Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 6

message: I am not good at editing, but I have noticed that the San Diego Chargers page is lacking things that other team pages have.  Most notably the box that contained franchise information.  It used to have it, and now it is gone.  Could someone please fix this. thanks Seantpainter (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Diego Chargers page 

message: It's hard to tell the difference between a rookie and a normal player. The italics just blend in with the rest. I thought we decided that NFL Europe players were to be denoted, and not listed in a separate section because they do play the position and they are on the team.++aviper2k7++ 22:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks too cluttered with the rookie and NFL-E notations. Bjewiki 23:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is way too cluttered. Please see our discussions above. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 01:58, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rookies in italics is impossible to distinguish. The notations can be made smaller. It's cluttered to begin with.++aviper2k7++ 03:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The rookies in italics is subtle, but still noticeable, as it should be.  The crazy Rs and Es all over the page is just plain old distracting...check out Template:Philadelphia Eagles roster, it looks nice and clean. Bjewiki 03:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

text: The rookies in italics is perfectly easy to distinguish... There's no reason for it to stick out like a sore thumb. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 03:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the need to want to show who are rookies and who are not. I think we should just leave it as a listing of who are on the team and which position they play. After all, that is what a rooster is meant for. --Pinkkeith 15:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The NFL roster templates 

message: I've completely revised and rewritten Brady Quinn's article. It now includes sources: I sourced what I felt needed to be sourced; if I've over-sourced, please correct my mistakes. I feel that the article can now qualify as a WP:GA but I'm not sure it's quite there yet. Please let me know what you think. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 04:10, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is well cited and has a great layout, Wlmaltby3.  The lead may need to be expanded further and there is one statement that needs to be cited.  Overall, great job! RyguyMN 02:54, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brady Quinn 

message: Is the :Category:FA-Class National Football League articles just for featured articles or can featured lists also be added here because there isn't any category for featured lists? Gman124 22:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Featured lists are treated the same way as featured articles so they're just featured under the same category. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 03:49, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Shouldn't they be under the category :Category:FA-Class National Football League lists? Trevor GH5 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Category:FA-Class National Football League articles

message: Hello, I have noticed that 49ers' colors are a bit off. For example, Arnaz Battle's player page template on the right, the color looks like the Redskins color not the niners. I suggest we change the color to the one on Frank Gore. That would mean we change the color from #92000a to #C41E3A. Giantsrule 22:45, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, the color looks a little too dark.  Useight 16:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  San Francisco 49ers' colors 

message: I was browsing through the  template, when I realized that to does not cite any of its information (See WP:A, WP:Cite, WP:NOR). As far as I know, the team has not updated their depth chart from 2006. Additionally, is there really a point to listing a depth chart on a team's main page? Why not just leave it on their season-by-season articles. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk   05:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you on both points. I know the Rams depth chart is like that as well. In fact, the Rams really only have three strings of players. --Pinkkeith 15:06, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

text: *Support In case this is still a point of discussion, I think it's a great suggestion.  Personally, I think you are often going to run into problems with depth charts.  For example, What do you do when two qbs are used with a great deal of frequency?  Also, many depth charts are somewhat "inaccurate" as I know a handful of teams don't use identical terminalogy.  For example, I've seen many teams use Weak side C Gap – Weak side Defensive End, Weak side B Gap – WILL Linebacker, Weak side A Gap – Weak side Defensive Tackle, Strong side A Gap – MIKE Linebacker, etc... etc... Maybe not the most important of issues, but an issue nonetheless. Jmfangio 09:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Team Depth Charts

message: We currently have zero A class articles I just wanted to inform everyone that they can actually rate an article A class if they read the assessment scale and feel the article meets the criteria. A class is above GA class so please note that an article should probably be a GA before it gets rated A class. Quadzilla99 10:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please note that is the generic assessment scale, we don't currently have our own scale like many other projects do. Quadzilla99 11:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A couple of days ago I went through the list of A articles and removed every one of them. None of them passed GA, or even would come close to passing GA.++aviper2k7++ 23:32, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah the ones you rated weren't even close to A class, I was thinking more of some of the GAs we have that are close to A class like Lawrence Taylor, Oakland Raiders, Brett Favre, Rex Grossman, and any of the History of the New York Giants articles. Quadzilla99 01:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A class

message: I'm working on the 1986 New York Giants season article and can't find the coaching staff info anywhere. I looked through all my old football history books and the The New York Times online archives to no avail. Does anyone knows a source for old team coaching staffs online? I'd like to get the whole staff, I know several of them off the top of my head but need a full source. Thanks in advance. Quadzilla99 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was looking for a general source for this about a year ago, and haven't just now had any more luck looking specifically for info about the 86 Giants staff. It's probably the kind of thing you'll need to find in a book.  Do you have any names besides Parcells, Belichick and Crennel? One or two more might help the online search, especially, say, the name of that little-known assistant offensive line coach who was with the team for just the one season. ×Meegs 12:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Was Ron Erhardt with the team that year (I believe so)?  WAVY 10 21:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Question

message: Someone changed something that made it so that the "DatabaseFootball" links in player infoboxes say "ESPN" and send the user nowhere.  I don't know how to fix it.  Jwalte04 21:36, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: They are back to normal.  Jwalte04 22:17, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was an edit to the template  which caused the ESPN link to be live if the DatabaseFootball.com parameter had information. Fixed it fer ya. (No charge) —Twigboy 22:31, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Anyone else notice

message: I've converted Trade deadline from a redirect page to an article stub. I was really, really surprised that there was no article about this significant sports terminology. (The term had redirected to a disambiguation page concerning its purely commercial/financial sense.) However, knowing next to nothing about NFL I'm hoping others can help in expanding the article as regards trade deadlines in NFL, and also correct any errors I may have made in the term's definition etc.. Cheers, A bit iffy 15:39, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Trade deadline

message: Based on the new version of criterion #8 of Wikipedia:Non-free content criteria, there may be a problem with using certain logos on the  infoboxes. Using :Image:Logon.gif on 2007 Philadelphia Eagles season will probably be okay because it is the primary logo for that particular season. But using :Image:PhiladelphiaEagles 100.gif on 2006 Philadelphia Eagles season may not be because it is the general team logo, and not really the logo of the primary subject of that article. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 07:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. My interpretation is that fair use can apply to the specific season articles if the logo from that particular season is used. It's clear for a one-time anniversary logo, as the logo pertains to that season only. Could that not be expanded that in 1986, the Giants used their 1976–99 logo? Using the current logo on the 1986 season article would be purely decorative, as it would not pertain to that article. It is stretching the rationale a bit, but to me it still seems plausible.—Twigboy 18:32, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using logos with [[Template:Infobox NFL season]] 

message: Previously, there was a lot of talk about how cluttered the roster templates were becoming.  However, i think there's been a lot of good work put into making them look as good as they do now (see: List_of_current_NFL_team_rosters), especially by Chrisjnelson and Pats.  
But, I wanted to bring up one addition that I think is unecessary on the current rosters, and that's the listing of the Reserve/Retired list (i.e. where players are "officially" put when they retire so a team maintains their rights).  Is it really necessary for Antonio Freeman to be listed on the Template:Green_Bay_Packers_roster? Or Tiki Barber, who come this season will be working on the Today Show (or something) to be listed on the Template:New_York_Giants_roster?   Or how about Chad Schroeder of the Chargers, who I believe was signed as an undrafted rookie free agent, retired before ever playing a snap in the NFL, and is now listed on the Template:San_Diego_Chargers_roster reserve/retired list?  I'm really not sure there's any value added by having this list on the roster template.
My other concern is the Verifiability of these lists.  Sure, we know that Barber is on the Giants' list and Mike Bartrum is on the eagles list, because they just retired.  But, as far as I know, there's not a source that will easily let someone view the official Reserve/Retired lists of each team.  Also, i'm guessing there will be no good way of determining when a player is off of the Reserve/Retired list.  Do they stay there forever?  I'm not sure how that works. 
Just wanted to see what the community thought about removing this from the roster templates. Bjewiki 17:52, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't care if it's there or not, but I will say that verifiability is not an issue. When a player retires under contract, there is only one possible outcome, and that is going to the Reserve/Retired list. Whether it's on an official website or not, you can be assured it's true because there are NO other possibilities.Chris Nelson 18:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I stated in my original post, I acknowledge that's true.  But right now, can you tell me exactly how many (and which) players are on the Eagles reserve/retired list? or the Bills? or the Vikings?  I don't know any easy way to verify that. Bjewiki 18:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's irrelevant. Just because we may not know ALL of them doesn't mean we don't know some of them. The information is in fact right, doesn't matter if it's incomplete. I'm not saying we should keep them, I really don't care. I'm saying the verifiability argument is a weak one, if at all.Chris Nelson 18:19, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to get into a long conversation here between just the two of us, because I want to hear other people's input on my original question.  But, the completeness of the list is an issue.  Right now, looking at the eagles roster template, I would surmise that the only person on the Eagles reserve/retired list is Mike Bartrum.  Now, I have no idea if that's correct in real life, and I have no way to verify it.  That's like creating a list of the 500 Home run hitters in MLB and only putting Aaron, Ruth & Mays on it.  Yes, the information on that list is technically correct, but if a person didn't know any better they might assume those are the only 3 people on the list. In any case, I think we should steer the conversation back towards if those lists are even necessary for the template in the first place. Bjewiki 18:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps verifiable was a poor choice of words, but at the very least, the roster templates have was could be considered incomplete or inaccurate Reserve/Retired lists, and I know of no way to verify what the correct list should be. Bjewiki 18:46, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So if some undrafted free agent quarterback signed with Philly but it wasn't reported, we shouldn't put McNabb on the roster either because it might not be complete? It doesn't matter if it's complete if the information that is provided is accurate. Here is Mike Bartrum. He IS on the Reserve/Retired list. Just because there may be others doesn't mean it's bad to list Bartrum if it's a known fact. It's just not.Chris Nelson 19:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, this is not the direction I intended this topic to go in.  There are plenty of resources to check the completeness Roster, and update it so that it complete.  There are no resources (unless someone can find one) to check the completeness of the Reserve/Retired list.  Unless we can somehow verify that the list is completely accurate, I think it should be removed.  Then again, I think the list should be removed because it's uncessary, which was my original point. Bjewiki 19:09, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reserve/Retired Players on NFL Roster Templates 

message: The NFL has just announced that NFL Europa has ceased o♠♠perations with immediate effect (  ), meaning now in effect all the pages on the 6 teams and the World Bowl etc. need to be changed to reflect past tense. 89.240.181.152 14:08, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Pats1 15:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NFL Europa

message: I just joined this and WP:AMF.  I suspect most of my time will be spent here though.  I'll start fishing around and hope this is fun. Jmfangio 07:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello world 

message: One of the major problems I find in sports related articles is with content duplication.  For example, both Barry Sanders (this version) and Joe Montana (this version) suffer from this.  I am inclined to either a) remove all the stat tables or b) shorten them to include just a career stats line.  WP:EL speaks to this specifically and it recommends that stats are linked to externally.  Additionally, it is very easy for vandals to adjust tables of information without notice.  Relying on external sites for this is very good.  The ELs in general on here are poorly integrated and in many cases (such as those mentioned), they need to be overhauled in a major way.  I am in the process of creating some templates that will ease the process and I am open to some suggestions.  Lastly, many people love to create succession boxes, info boxes, and a slew of other templates.  I am a big fan of templates.  That aside, many of them simply repeat text.  Take a look at the bottom of the Michael Vick article.  You can see how the succession boxes often repeat information.  I think we need to establish some standards for acceptable ELs specific to the project and how we avoid information duplication in the future. Jmfangio 08:47, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone have a thought on this? If not, I'll start going through and making some WP:Bold edits. Jmfangio ► Talk  06:59, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of stats sections, ELs, & repetative content 

message: Should these be addressed on the project page?  I know that the sport of baseball will have some serious notability issues, but what about the NFL?  I am guessing that there should be some mention for players, coaches, and team owners (that they are all notable).  But should we also make some note for things like "Super Fans" and or others.  I don't know that an NFL waterboy should have an article simply because they existed. Jmfangio 09:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questions on notability standards 

message: It seems that their needs to be a clarification on depth or lack there of needs to be addressed. At this time we have a major disagreement and we need your help. ( any editor of a N.F.L. team)The discussion is going on at Talk:San Diego Chargers Please drop in take a read and be sure to look at the history of Talk:San Diego Chargers and the history of the Charger articule and then share your thoughts on what is and is not appropriate for the main articule. Hopefully we will form a consensus as to the best format to use so edit wars can in the future be avoided. It also may help to encourage more discussion on the WikiProject National Football League and a better understanding of how we can best contribute. RMANCIL 11:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Quick note - there's a typo in the section head.  Which specific conversation needs to be looked at?  There are several long discussions there and I'd rather not read ones that don't pertain to this problem. Jmfangio 11:36, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, follow the discussion under  under " Epic in Miami -Freezer Bowl" RMANCIL 13:34, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for clarifying.  Although I'm not going to get involved in a personal dispute between two editors, I think I have an example that will help you guys out.  I would suggest  one short and concise paragraph at the main article page on each of the games in question.  Then you can supplement those paragraphs with a  tag as is done with Ty Cobb#1910: the Chalmers Award controversy. Hope this helps. Jmfangio 14:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a start thanks for responding.RMANCIL 15:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main article content depth 

message: Per this conversation, I thought it would be useful to create a separate template for former NFL players.  I have started to create one at User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired.  Please chime in here with thoughts and suggestions. Jmfangio ► Talk  22:04, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template Help 

message: I'm working on revamping the portal.  I'm borrowing from several other projects and you can see the new page here.  Much of it is ripped from WP:DOH, so that information is being phased out.  Any help is welcomed. Jmfangio ► Talk  08:06, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am hoping someone can create  for project use.  Any volunteers? Jmfangio ► Talk  11:01, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: And I just put up the new page.  Hope you guys like it.  I'm gonna keep working on some of it.  If you want to see what's left to incorporate from the old page you can see it here.  I'm not if anything will be left by the time someone reads it, but that's where you can view the history. Jmfangio ► Talk  11:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks great, easy to navigate, definitely outshines the rest of the project pages for organization. Down sides would be the obvious that portal style pages are inherently harder to edit. Slysplace | talk 13:09, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I have a question, I was browsing portals and I came across the Soccer portal page and they have a color coded table listing FA's, Featured Lists, Good Articles, but they also list articles that have failed to achieve one of those levels. I believe if you could add that to our portal, we good work better on those articles that are not yet featured/good article material. Just a suggestion, check it out. --Happyman22 23:52, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a portal?►Chris Nelson 23:54, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *Chris Check out Portal:American football.  Happy - Are you talking about a portal or a project page?  The new project page has sections for FA and such. Jmfangio ► Talk  00:04, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Sorry, I meant project page, but it would be nice to list the articles that were denied a certan status so we could all work on them. Still you did a great job on the new project page :). --Happyman22 02:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *If you look in the upper right you'll see an AID article.  It's not finished, but that's where that information would go. Jmfangio ► Talk  03:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Portal Page 

message: I know there are a number of stat sites which are perfectly acceptable.  I would like to incorporate one of them into the stats section of the Template:NFLretired template.  Which one should I use? Jmfangio ► Talk  23:18, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Problem with those is that they don't have retired players stats.  I've inserted Pro-football-reference as the primary stats source, but a user can replace that with databasefootball.com  Since this box is geared specifically toward retired players, i don't think the "mainstream" news outlets offer retired players.  Jmfangio| ►Chat  10:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which Stats site should we use? 

message: I notice a user has been deleting colors from templates and leaving the edit summary the "(No colors for retired players or coaches)".  Has this been discussed somewhere - are there guidelines to use?  Thanks.  --Chancemichaels 21:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see User talk:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired. Pats1 21:32, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you - that's just what I was looking for.  --Chancemichaels 16:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No colors for retired persons? 

message: Per WP:NCA, i'm fixing a lot of the article titles.  I just completed the "division" articles.  These all seem rather straight forward and "uncontroversial", but if you have any thoughts, feel free to express them here. Jmfangio| ►Chat  12:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fixing Article Titles 

message: Please see User talk:Jmfangio/Template:NFLactive#Poll to vote. Pats1 18:00, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hate to break it to you, but we may be the only 3-4 editors who care about the issue. That's why I went here to see if I could find a few others who would like to cast their vote. But honestly, back in April and May, there was a lot more activity for this project. Zzyzxx11 seems to have moved on to bigger and better things. One of our biggest contributors, Quadzilla99 has been on a Wikibreak for quite some time now. And Wlmaltby3 was on a tear with all these new templates and ideas, but has only made a handful of edits in the past few months. So it's really down to a few full-time members on this project. Pats1 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *If that's the case then why call for the poll?  The discussion is not ready for one.  That's the most important aspect of what i'm saying here.  I've now read the other discussion where you and chris voiced your opinions on the "year" linking.  No reference to wiki documentation was made, and no consensus was arrived at.  Perhaps one of the reasons why people on wiki are so hesitant to get involved with sports projects is because of the overt use of biased point of view.  When people sasy "i like this" - and "i like that" instead of saying - this is better because - then the system fails.  I appreciate that you guys are passionate about this.  But that doesn't mean that your feelings should trump reason and rationale. Jmfangio| ►Chat  18:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Right, which is my point. I'm not criticizing you here, just saying that I haven't seen your name mentioned around here in awhile. Pats1 13:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Poll on infobox award listing 

message: I do not see more people becoming involved as it seems that this area (Pro Football) is rather hostile to new editors. I am about fed up with my treatment from Pats1 on every issue I edit on. It appears that a consensus needs to form on several topics and a much different less confrontational approach is needed if you guys in fact want more involvement from interested parties. Right now Pats1 and myself are having a major disagreement on the 2007 Charger season page however we have improved in that it is preceding a edit war on the page instead of following one which was the case on the main Charger page which remains locked even though 4 editors including myself have formed a consensus. Pats1 has refused to moderate his position on the subject and as I understand it the page will remained locked until he does. Zzyzx11 is tired of the not stop back and forth and frankly so am I.
I am editing far less as every project I get involved in becomes a argument with Pats1, some how that needs to stop. There must be a better way to promote harmony and to create direction and a consensus for the team pages and the related articles.
I think a different approach needs to take place on how new editors are approached and that a consensus needs to be formed that all interested parties can follow in regards to inviting new editors to the table. Leadership is needed along with education and a step by step format so that all teams share the same basic structure. In short encouragement instead of discouragement in participation and direction. RMANCIL 10:47, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *I am sorry that you have been bitten.  I have too and I am relatively new to this project.  I am not fully familiar with the particular example you are referring to, i will read up on it.  I do recall some mention earlier, but again, I did not really dive into it.  Sports related SPs seem particularly prone to this, as it has happened at number of other projects.  Fans seem very fervent, and POV leeks its' way into a lot of discussions. A few editors have been associated with this project for a long time and they have a hard time accepting input from others.  I would love to enhance some of the documentation available through the project page. Jmfangio| ►Chat  10:54, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, when RMANCIL started editing San Diego Chargers, I immediately went to his talk page and showed him the proper way to format things, per WP:MOS. When he semi-ignored this, I showed him guidelines like WP:NPOV, WP:OR, etc. that he was not following properly. In response, he goes to my talk page and uses other WP guidelines to show why I was "wrong." He then has gone to just about every talk page associated with this project and bitched to everyone about how I "never generate a consensus before making my edits." Pats1 11:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not true Pats1 but enough of this BS stop already. The point is we all need to learn to cooperate and work together if this project has any chance to succeed other wise it will fail. People don't always agree that is inevitable however how we deal with one another and moderate our positions along with our tone should help facilitate harmony. I have stated that I will follow the consensus and I have agreed to moderate my edits to conform, I think that you should as well. RMANCIL 11:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I just took some time to look at rmancil's and pat's talk talk page starting with the first edit that you each made (here and here).  There is no question that some aspects of article ownership were expressed, and rather quickly.  I don't see any attempt to educate in the manner described.  I see a lot of barking orders, and demonstrative statements from both sides.  Who is more to blame? I don't think it matters here.  What's important is that the project, or at least those who are most active in it, is representative of the greater good - the content.  The call for cooperation and respect is spot on.  You both have a passion for editing, just as I do, so instead of focusing on the person behind the edits, we should focus on the content and how do we get editors to a point where they are best able to contribute to the articles.   I think that it's great to see a user who expresses a willingness and desire to better understand what makes "wiki run".  Jmfangio| ►Chat  12:04, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm all for cooperation. But I can't stand being harassed because I follow the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia. Pats1 19:49, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I understand completely, I'm simply saying that there might be a way to get everyone to act more civily.  Both sides are at fault here to some degree.  I will be happy to discuss this with you on your talk page if you would like, but for now, please just don't comment on what who did what to whom.  I hope you understand. Jmfangio| ►Chat  07:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus- cooperation- Direction- Discussion 

message: A number of players are differentiated by their "position".  I cannot find anything in WP:D and WP:NC that either supports this, or shows that it is not the way to do things.  So is this the best way? Should we not add (American football + position) for proper disambig?  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  11:40, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest using position only, when its sufficient. ×Meegs 16:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related question 

message: I have run across a player name that is also in need of differentiation -  Rodney Thomas.
In my initial research has turned up the following four players with the same name:
*Rodney Thomas - linebacker for Clemson, no NFL,  Clemson player profile page
*Rodney Thomas - running back for Harvard, no NFL, Sports Illistrated's college players page
*Rodney Thomas - running back for Texas A&M, played in the NFL, Sports Illustrated's NFL players page
*Rodney Thomas - cornerback for Brigham Young, played in the NFL, Stats from databasefootball.com 
The origial article that was started about a college player from Texas A&M that went on to play in the NFL. Then an unregistered user added info about another player with the same name that played linebacker for Clemson but that did not go on to play professional ball. I was going to disambig them by position as others have done but that won't work in this case. My next thought was to do it by college but I don't recall ever seeing that. Any suggestions? --JustAGal 18:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure that my input with make complete sense since it's after four in the morning and I'm rather tired, but I'll try this out. Obviously, the four men played for four different... schools. Now, the two that didn't play in the NFL, they might just be able to be differentiated by adding "Clemson" or "Harvard" to the end of their names. The two that played in the NFL would have to be differentiated either by the last team they played for in the NFL, or, if they're retired or not in the league anymore, by the last team they played for OUTSIDE of the NFL, or by their school. That's actually really confusing... Really, in essence, you'd simply differentiate them with their position after, but two of them have the same position, so then you'd need to differentiate by some sort of team they played for, but then that leaves the other two as inconsistencies. But I think it'd be the way I first described: the team they last played for. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 08:11, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Wow, this is a great question.  I'm not sure what to do.  Do WP:D or WP:NAME mention anything about this?  We might want to bring in some outside help for this as this problem might rear it's head in other areas. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:14, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Under People, there's something on Sports Teams, but not athletes.  Nothing regarding two individuals with the same first/last name playing in the same sport.  If necessary, I'd recommend the use of the middle name for such cases. KyuuA4 16:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another related question

message: If you feel you are well versed on the "Pro Bowl Debate", please vote at Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive#Survey. If you are still interested, but not already familiar, please spend some time reading that discussion page.  Please do not vote unless you have familiarized yourself with the issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFLactive survey 

message: Anyone else want to get in on the editing of the Joe Montana article?  I've reworked a great deal of content; I'm hoping to get some others to jump in.  I can go ahead and finish, but it would be nice to get some fresh input. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Joe Montana 

message: I think all the content in these pages should be merged back into the articles about the player, because there is no notability for "career achievements by ____".   Any thoughts?   Corpx 05:40, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * I did some renaming to the articles that fell under :Category:Career achievements of sportspeople per WP:L, as that's what these all are.  The idea that achievements are not notable doesn't seem reasonable.  Pro Bowl, Most Valuable Player Awards and a slew of other "achievements" easily meet WP:N standards.  All of these are split off from the main player articles per WP:LENGTH.  As Michael Jordan, Kobe Bryant, and Gary Gait all have articles, it seems reasonable to assume that there is a consensus to allow these lists.  If particular portions of the content are not notable, then they can be expunged.  It is certainly reasonable to have some mention of the awards in an article.  I would suggest utilizing the  template. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:48, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I'm not questioning the notability of these awards, but the overall "notability of _______'s achievements" Corpx 01:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm not following?  So Brett Favre's achievements are not notable? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Similar to my points on your talk page - this is an issue for a wider audience.  The Favre and Manning examples are misleading - their reversion was not a result of consensus but of me being bullied out of the conversations and having to disengage to avoid wider problems. It is not up to WP:NFL to explicity overide things like WP:LENGTH. However, the validity of the content within List of career achievements by Vince Young is an entirely separate issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Since a lot of discussion has transgressed on my talk page, please leave your comments there.  User_talk:Corpx#Vince_Young Corpx 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of career achievements by _______ 

message: Anyone else care to chip in on this?   This information should be merged into the articles, and not have a separate list of accomplishments by ____.   I cant speak for basketball/golf, but I do not think football articles should be doing this.    Most of List of career achievements by Vince Young are trivial school records he set while at Texas and all the award information is already in the Vince Young article.    I noticed that the same was List of career achievements by Brett Favre and List of career achievements by Peyton Manning were both redirected back to the main article and would like some 3rd party input on this Corpx 07:39, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Similar to my points on your talk page - this is an issue for a wider audience.  The Favre and Manning examples are misleading - their reversion was not a result of consensus but of me being bullied out of the conversations and having to disengage to avoid wider problems. It is not up to WP:NFL to explicity overide things like WP:LENGTH. However, the validity of the content within List of career achievements by Vince Young is an entirely separate issue. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Since a lot of discussion has transgressed on my talk page, please leave your comments there.  User_talk:Corpx#Vince_Young Corpx 08:56, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reopened

message: Here's an idea: How about creating a Super Bowl team template with the roster information (see for example what they have for NBA champions on the bottom of the team page), only we do this for both teams instead of just the winner.  WAVY 10 14:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Got a link? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Check out the ones for the Boston Celtics (at bottom).  WAVY 10 20:01, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it's done, only the players who were on the active roster for the game at the time should be noted. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:54, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree there.  WAVY 10 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *I've spent some time with this and personally, I am not in favor. I can see both sides of the issue here, so if someone wanted to create the templates, it would be alright.  That being said, I think that templates are getting over used in sports related articles.  I certainly don't think we could say "only starters" because many teams use multiple starters. Here's an example: Super Bowl XXV and the NY Giants team from that year.  Phil Simms was the starter, but due to injuries, Jeff Hostetler started in the super bowl.  Additionally, the 1990 New York Giants season article already has a roster section - and that seems sufficent enough to me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:54, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Bowl Team Templates 

message: I just created :Category:National Football League free agents.  There is an el there that i think will really help people who want to find FAs.  I've added a handful of players already, but i think this will be the most useful way to view the information.  Lists would be harder to update. I'm talking to someone about having the NFLactive infobox help in the maintenance, but i don't know how easily that will be (if it is even possible). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Cat 

message: On Template talk:Infobox NFLactive, there has been a bit of acrimony regarding whether to name Pro Bowls by the year in which they occurred, or the season they followed.  It just occurred to me that this is a question of general interest to the NFL Wikiproject, and the convention should be consistent across the encyclopedia, so I have suggested to the interested parties that they move the discussion here.
Right now, the Pro Bowl articles themselves are named by the year in which they took place, rather than the season with which they are associated--so 2007 Pro Bowl refers to the game that took place on February 10, 2007, following the 2006 season.  Should we stay with this, or change it?  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If it would help, the NFL itself called the game played on February 10, 2007 as the 2007 Pro Bowl, and used a logo with 2007 on it. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Thanks for trying to get some fresh input on this.  Just to give you guys a bit of a summary, there are people who want to focus on the fact that the players in the 2007 pro bowl are "awarded"/nominated in 2006 based on their performance during the 2006 NFL season.  There are a number of news  sources that do it by year of the game, and a number that do it by year of the regular season the game follows. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:06, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no official way to list it, but it seems that the point of awards is to recognize what years a player was honored. So, if a player is a 2006 AP all-pro and a 2006 AP defensive Player of the year why should he be a 2007 Pro Bowler. The season in which the ballots are cast and counted would be consistent with all the other awards.Howdythere (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pro Bowl naming 

message: I would like to call people to join in an imortant discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates ranges in infoboxes/templates.  This project has a number of infoboxes where this discussion is applicable. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Manual of Style Discussion 

message: Hi, I would like to get some input on a topic at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive. I would like your opinion on an addition I made that is being contested. I have added a field to the infobox called "undraftyear", and when a year is entered it adds a line under a guy's college that says "Undrafted in 1997" or whatever year is appropriate. I did this because I felt there should be something noting a guy went undrafted, similar to the info for drafted players that was already in place. To see how this would look in an article, see here or here. If you would be in favor of this edit, I'd ask you to kindly voice this at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#Undrafted free agents. It is being contested by one person because they feel the year should not be there. I feel the year is important, just as the year of drafting is important. I also feel that since we have an NFL debut section in the infobox as well as a listed of teams and years played for each, it wouldn't cause any confusion. So if you're okay with this edit or you'd like to get in the discussion, I'd encourage you to do so. Thanks!►Chris Nelson 22:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undrafted free agents in NFL infobox

message: There's apparently some disagreement as to how one should spell the first name of Colts linebacker Freddie Keiaho. The Colts.com site and Indianapolis' news outlets consistently spell Freddy with a 'y', but the NFL.com site spells it with an 'ie'. Of course this is just a nickname and he can spell it however he wants, but there must be more consistency, particularly in the article itself, which uses both spellings. I'm partial to the Y spelling, as it's how the Colts spell it, as well as other local news affiliates (see indystar.com). I would think that they'd know how Freddy spells his name. Even the programs available at the home games at the RCA dome use Freddy.
Is there a "policy" for such a circumstance? Do you go by the NFL's spelling, or the team's spelling? Are there many players with nicknames used that have a question of spelling? I guess I'd just like some sort of "ruling" to decide how his name is actually spelled, and for that spelling to be used throught the article. My vote is for Freddy. Brainscar 03:58, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr. Keiaho 

message: I just created Scott Milanovich and it is now a WP:GAC#Everyday life.  If you are comfortable with the process, please feel free to check it out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  GA review - Scott Milanovich 

message: Me and User:Jmfangio have a disagreement on whether List of career achievements by Vince Young should be allowed to remain, or whether the content (except for the school records) should be merged back into Vince Young.   Please reply here.  Corpx 07:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This poll is not appropriate at this time.  First and foremost - it violates WP:STRAW.  Second - if you want to seek DR on this (which i feel is pretty excessive) - you need to follow the steps laid out at WP:DR. WP:LENGTH and WP:LISTS are pretty clear on this - and the article is long. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:05, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: We can discuss the issue here, but a straw poll is not going to help anything . If nothing can be worked-out, then an AfD topic to propose the merger is a reasonable next step. ×Meegs 14:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Meegs - before AFD there is WP:DR.  There are numerous articles like this - a few of which have been identified at :Category:Career achievements of sportspeople. Cholmes - There is a difference between saying "should this list exist" and "is all the information in an article good information".  Some users want to argue about whether or not this article is a "well written list" - that's not the same issue.  Simply put - there is consensus established by various wiki guidelines at WP:LIST and WP:LENGTH.  As I previously mentioned, there is also a cat. that shows multiple articles for this information.  If you look at the edit summary for this edit to the Jordan list (the creation) you will see it i was also done for length issues. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, if you use a personal interpretation of ones status as an "icon" or "important person" (or whatever you want to call these people) to establish a guideline.  For as unimportant as you may find some of the records - someone else may find them extremely important.  You have to balance this and look at it from the bigger picture.  I have never commented here on the quality of the information within each article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:05, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Comparing Vince's accomplishments to those of Michael Jordan is not very hard to do.   That said, I think the consensus so far is to merge it back into Vince Young article Corpx 07:20, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There is no consensus Corpx - I'm sorry that you have an inability to discuss things like this, but you are not stating anything other than your personal preferences.  I have pointed you to numerous guidelines, policies, and articles - and yet this continues.  If you want to open WP:DR then do so, it's a waste of time in my opinion, but I will participate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The only other person who chimed in also backed the proposed merge, while you're the only person actively trying to keep the article in its current state.   We've been through the whole guidelines etc thing on my talk page, where you abandoned discussion Corpx 08:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: <S>Straw Poll</S> List of career achievements by Vince Young

message: The above project hasn't yet really gotten started. Any members of this project who might be interested would be very welcome to help this project get off the ground. Thank you. John Carter 17:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Canadian Football League]] 

message: I noticed someone changed the scores I'd posted on the 2007 Cleveland Browns season article with the reasoning that the Browns' score should come before the opponents' score; however, this wasn't done with uniformity, as the editor didn't change all the scores so the Browns' score came first. I've ALWAYS been under the understanding that the visiting team's score comes first, regardless who wins the game. Therefore, if the Patriots are at home and they beat the Browns 34-33, the score will read 33-34, because the Browns are the visiting team. I could be wrong, but I've always been under that assumption. It's just like in baseball: the Indians beat the Tigers 6-5, but the score reads 5-6 because the Tigers were the visiting team. Everyone's going to say "they won six to five," but the official scorers are going to put 5-6. So I think someone needs to clarify this. Really though, I think it's going to be one of those things where it can go either way. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my limited experience as a journalist (junior in college), the proper way to write out a score is highest lowest. The Bengals lost to the Browns 51-45. The Browns beat the Bengals 51-45.►Chris Nelson 11:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Visiting-score first is only appropriate in box scores and certain tables. In prose, it is always high–low.—Twigboy 13:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that is what I was thinking.►Chris Nelson 14:53, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What about season tables, such as Chicago Bears seasons?  Also note, when watching ESPN or other sport broadcasting, when mentioning scores, they always say high-low.  It seems like a reasonable convention here too. KyuuA4 16:47, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

text: In every case I can think of with exception of certain box scores, the higher score always goes first, followed by the indication of a win or loss.  Neither way is right, per se, but I've usually seen it as the highest total first.  Ksy92003(talk) 05:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I follow football like a religion and the scores are almost always high-low regardless of how the sentence is written out.  Useight 04:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question regarding scores 

message: I have checked several articles that use this template and have noticed that the draft info is not showing. If you go into edit, you find the info IS there. Has anyone else noticed this? --JustAGal 15:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it seems that someone broke the template. I reverted it back to a previous version. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:30, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems to be broken again :-( --JustAGal 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template broken? 

message: What exactly was the rationale behind splitting the player template into active and retired?  Looking at both, I'm not seeing what couldn't be accomplished in the same template, e.g. Template:Infobox musical artist which can cover opera to grunge bands to solo artists.
The Deions and Keyshawns get cut and go into the booth but are certainly capable of being lured back at any time.  Morten Andersen was just taken out of cold storage by the Falcons, so his infobox would have to be flipped then then likely flipped back at the end of the season when he likely retired for good.  What do we do with Vick's current situation?  Just seems like this split creates a lot more issues than it solves, as things will get quickly out of date. Tarc 11:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: According to the New Template Help section above, a user was being bold after a discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFL player#Height and weight revisited. And yes, you may be right that "this split creates a lot more issues than it solves" since it became one of disputed, edit warring pages in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Jmfangio-Chrisjnelson. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:29, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As a further motivator, consider the salary cap driven trend of players being cut and signed elsewhere, injury driven needs for teams to pull in help, etc. My personal bet is someone will sign Corey Dillon by mid-season, and so forth. Every team, in short, has "transactions" through the season, even if the major impact is on the practice squads. It's unlikely with the various teams having QB problems that Vinny Testaverde will also stay off someone's roster, as he's willing to re-enter the trenches, and at the least, would help as a mentor for young bucks being trained up. In short, combining the templates makes much sense, and an entry parameter is sufficient to separate the active from the inactive or retired, et al. // FrankB 17:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template split? 

message: re: 
:1) this change allows backlinks to previous season from team articles with minimal added clutter. Suggest adding the optional 300px width as this example shows, so infobox and the link boxes are the same sizes.
:2) Added back and forward links to the season header box, so one can proceed season to season w/o bother. The next link will NOT show when the current year is the season article, until the current year is the next year. That can be fudged and revised (an override parameter overriding the disabling logic), but this seemed the best general solution. The links all work off of the parameter 'year=' and calculate the other article names, so no article changes are needed.
===TOC suggestion===
:3) I think  would benefit the appearance of all "season's" articles I've seen if the TOC is added at the bottom of this template ala  or .
 
::reasoning:
:a) these articles tend to have a lot of sections and subsections generating a lengthy TOC
:b) Big gaps of whitespace are ugly
:c) Page and article type are unlikely to have much in the way of pictures with "free content" goal of foundation, so the lack of pics in these articles allows standardizing the TOC in such a position, with the aforementioned benefit of looking better.
:d) Embedding the TOC in the table structure of the infobox will prevent some of the page rendering problems experienced otherwise in wikimarkup. See links for  for such examples, but this is a good place for said technique as the first option.
:e) An inhibit parameter can be added to handle the few cases where it's not a good idea.
Cheers // FrankB 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  FYI--Templates of increased flexibility 

message: :3) I think  would benefit the appearance of all "season's" articles I've seen if the TOC is added at the bottom of this template ala  or .
 
::reasoning:
:a) these articles tend to have a lot of sections and subsections generating a lengthy TOC
:b) Big gaps of whitespace are ugly
:c) Page and article type are unlikely to have much in the way of pictures with "free content" goal of foundation, so the lack of pics in these articles allows standardizing the TOC in such a position, with the aforementioned benefit of looking better.
:d) Embedding the TOC in the table structure of the infobox will prevent some of the page rendering problems experienced otherwise in wikimarkup. See links for  for such examples, but this is a good place for said technique as the first option.
:e) An inhibit parameter can be added to handle the few cases where it's not a good idea.
Cheers // FrankB 22:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: TOC suggestion

message: Hi all, I've cleaned up the Adrian L. Peterson article and I feel it is close to being nominated for WP:GA.  I'm looking for some reviewers to go over it and leave comments or make edits in order to get this article ready.  Thank you! RyguyMN 16:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adrian Peterson 

message: Well I don't know if this is the right place, but as it is the NFL Wikiproject someone here would probably know. I've wondered for some time now why in both the NFL and MLB the teams are divided into National and American conferences/leagues, as appose to the NHL and the NBA which has West and East (right?). I get that the old teams from before the merge between the two leagues are in that conference (if they are). But what about new teams (or haven't there been any new teams since the merge? in either the NFL or MLB?) Chandlertalk 01:06, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know for sure, but I'd imagine the alignment is up to the league. I skimmed Seattle Seahawks and it made it sound like the league moved them to the AFC in 1976 and back to the NFC in 2002. I'd check at the articles for affected teams, you might find clues there.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:20, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AL and NL existed as two independent leagues, as did the NFC and AFL did prior to 1970, so that pre-established a coast-to-coast roster of teams in each league. While a Western/Eastern split makes sense for travel arrangements of the NBA and NHL, but does not for the NFL when there is one game per week (I'll let baseball defend itself). Consider an NFL-East and NFL-West arrangement, whereby all of the East Coast teams play at 1:00 Eastern time and all of the Western teams play at 4:00 Eastern. The Sunday broadcasts become regionalized, and less palatable for national audiences (not to mention a Giants/Jets time conflict). Now ... to move this discussion to article-related business (which is what this page is for): What I just laid out, if it can be sourced, seems to be something that the conference/NFL articles lack. If we can find something, this should be included.—Twigboy 04:54, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: TV scheduling can be mentioned in the main NFL article. KyuuA4 17:31, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What decides the conference? 

message: There is now a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#North American football players for a group which would work specifically on articles relating to biographies of individual players, coaches, and other related individuals. Any parties interested in working with such a group are encouraged to add their names there, so we can see if there is enough interest to start the group in earnest. Thank you. John Carter 13:26, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed player, coach, etc. biography project 

message: Should we create an infobox for NFL owners? I have been using  for the owner's infobox's, which is generic. --Pinkkeith 14:41, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: NFL owner infobox

message: Also, does anyone know where I could find a free use image (other other acceptable image) for the Cowboys-Redskins rivalry?  Really needs one.  Jwalte04 17:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Redskins-Cowboys

message: Just wanted to see if anyone had any suggestions, comments, criticisms, for my List of Washington Redskins players page and List of Washington Redskins first-round draft picks.  I'm trying to get them up-to-par with other player lists from different sports and maybe to Featured List status.  I have added them to the peer review page, but thought that I would go more local in the help.  So if you have any advice, write something on my talk page, the talk page for the articles themselves, or feel free to change them yourself!  Thanks again, Jwalte04 17:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove the redlinks in the list of draft picks by creating stubs on the redlinked players. Dabomb87 01:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Washington Redskins players

message: Congratulations to Pats1, who is now an admin.  youngamerican (wtf?) 17:28, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New admin 

message: It has been called to my attention by  that there are several articles in which the player infoboxes contain the flags of the state the player was born in.  See Corey Simon, Walter Payton, Jim Kelly, or Barry Sanders for an example.  , in an edit to Corey Simon, said that he read somewhere that flags were not supposed to be used in this manner.  Is there a Wikipedia policy that says not to use flags this way, or is there somewhere on the project that says not to use flags in the infobox in this way?  Ksy92003(talk) 20:18, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I may be wrong, because that was for country flags. The policy said it implied citizenship, which may cause confusion for athletes born on army bases overseas. State flags seem fine unless there is a policy that says otherwise.►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:28, 27 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay.  However, I do feel that it is unnecessary to add the state flags.  I didn't say they are bad, just not needed.  My reasoning for this is because I don't feel they really contribute.  If you look at the infobox, and it says "Long Beach, California" I don't think that having the California flag in front of that is absolutely necessary.  It's nearly impossible for me to explain this in a way that even I understand, but at least for me, state flags don't tell me what the state is.  California's and Alaska's flag are the only ones I could identify if you gave me all 50 of them.  While I know that my lack of flag knowledge doesn't relate to everybody, I don't think the flags need to be there because I don't think they contribute to the reader's understanding of where they are from.  But I don't know if there is any policy that forbids this.  Ksy92003(talk) 20:51, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Personally, I don't like the flags in there, but that's not what matters.  It isn't about whether we like it or not.  It's whether or not they need to be there and if they actually help.  Ksy92003(talk) 06:15, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I actually like the flags, but they aren't really helpful for an international encyclopedia with a global scope. They'd be pretty rad for something for a North American audience, but a flag of a political subdivision doesn't do much for the usefulness of the articles.  youngamerican (wtf?) 13:04, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also remember that a lot of the people who use Wikipedia are overseas, in England, and such... granted, they probably wouldn't look at an article for American football because they wouldn't have much need to look for those types of articles, but we need to consider that there are gonna be a lot of people looking at the articles, and for some of them, especially those outside North America, they'd be like "What kind of flag is that?"  They've probably never seen our state flags before and might get confused.  Ksy92003(talk) 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  State flags in infoboxes 

message: Many of the player pages have sections on when the player was in high school and/or in college. Many of these are calling them careers. Webster calls a career "a chosen profession or occupation". I just feel that being in high school or college isn't an occupation or a profession. To me it is an educational time to get an occupation. Should we call these "years" instead of "careers"?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pinkkeith (talk • contribs) 17:36, 29 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: high school and college years

message: The Rams logo was deleted a while ago. Could some kind person please put one back up. Everytime I always post an image it always seems to get deleted for one reason or another. I never know what they are looking for. Thanks, I appreciate it. --Pinkkeith 00:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rams logo

message: Is there a list somewhere of Eagles captains?  I am working on the Wistert brothers' articles and Al Wistert could use either a navbox or succession box to show his captaincy.  In some sports succession boxes or nav boxes are common for captaincies.  Is this not kosher for NFL captains?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eagles Captains 

message: This week I am working on the Wistert Brothers.  Looking at Al Wistert, I think his article could really benefit from two types of templates.  Above you see my query about captaincy templates.  He could use 1948 and 1949 championship team templates.  Unlike the NBA and MLB or even the NCAA, we have not produced championship teams for the NFL.  Is there a reason for this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM)  15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Championship team templates 

message: --As of now this is just a tweak only seen on the Chicago Bears page.  It is a small tweak of the current infobox that is currently in use.  You can see the code differences at Template:NFL team and Template:NFL team beta.  Once again this is just put other there as a proposal and I have added it to the Bears page just because it is not such a radical change. --Happyman22 (talk) 05:28, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  A tweaked NFL team infobox? 

message: From what is here there is no uniform infobox. Nothing looks like it has been decided. What is the case, as of Mid Novemebr 2007?Howdythere (talk) 05:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean for players? For current players, Template:Infobox NFLactive is the one being used and implemented. If you see guys without it, it's just because it hasn't been added yet. But that's the one most people have by now.►Chris NelsonHolla! 06:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is the deal on info boxes? 

message: I was wondering if we could get a consensus on how player pages ought to be formatted. I see lots of pages that are using different layouts: high school years vs. early years, college years vs. college career, professional career vs NFL career, and so on. I frankly don't really mind what type of layout we want our format to look like, but I do mind after I work on something and it is changed by a different user to a different format. Do you think we should start a discussion on this? --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't say NCAA career, you say College career. Professional career is more fitting than NFL career; it's broader in the event of a move to the CFL or something similar. Take Ricky Williams for instance. If you went with the NFL career heading, you'd have to end that section, create a new one for when he played with the Argonauts, then create a new NFL one now that he's back in the NFL. The way it is, this all fits neatly under Professional career.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree with you there. Those who played multiple leagues do have "profession career" as their heading. (Jim Thorpe, a featured article, for example) Yet, there are others that don't. (Kurt Warner, Deion Sanders for example). We have a number of people who's only professional athletic career is in the NFL, but are still headed as NFL career rather then professional career. (Good Articles Marcus Allen and Terry Bradshaw for example.) Then there are some that have them listed by team. (Brett Favre for example.) Like I said, I don't mind how it is set up, but I would like to see a consensus on how we do it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 22:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Player pages format 

message: What Rolando mentioned, I think it's a good idea to add Template:American football uniforms to Template:NFL team. --Louis Alberto Guel 16:01, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would second that idea.  I suck at template coding, but I think if someone did that, it would get general support.  Some basic ideas... 1) There should be spots for up to 4 different jerseys, as a few teams (Oregon comes to mind) use up to 4 different jerseys in 1 year.  Pro teams usually have 3 (throwbacks excluded).  2) It would be nice if we could get helmet logos on the helmets eventually.  The Helmet Project is a good starting point for this, but I don't know how well they will scale.  3) It looks like it wouldn't be too hard to work with the soccer unis, or customize them as needed, for the various stripes/color blocks that appear on pants/sleeves/bodies of uniforms.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One more thing.  I have been playing with the template.  We need to get the numbers color fully customizable.  There are some unis with colored numbers on another color, and the current template does not allow this.  Also, I am copying these to the template talk page, so people who can fix these issues will.--Jayron32|talk|contribs 02:42, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

text: This template doesn't seem accurate enough to me. There are a formidable number of subtle nuances in NFL uniforms when it comes to stripes, numerals, colors and patterns. For example: some teams, like the Ravens and the Steelers use atypical typography for their uniform numbers. The Bills have a combination of 7 thick and thin stripes on their helmet this year. I just don't think this template cuts it. It's cute, but it will be inaccurate to the point of being useless. If you want a small taste of how subtle the nuances are, just check out the banter at Uni-Watch blog. (Even tiny things, like way the jerseys are assembled are discussed.)  —xanderer 23:25, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Look, its better to use this than fair use images because of fair use being deleted for anonymous reasons. --Louis Alberto Guel 16:26, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uniforms in [[Template:NFL team|NFL team]] 

message: Speaking of uniforms...I looked over rationales in several uniforms and noted the PD rationale of one user, when in fact they should be fair use logo, due to logos being used on the uniforms. Someone please change this. Miranda 23:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PD to fair use due to logos

message: I am not sure if your project has an article request section but Jack Clancy would be improved if Paul Staroba and Dave Young (American football) were created and Jarrett Irons would be improved if Paul Irons were created.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  06:41, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: P.S. both of these articles will probably be at WP:DYK this weekend and Clancy will go to WP:GAC thereafter.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  06:42, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Another name to help Clancy would be Rick Norton.  For Mercury Hayes both Chris Floyd (American football)  and Chris Howard (American football) would be helpful.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:LOTD)  16:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article requests 

message: This has been a point of contention for me on the Patriots season page, and a point of inconsistency in general. The question is this--when listing game locations, what should be listed for Jets home games, "The Meadowlands" or "Giants Stadium"?
I can see the case for those who argue Giants Stadium--since that is the physical location of the game. However, NFL policy states that when the Jets play home games there, it is not called Giants Stadium, but rather The Meadowlands, and I would argue that "verifiability, not truth" makes a better argument for The Meadowlands ("everyone knows" it's Giants Stadium, but verifiable official descriptions of Jets home games say otherwise). [The best analogy I can give is a musical one--the keys of E flat major and D sharp major have the same sound, but you can't look at a piece in E flat and say it's written in D sharp.] The majority of NFL season pages use "The Meadowlands," but this isn't universal (the Patriots page doesn't, and I've seen at least one other that didn't). Samer 17:21, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It always irked me how Jim Everett and Troy Aikman used to refer to it as "Meadowlands Stadium" to avoid mentioning the opponent. Try what the NFL may do to appease the Gangreen, "The Meadowlands" could only accurately describe the racetrack or the entire complex of Giants Stadium, the racetrack, and the Whatever-It's-Called-This-Month Arena (or that stinky tract of land around it).  Sourced here, it's Giants Stadium. The Jets can take solace in the fact that the New Meadowlands Stadium won't have them feeling like second-class tenants (at least from a naming perspective). I don't quite get the music analogy, but the NFL's "Meadowlands" rationale tends to B-flat.—Twigboy (talk) 19:22, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Meadowlands v. Giants Stadium 

message: Recently I created the Template:NFLStartingRunningbacks and some users think that it shouldnt be a Template due to some teams using more than 1 running back or the starting runningback having less carries than the backups, I just wanted to know what other people thaught about this template--Yankees10 23:27, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template I Created 

message: How can I confirm if Garland Rivers was a scab player during the 1987 player strike?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  07:27, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not having any luck with free online resources. 1987 newspapers is all that I can suggest. ×Meegs 20:37, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  1987 Scab player confirmation request 

message: In looking around at the various season articles for pro football, it appears that there is more info being added this year than last.  But I think there is a better way to do it than is currently being done.  The way the info is being inserted (eg. 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season) tends to break up the text and creates a much longer TOC.  This also has the effect of making it appear more like a sports guide rather than an encyclopedia article.  I am proposing that a series of templates be used to create a game box similar to that shown at right.  (The templates I created to generate this box are , , and .  Most of the fields are optional, and more could be added.)  Moving this extra info off to the side would conserve space and allow the text to flow down the left side unbroken.  It would make the article more readable (from top to bottom) and promote the creation of text which is more encyclopedic and not dependent on the info provided in the game box.  —Mike 02:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the scoring summary could be underneath the box score, although that might cause an adverse section break in a 58-48 game unless you use a .—Twigboy (talk) 04:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season article game notes 

message: I just wanted to let everyone know I am trying to get the Green Bay Packers subproject active again.  Anyone interested in improving the articles on the Green Bay Packers would be very welcome.  I have recently brought the project up to par with other team sub-projects, now we just need to start working on the articles.  Thanks and if you have any questions feel free to contact me or ask your question on the subprojects talk page.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 03:14, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Green Bay Packers subproject|Green Bay Packers subproject]]  

message: Ok, before this starts to go into edit war, I am asking for a general consensus on what to do with the Baltimore Colts page. Here are the options:
#Redirect to Indianapolis Colts because, as User:Bobblehead said, said, "primary usage is clearly the team currently located at Indy. Change to point to history article"
#Redirect to Baltimore Colts (1947-50) because, as User:Louis Alberto Guel said, "readers will look more at AAFC/NFL team than the current one and there are not a lot of articles that are linking to Baltimore Colts that is really talking about the current NFL franchise"
#Keep it as a disambig page, because, as User:Zzyzx11 said, "based on the revision history of this page, and Google hits, it is best to keep this a dab page"
#Create a new article on that page describing the Baltimore Colts history from 1953-1984, because, as User:PeteU said on Talk:Indianapolis Colts#Baltimore Colts history?, "for all intents and purposes there are two Colts teams--one that played in Baltimore until March 1984, and one that has played in Indianapolis since March 1984"
Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:17, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about option 5, redirect to History of the Indianapolis Colts. That way it covers the AAFC and the NFL team. But all in all, IMHO, it should either be a redirect to either the main Indianapolis Colts page or the History of the Colts page, or kept as a disambiguation page. Common usage is by far in favor of the NFL Baltimore Colts and redirecting the name to the AAFC Colts is going to cause confusion among interested parties. --Bobblehead (rants) 19:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to mention I went through and cleaned out the internal links back in August... At the time there were about 500 internal links pointed to that page and I'd say well over 90 percent were for the 1953+ NFL team. --Bobblehead (rants) 16:52, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Baltimore Colts]] page 

message: FYI ... I created some schedule templates similar to what has been used for college football.  An example of how they can be used can be found at 2001 Kansas City Chiefs season#Schedule. —Mike 04:38, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schedule templates 

message: I'm not sure this is the right place to raise this issue, but what is the naming convention for biographies relating to American football? My own experience on this subject is that we use the term football for football (soccer), and use the term American football for the game played in the US. Is this correct? If so, should the article Ralph Ricker (football coach) be moved to Ralph Ricker (American football coach)? AecisBrievenbus 22:13, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Usually it's association football for soccer, but in the case of disambiguation, unless there is another person with the same name in one of the various footballs, there shouldn't be any confusion about which person the article is about. Side note is that Ralph Ricker shouldn't be disambiguated. There isn't anyone else named that that is notable that I can find. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The "coach" part in the disambiguation is unnecessary. (American football) is all the disambiguation necessary. Player, coach, etc. aren't needed.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming convention? 

message: How can I get involved in the NFL Project?  I would like to make contibutions to the history of the game.  Please let me know!
--Mickeyp2814 (talk) 18:45, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  would like to help 

message: Onside kick needs to be rewritten, and although I know it's more involved with the American Football project, could someone at least help me with the onside kick's relevancy to and use in the NFL (see here)?  Let me know on User_Talk:Fleetflame.  Fleetflame (talk) 02:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Onside Kick 

message: There seems to have been a template redirect for .  Now, the template does not seem show the stat links for PFR and DBF.  What is going on?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  21:11, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know when PFR was removed, but DBF and Sportsline were removed in this edit: . Looks like all that is left is links to the AFL, CFL, and NFL pages. --Bobblehead (rants) 21:26, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops! I removed those stats accidentally. Thanks for telling me. I just add them back. --Louis Alberto Guel 13:23, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox NFL player 

message: I've nominated Peyton Manning for Good Article status. If anyone wants to review it or has suggestions for improving the article, it would be appreciated. Dlong (talk) 01:40, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peyton Manning 

message: Is Ray McDonald (running back) the same person as Ray McDonald (Redskins player)? They certainly seem to be the same, but y'all know better than I :) -- SatyrTN (talk / contribs) 16:34, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks as if both are the same (the only other Ray McDonald I could find through google was a college player at the University of Florida) Mr mark taylor (talk) 16:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ray McDonald 

message: Would it be a good idea to include one screencap (likely from NFL Films/TV broadcast footage) for each article in the game summary section?  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 04:41, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Bowl Article Suggestion 

message: Last year, I created this sample box for the 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season article, and it quickly caught on to other team pages for the 2007 season (example). I thought I would make everybody aware that it is available to use for all the articles in the 2008 season. Didn't know who to talk to in order to make it official for the WP NFL project. To see what the box looks like when it's fully complete, check this Wiki-link.
Please note that this is an example, and I filled in names that came to mind instantly. I know realistically that Tom Brady would not be seen on the free-agent market anytime soon. Please note the color schemes (red = re-signed; grey = lost to free-agency, retirement, etc.)
Hope you guys like it. conman33(. . .talk) 05:03, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Free agency tracker box I created, looking for WP:NFL approval

message: Five featured lists under the realm of the NFL project have been nominated here for removal of the featured status.  An editor feels these lists require some work to stay as featured content.  Unless these suggestions are fixed, these lists could lose their stars.  Any help in improving the lists or any comments would be greatly appreciated.  Thank you.Gonzo fan2007 talk ♦ contribs 04:06, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:FLRC]] 

message: It is currently a FLC but at the moment doesn't have enough supports votes to pass. Buc (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[List of New Orleans Saints first-round draft picks]] needs feedback 

message: Would anybody be interested in starting a Kansas City Chiefs subproject? RC-0722 (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas City Chiefs