t • c 01:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think I may have made a typo earlier. I was actually suggesting that jersey letter colours be used for the font in the template title. Sorry about that. – PeeJay 19:36, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Consensus reached

Except for details or particulars, I think there is a consensus for 2x borders . . . if there is a particualr dispute as to specifics on a team, such as which color the font should be, we should go forward with changes as per consensus. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:15, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I've actually changed my mind, I think it would be best to go with the borders on all templates (B), but choice C still has the most votes. ~Richmond96 t • c 04:53, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's an example of the roster templates with and without borders:

Pittsburgh Steelers roster
Running Backs 38 Carey Davis FB 49 Sean McHugh FB/TE 34 Rashard Mendenhall 21 Mewelde Moore 39 Willie Parker 33 Isaac Redman 44 Frank Summers FB 28 Justin Vincent		Offensive Linemen 74 Willie Colon T 79 Trai Essex G/T 73 Ramon Foster G/T 62 Justin Hartwig C 66 Tony Hills T 68 Chris Kemoeatu G 64 Doug Legursky C 72 Darnell Stapleton G/C 78 Max Starks T 65 Kraig Urbik G		Linebackers 55 Patrick Bailey OLB 50 Rocky Boiman ILB -- Derrick Doggett ILB 51 James Farrior ILB 57 Keyaron Fox ILB 54 Andre Frazier OLB 92 James Harrison OLB 94 Lawrence Timmons ILB 53 Johnny Williams ILB 56 LaMarr Woodley OLB

Pittsburgh Steelers roster
Running Backs 38 Carey Davis FB 49 Sean McHugh FB/TE 34 Rashard Mendenhall 21 Mewelde Moore 39 Willie Parker 33 Isaac Redman 44 Frank Summers FB 28 Justin Vincent		Offensive Linemen 74 Willie Colon T 79 Trai Essex G/T 73 Ramon Foster G/T 62 Justin Hartwig C 66 Tony Hills T 68 Chris Kemoeatu G 64 Doug Legursky C 72 Darnell Stapleton G/C 78 Max Starks T 65 Kraig Urbik G		Linebackers 55 Patrick Bailey OLB 50 Rocky Boiman ILB -- Derrick Doggett ILB 51 James Farrior ILB 57 Keyaron Fox ILB 54 Andre Frazier OLB 92 James Harrison OLB 94 Lawrence Timmons ILB 53 Johnny Williams ILB 56 LaMarr Woodley OLB

After seeing them side-by-side, I feel that the border looks best. What do you guys think? ~Richmond96 t • c 05:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it's either "B" or "C" for sure. I think anything but "A". Some of the "C"s were actually "B"s anyway. I am easy. I could go with eitherBigmaninthebox (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

So can we add the border to the roster templates or not? I keep adding them but they get changed back. ~Richmond96 t • c 16:56, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If you have a consensus for it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:57, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Ok, well two people voted for all templates except roster and staff and three people voted for adding borders to all templates. I guess this counts as a consensus? ~Richmond96 t • c 17:05, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

We might as well add the border to all NFL team templates for consistency. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:45, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Do not start implementing this until you notify active editors in the project of this discussion considering all those who !voted are either new or not active in the areas where this change will become effective. Personally, I think only navboxes should have this not the roster templates since there's no use for the border there. Consistency is also not why we do things so please don't start it.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

If there's no use for the border on the staff and roster templates, how is there use for them anywhere? I don't see anything wrong with it, it looks good, it shows off team colors well, and its consistent. Why not add them? ~Richmond96 t • c 18:03, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I think there is no question borders look better, but hopefully we can get a consensus. With all the varying options, it has gotten confusing. I vote for borders for everything. I think it looks best. I think that is what is called in the original vote "B" so I think A = no changes B = use borders for all NFL templates and navboxes and C = use borders for everything but coaches/staff and rosters. I think all active editors should take the time to look at vote so a consensus can be reached. I vote "B"Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:57, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

If I get it, I vote for the choice that uses borders in everything. B is my prefered way of doing itRussFrancisTE81 (talk) 06:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I wish to vote B how many times are we going to vote?McDanny74 (talk) 13:03, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. The popular vote is definitely B but that doesn't seem to matter to some users. ~Richmond96 t • c 15:46, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Well if "some users" continue to disregard this consensus, we should first direct them to this discussion and encourage them to contribute to it. If they refuse to do that, then they should be reported for disruptive behaviour. – PeeJay 20:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, there has been ample time and the consensus, for those who chose to contribute, is the B-option. Use Borders for everything. So far, no one has voted against it. So, if consensus driven changes are reverted then it is disruptive behavior., roght> So, go ahead and start the changes. It's a consensus to use borders for everything.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 21:45, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not that the vote doesn't matter, it's just that it didn't originally apply to roster templates because that was not what was brought up. It applies no more to NFL roster templates than it does to MLB templates. You voted on one thing - navboxes - and roster templates don't fall into that category.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:12, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Right, but then we added the option to add borders to everything, and that option received the most votes. ~Richmond96 t • c 22:00, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Navboxes collapse and in my opinion drawing some attention to one at the end is fine, but the purpose of the roster/staff templates is to present info, not look pretty.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:07, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, looking at the !votes it appears as though C has the most users backing it, which unless I'm wrong is against borders for roster/staff templates.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:09, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

No, the purpose of roster/staff templates is not to look pretty, but what is wrong with making them look nice? I just don't see any reason not to add them. Also, B does have the most votes. Everyone is okay with it except one user, so I say we start making the changes. ~Richmond96 t • c 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I see three C's vs. four B's so I wouldn't call that clear cut consensus. Slow down, let the discussion be known to WP:NFL members. This change doesn't have to be made today.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:34, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

No, it's six Bs and two Cs (counting you as a C). You have to read carefully, many users changed their votes and a few listed their vote in two different places. ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:42, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the table, with so many switches it was quite confusing. Feel free to add the changes.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 01:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Alright, so is it safe to say that a consensus has finally been reached? ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:40, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

I think so. Not sure what else needs to be done. Looks like a consensus.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:37, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Question: Are we using the color templates or the actual hex? I've seen both so far. Pats1 ^T/C 02:16, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I think using the colour templates would be a better idea as that would make it easier to make corrections if a franchise changes its colours. I would have used the templates, but I wasn't quite sure how they worked. – PeeJay 21:55, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I use the hex because it is easier, but either way is fine, I don't know exactly how to do it with the templates, either.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I also think the hex is easier to deal with because it is simpler. I don't think it really matters, does it?~ Richmond96 t • c 00:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Votes

A - No changes. B - Borders on all navboxes and roster/staff templates. C - Borders only on navboxes.

Vote	User
B	Bigmaninthebox
B	Richmond96
B	PeeJay
B	McDanny74
B	RussFrancisTE81
C	Bender235
B	Eagles 24/7
C	Giants27

Wrong page name? List of Superbowl head coaches

Has anyone ever seen List of Super Bowl head coaches? The name of the page seems odd to me. This is really just a list of Superbowl results, isn't it? Timneu22 (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems pretty pointless. Perhaps it could be changed to "List of Super Bowl Winning head coaches". ~ Richmond96 t • c 23:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

But what does it have to do with coaches at all? It lists the superbowl results with a number of columns; why is the "coach" column singled out? This doesn't make sense to me. Timneu22 (talk) 00:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

No, I mean change the name and rewrite the page. ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:36, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

TOC for season pages

I was looking at the season pages for many years, and each one has almost their own different style for the table of contents and how its organized. So I looked at the 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season GA and put a twist on it and added the style to 2009 Baltimore Ravens season and 2009 New Orleans Saints season. Opinions welcomed and hopefully we can come up with a consensus on a TOC format. --Truco ₅₀₃ 04:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the format, but I think adding a TOC limit makes it look nicer. (See 2009 Jacksonville Jaguars season) ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How about limiting the game summaries instead? Is there a way we could like make the summaries not appear in the TOC?--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't think so. ~ Richmond96 t • c 19:44, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

How about coming up with a way to make the game summaries not appear in the TOC, such as instead of using headers we just bold the titles? So under the main header of game summaries we have the summaries of all the games under bold versus headers?--Truco ₅₀₃ 03:18, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean like this? Week 17 vs. Cleveland Browns I don't like that. What's wrong with a TOC limit?~ Richmond96 t • c 23:26, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

I like it how they are now with the TOC limit on game summaries, see the above pages now. IDK who changed it though.--Truco ₅₀₃ 00:38, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

You mean on the Saints and Ravens 2009 season pages? That was me. – PeeJay 01:26, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, thank you that looks much more organized and less clustered.--Truco ₅₀₃ 01:43, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

No problem, buddy. – PeeJay 01:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yep, that is done by adding {{TOClimit|3}}. Looks good. ~ Richmond96 t • c 01:48, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Improvement suggestions for All-Pro articles

I've made some suggestions for changes to the All-Pro articles (e.g. 2009 All-Pro Team). I'd love to get some input as to the merit of my proposals, which are at Talk:2009 All-Pro Team. Thanks! — Deejayk (talk) 18:05, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Philadelphia Eagles Starting Quarterbacks

It has been bothering me beyond belief that the template for starting quarterbacks was incomplete only missing the Philadelphia Eagles. So I went ahead and broke down and created the LAST Starting quarterback list needed for the Eagles today. You can see it here. This is the template I'm referring to: Template:NFLteamstartingquarterbacks
—ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 20:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice job with that list. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:51, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, I made the New York Giants one too, and I just couldn't believe how long its lasted with that one red link on the template for the Eagles. I just had to do it, the OCD in me was going crazy. —ASPENSTI—TALK—CONTRIBUTIONS 00:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Haha, if I ever saw this template (surprisingly haven't until now), I would have gone berserk too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:19, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Haloti Ngata, NT or DE?

User:Aleavitt18 and me had a little discussion about whether we should list Haloti Ngata as DE or NT. NFL.com lists him as DE, while Ravens.com says Nose Tackle. I always thought we use NFL.com as primary source, do we? --bender235 (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I think DT because thats what NFL.com and ESPN says DT. ~ Richmond96 t • c 18:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

According to Pro-football-reference, he's both. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Then, I think it would be best to list him as both. ~ Richmond96 t • c 18:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Template Infobox AFLRetired

First of all, I assume anything to do with the AFL goes here. If not, I apologize, but to my point: Template:Infobox AFLretired is set up such that if one who played in the AFL didn't retire until 1970 or later, it lists the final season as X AFL season, with X being the season. Is there a way to set it up in the template so that it will automatically go to X NFL season, or do we need to make a whole bunch of redirects? DandyDan2007 (talk) 11:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

History of the New York Giants at GAR

The article History of the New York Giants is undergoing a review as part of the good article sweeps project. The article does not seem to meet current requirements for a good article. It has been put on hold for a week; if these issues are addressed satisfactorily within that period the article will be kept as a GA, otherwise it will be delisted.

The editor who originally brought the article to GA-status is no longer active in the project. The changes requested should be relatively feasible, so if anyone here would like to take the job upon themselves, that would be highly appreciated. Lampman (talk) 15:09, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Your Opinion Is Needed

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports#NHL, NFL, NBA, MLB Infoboxes Beast from da East (talk) 22:48, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Problem with template

The template shows the hight as 5'9" but is there a reason we are using the 5'9". I've rarely, if ever seen it used in sports, On almost all roster going back to 1950s it would be seen as 5-9. The templatee may be technically correct, but this is football, noy science class. right?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:28, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Fixed as per consensus Above.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Reassess

Could someone look over the Hakim Akbar article and give it a fair assessment? I think it's better than a start class, but I creted it and did most of the work, so I'm not a good one to judge. Thanks, Crash Underride 07:18, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I took a look at it and re-rated it as C-class. The article needs references in the early years and college career which is keeping it from being a B.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

TEMPLATE NEEDED: Pre-draft measurables

Summary: added Template:nfl predraft

I was on the Reggie Bush page today, and noticed a grid (with an error) that was a custom-built grid for that page. Then I went to a couple more player pages (Vince Young) and I saw the same grid (with the same error!). How common is this grid? If it is used on more than 5 pages — which seems quite likely — this thing needs to be turned into a template.

I suggest someone request a bot that will intelligently determine how many pages have this custom grid, then someone move it appropriately to a template and update all the offending pages. There is no reason for that grid to exist multiple times. Timneu22 (talk) 12:24, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I created a sample template that you could use: user:timneu22/test. Timneu22 (talk) 12:33, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I have also noticed dozens of pages with that grid and they all have the same error. ~ Richmond96 t • c 15:51, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

I like the template you created, Timneu, except that those asterisks are for indicating where, exactly, the measurements took place, for example the NFL Combine, Pro Days, etc., so they should be removed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:22, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Pre-draft measureables
Height	Weight	40-yard dash	10-yard split	20-yard split	20 ss	3-cone	Vert	Broad	BP	Wonderlic
5-9⅛*	205*	4.50**	1.50	2.58	3.89**	6.66**	34″	9′07″	23*	17*
* represents NFL Combine **represents Michigan State Pro Day
"X" Denotes "No Data" or "Did Not Participate"

How is this one?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:10, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I made some minor fixes. We definitely need such a template. But we have to discuss what height/length format we use: 5-9⅛ or 5′9⅛″ or 5 ft 9.5 in (we use the latter in the {{Infobox NFLactive}}). --bender235 (talk) 02:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my view, but since the NFL combine and school Pro Days use ⅛, ⅝, ⅜ and so forth I think we should too, for the NFL draft part, not the {{Infobox NFLactive}}). Since the draft info comes from a source, often NFLdraftscout.com or CBSDraft or whatever, they use feet and inches and eighths, since we are sourcing it we should be true to the source, I think. The infox in the upper right, the source is the official NFL rosters and they don't use eighths, so that should stay the same.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:58, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

That template looks really great. ~ Richmond96 t • c 03:25, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@Bigmaninthebox: Okay, I agree. So do we use 5-9⅛ or 5′9⅛″ now? I'd say the latter since we use that for the broad jump value as well. --bender235 (talk) 12:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Right now it is 6-1½, and that is only because, for good or for bad, that is how the NFL and NFL magazines have written it. In 50 years of reading I have never seen this: 6'1-1/2" . . . I suggest we use what the source of our material uses, which is the - (dash) not the ' and " . But Others may have thoughts on it, too. But, my belief is that it is 6-1½ or 5-9⅝ or whatever. It is what NFL readers are used to. Kind of like a baseball batting "average" of .325 is really a batting "percentage" of 32.5%. One is the way things have been done, the other is notBigmaninthebox (talk) 00:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

@Eagles247... this was just a quick mock-up of how the template could be. I wasn't really paying attention to the asterisks (or why they were used). I'm glad you liked it. I hope you guys will implement something close to this very soon. It's awful to see full grids everywhere! Timneu22 (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Template created at template:nfl predraft. Clearly there are lots of parameters you may want to add (or remove). I just thought I'd put it up there as a starter. Have at it! Timneu22 (talk) 17:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Can we separate the height into heightft and heightin just like Template:Infobox NFLactive does? Just so we do not have to worry about the quotation marks and apostrophes when typing in the height. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:21, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I'll do that for you. (I don't really want to be maintaining the template, however.) It will be fixed in a couple minutes. Timneu22 (talk) 17:30, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

My underststanding was this was the discussion about hte use of ' and " for feet and inches. As was brought up, for decades and decades sports have used dashes. That's been the common use. 6-1 is for 6 feet 1 inch. If you look at NFl record and Fact book, college, pro, high school, baseball, basketball, they commonly don't use 6'1". I am sure there are exceptions, even now. But exceptions don't define the rule. My point is why would we want to go against what is common. The NFL and NFL project on wiki is to decide what is grammatically correct in a template or use other countries (if we want to be 100% correct then why not use metric system for heights and weights?. It's like baseball batting averaged. A guy who gets 3 hits in 10 at bats is not a 30% hitter, he is a .300 hitter and that is how it is printed. A quarterback who compeletes 6 of 10 passes shows as a 60.0 passer not a 60% passer in the record books. So, while the template is excellent I think the dash is appropriate. It is common usage and is backed up by more than 50 years of precedent. Just look at rosters from the 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s, and now the 2000s. Only on rare occasions will you see 6'1". You will overwhelmingly see 6-1. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:59, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

See NFL.com/Combine. They use primes, not dashes, because primes are correct, dashes are not. --bender235 (talk) 12:27, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Eagles247, didn't like my super-fast 40 times? ;-) 17:38, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Haha, I changed it to one of the fastest 40-times ever (Chris Johnson (running back). And thanks for fixing my spelling above. =) Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:44, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Now how will it work when we try to add those asteriks (* and **) to distinguish results from the NFL Combine and Pro Days? --bender235 (talk) 17:47, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

You'll just put something like 4.51* as the 40 time, and then the (currently poorly-named) "note" parameter could be: * Blah Combine. Timneu22 (talk) 18:07, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't like how the example would look right now. It should be how it was before, with asterisks after each result. Is there anyway to incorporate that into the template? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:36, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

@Timneu22: Haha. What about the height? Entering it the way you proposed would result in 6**′1**″. Obviously that doesn't work. --bender235 (talk) 19:53, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

(de-indent) I don't see why an asterisk is needed after every entry. It should be more consistent with "ref" tags on wikipedia, if anything. The way I did it now was specifically so your 6**1** example wouldn't occur. Timneu22 (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

The main thing is so that readers can know the information comes from different souces, how that is done, does not really matter. Sometimes a player will do all the drills at the combine except maybe 2 then he may do those at the Pro Day for his college . . . just soe the reader is informed, that's all. If there is a good way to do that . . . let's do it.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 00:50, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

That's the current version. Timneu22 (talk) 01:46, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks. 04:13, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Just checking, but as of the 24th we use dashes, not ' and ". Bigmaninthebox (talk) 00:16, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I updated Reggie Bush to include the new template. I think it works just fine. I really don't want to own this; do you think someone could request a bot to get this done? Timneu22 (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

A bot can't do this. Anyway, I don't think that description line below looks good. How about someone like Ryan Clady? Do we write "height/weight from combine, 40 and splits from Pro Day, Bench Press from Combine, blabla" or what? Doesn't look that good IMHO. And actually I liked that asterik thing. --bender235 (talk) 01:19, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

A bot could certainly do it, or at least get a list of pages where it needs to be done. It's just code; it can be done. Further, I edited Ryan Clady to show you how it is done. The asterisks were eyesores. Timneu22 (talk) 11:34, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

template:nfl predraft is now being used by all first-rounders in the 2009 and 2008 drafts, and possibly on other pages. I'm still awaiting the bot request to see if we can get a list of manually-created grids. I hope this helps. Timneu22 (talk) 12:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)