# Talk:Jayden Daniels

@Cramerwiki: What skin or browser are you using? Your edits make the images near a quarter of the size as the other ones for me, which you seemingly don't have issues with. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 02:29, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by skin. The images take up most of the screen at 500px however. They just need to be much smaller, otherwise they completely disrupt the formatting. The other images seem to be unaffected by 500px but with those two they show up massive. Cramerwiki (talk) 03:13, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
There are a few different type of skins that can be changed in your preferences, with some of them handling formatting in a different way. There must be something about the multi-image template that's showing the image way larger for you than others, as I don't believe anybody else has brought it up. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 04:17, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
No seriously. The images are huge at 500px. What size font do you use? Put it on small, the images will take up half the page, it is not something on my end. It looks like that for everyone since small is the default. Cramerwiki (talk) 04:25, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
It looked fine on my screen but I do use adjusted default image-size values (it's in the preferences menu) and a 130% browser zoom. If you are using all default settings though, then other users probably also saw it as too wide but didn't care or know enough to fix it themselves. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

This says he grew up in Cali and went to HS there, but at the top in the summary info it says he was born and went to high school in Iowa. Which is it? 2600:8803:105:6600:B037:C203:67C1:6849 (talk) 22:33, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

I see someone fixed it 👍🏻 2600:8803:105:6600:B037:C203:67C1:6849 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I fixed it. Someone was just vandalizing the post. 138.74.222.233 (talk) 23:16, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

This edit creates multiple style issues - two links positioned side-by-side that appear to be a single link, and a link that must be followed to be understood. The edit should either be reverted or an alternative proposed without these issues. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:00, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

Like I suggested before, this probably needs WP:NFL to be aware as the last discussion of this didn't go anywhere/wasn't enforced. It will continue to be an issue until we start doing it on other pages. I can handle the other Commander player/staff pages once we commit to it. — Dissident93 (talk) 00:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Not sure an additional discussion will be of benefit, but if you think so, by all means. But either way this article needs fixing. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:52, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Not so much another discussion but to bring awareness that the policy is being enforced. Daniels' article shouldn't be the only one we apply it towards, as that will just make drive-by editors think his article is the one formatted improperly and not the other way around. — Dissident93 (talk) 01:24, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I agree with you that this shouldn't be the only article fixed. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Related policy WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. —Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Writing issues take precedence over style issues. "[Subject] is a [sport] player who is a [specific position]" looks ridiculous. It is redundant and pointless to call an athlete a "player" and then specify their position. "[Subject] is a [sport] [specific position]" provides the same information more directly and in less words.
I don't like seeing two links next to each other either, but that does not mean we make the wording awkward and unnatural just to dance around any style issues. If there weren't any links, we wouldn't be having this debate about how the opening sentence should be written. I'd argue it would make more sense not to hyperlink the American football article, which is a more general subject that most people at least know of.
I'm sorry to come off as abrasive, but I'm frustrated by these awkward writing decisions being made just to accommodate Wikipedia's style. It is telling when the argument for calling Daniels "a football player who is a quarterback" instead of "a football quarterback" focuses solely on Wikipedia's style and not on what sounds natural. Bluerules (talk) 06:11, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Also, contrary to the assertion that my edit "created" a style issue, this article referred to Daniels as a "football quarterback", not a "football player who is a quarterback" when it was created more than six years ago. It said "football quarterback" for more than six years before Nikkimaria changed the wording. And despite the assertion that "football quarterback" should not be used, this article still achieved GA status with that wording in place. Bluerules (talk) 06:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
"is a football player who is a quarterback for [team]" sounds quite fine to me. I appreciate you disagree, but that's a matter of personal preference, not grammar or otherwise objective writing issues. And adding four words (or splitting the sentence, which you also reverted) to improve the article's clarity and accessibility is not in any way unreasonable. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:58, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The easiest way to fix this would be to just delink football (which is technically an WP:EASTEREGG link as it's not the only sport called that). The linked position already gives context to what sport: "...is an American professional football quarterback for..." The reason why this is even an issue is because we used to link American football, which was a messy way of combining nationality and sport that led to issues when American/Canadian players played outside of their country in the NFL/CFL: "...is a Canadian professional American football quarterback for...". — Dissident93 (talk) 16:48, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
technically an WP:EASTEREGG link: Not really per MOS:TIES.  Most would expect an American bio to be playing that football. Footy bios don't seem to refer to association footballers. —Bagumba (talk) 21:34, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
It's not just American football and association football. There's also Canadian football. And both American and Canadian football are forms of gridiron football. An American playing Canadian football or a Canadian playing American football could cause confusion with the links. And if the subject played both American and Canadian football, let alone had a notable career in both, what should be linked? Gridiron football would technically the correct choice, but that would confuse people who expect American football to be linked. Bluerules (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Both countries call it plain "football".  When either an Amer or Can play both forms, I pipe "football" to gridiron football. —Bagumba (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
And that's why I agree "football" should be used instead of "American football" or "Canadian football" in the lead. The problem is the WP:EGG issue caused by the "football" link being unclear, especially when the subject played both American and Canadian football. "Gridiron football" might be the correct link in those scenarios, but it's not the link all readers are going to expect, especially if they're only familiar with American football. Bluerules (talk) 04:00, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I dont buy that EGG is an issue when we have all those "footballers" w/o "association" qualifying it. —Bagumba (talk) 04:10, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Even if not, it adds additional maintenance for no reason. The positions in both sports are the same, so I don't think we need to note which code of North American football they last played in. "Warren Moon is an American former professional football quarterback..." covers the CFL and NFL and remains stable no matter what league they played in. — Dissident93 (talk) 20:40, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I think we're in agreement.  Americans and Canadians simply call it "football". —Bagumba (talk) 22:04, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah it's more of the rules being slightly different, but they are in college football too. If only the sport had went with gridiron as the preferred name to differentiate itself from other football codes, but alas. — Dissident93 (talk) 23:03, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
That's not the same thing. There is no overlap between association football and the other forms of football. There is overlap between gridiron football, American football, and Canadian football. That's why there's an EGG issue with the "football" link. "Gridiron football" may be the more appropriate link for a subject who played both American and Canadian football, but people unfamiliar with Canadian football would expect "American football" to be linked. And again, I'm not saying we spell out the form of football. I'm saying we should remove the link for football, especially when it becomes unclear which page is being linked. Bluerules (talk) 03:29, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
It is not a matter of personal preference. It is a fact calling the subject a "football player who is a quarterback" is redundant. It is fact calling the subject a "football quarterback" conveys the same information in less words. Using unnecessary words is an objective writing issue - four unnecessary words are still unnecessary words. And splitting the sentence also adds unnecessary words, as well as removing the subject's primary notability (playing in the NFL) for the onset. "Subject is a football [specific position] for the [team] of the National Football League" is the clearest and most straightforward way to demonstrate the importance of this subject. I don't like two links being next to each other either, but again, the priority should be making the wording sound natural.
I fully support Dissident93's proposal to delink football. That would allow for more natural wording while preventing two links from being next to each other. Bluerules (talk) 17:15, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
the priority should be making the wording sound natural. You are welcome to that opinion, just as you are welcome to the opinion that "is a football player who is a quarterback for [team]" is unnatural. But those are not facts. There are many factors that need to be considered in writing an international encyclopedia,  and accessibility is not less of a priority than what you think sounds good. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:40, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Again, it is a fact calling the subject a "football player who is a quarterback" is redundant. It is fact calling the subject a "football quarterback" conveys the same information in less words. When the writing is redundant and the writing has unnecessary words, that is objectively bad writing. Good writing is the priority. Accessibility is important, but if the writing is not good, readers will notice that before have any trouble accessing the article. Bluerules (talk) 23:27, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, this is just overcomplicating things for no real benefit. If the same thing can be said with fewer words and without losing any detail/clarity, then that should be the goal. — Dissident93 (talk) 20:37, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Agree with being concise. However, think of it from the perspective of a reader who is a non-football fan.  If "player", "coach", "official", etc. isn't mentioned, they might not readily know the role of a lineman vs linesman, quarterback vs offensive coordinator, middle linebacker vs defensive coordinator, back vs back judge, etc. Per MOS:NOFORCELINK: However, do not use links as a substitute for explanation; if a technical term can be simply explained in a few words, do so —Bagumba (talk) 22:02, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
I tend to write/format articles in a way that readers more unfamiliar with the topic can understand, so I don't see how listing sport then (linked) position could cause confusion. All other suggested formats have either made it less concise or split the sentence unnecessarily. — Dissident93 (talk) 22:59, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It's more about making it clearer than it being confusing.  Explicitly call a player a "player", a coach a "coach", etc.  A non-fan is likely unfamiliar with those positions.  If we look at an example like Michael Harris (offensive lineman, born 1966), the difference in wording would be like   The contention is over two words: "was a". —Bagumba (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Even if they are unfamiliar with the position, they still recognize the subject is a player who played a specific position. They understand it's still a position. And two unnecessary words are still two unnecessary words. If we can get the same information across in less words, regardless of how many words we're able to eliminate, that's the approach we want to take. Bluerules (talk) 05:13, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
I'm all for fixing sea of blue issues, but this seems like we're trying too hard to avoid it when we could just delink the sport. We've used this formatting (sans the recent addition of "professional") for years now without editors caring to fix it. 95%+ of NFL player articles retain the sea of blue issue currently, so are we just trying to use Daniel's article to establish a new standard via consensus here before apply it to other pages? — Dissident93 (talk) 17:32, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
for years: We've gotten rid of most American players being referred to as "former  Americans".  The use of two-letter state abbreviations in the middle of high school names is dwindling.  "U.S." is now in birthplaces despite oldtimers insisting it was obvious and unneeded. —Bagumba (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2025 (UTC)
That's what I was referring to, in case it wasn't clear. Agreed about U.S. — Dissident93 (talk) 00:23, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
So is everybody fine with delinking football? I want to be sure before I fix other pages. — Dissident93 (talk) 02:50, 2 November 2025 (UTC)
No. If someone didn't know the sport at a high level, it seems convoluted to make them click on a lower-level position like quarterback, just to get to a high-level link on gridiron football, not even the specific American football that he plays. —Bagumba (talk) 10:09, 3 November 2025 (UTC)
@Bagumba: And now at Josh Allen. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:52, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
It was almost yesterday when so many were opposed to piping American football to "football" per MOS:TIES, claiming everybody would be so confused. "Which football is it (e.g. association football)?"  After all that, it's just being unlinked? —Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
I know right. Just flip a coin at this point. The issue with unlinking football is that a reader has to click "quarterback", then click "gridiron football", then click "American football" in the second paragraph of the gridiron article to find out what sport these guys are playing (3 clicks total, when 1 should suffice) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:47, 20 November 2025 (UTC)
Because adding two extra words is so "awkward". —Bagumba (talk) 20:51, 20 November 2025 (UTC)