Talk:List of Pro Football Hall of Fame inductees

message: which order is better, by name or by year? Cong Yu 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: By name. I suppose it would be okay to do both. —Wrathchild (talk) 21:26, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly think year would be better, that way you can scroll closer to the bottom to see who has been inducted in the past 20 years. ren0talk 15:28, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also prefer by year.  If I have a specific person I have in mind, I can always search for the name even if it is ordered by year.  On the other hand, looking for peopled inducted in the same year is very difficult when ordered by name. Cong Yu 07:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: see the table is sortable on all attributes now, nice!! Cong Yu 07:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yesterday after I commented about liking year better I was actually looking for that solution (making it sortable by click), but couldn't find it. Well done! ren0talk 12:27, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: I think it would to sort the players by year, most resent least resent(Footballplayer40 (talk) 16:23, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

text: This discussion point can be considered closed since the table is now sortable.  Initial presentation is alphabetical by last name.--Deejayk (talk) 17:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Order by year?

message: I really doubt that Warren Moon is the only player in the pro football hall of fame that had played in the CFL. However the pro football hof does not list the CFL for the inductees. I don't really care either way but if you are going to put the CFL for Moon you should put the CFL for other players who have played in the CFL otherwise removed the CFL link from Moon. Smith03 23:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From a bit of cursory research I found that HoF coaches Bud Grant and Marv Levy each participated in the CFL as well.  However, I don't feel that the fact that a list of CFL contributors isn't definitive should lead to the conclusion that the CFL portion of a person's career should be expurgated from this list.  After all, this is the Pro Football Hall of Fame, not the NFL HoF.  I've noted that the CFL portion of Moon's career has since been added back to the article, but I just wanted to go on record with a vote of its importance. - Deejayk (talk) 17:15, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the relevant CFL histories for Grant and Levy.--Deejayk (talk) 17:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Listing CFL teams

message: Why are some years in brackets?«»bd(talk stalk) 21:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not seeing this in the current version, so I assume that this has been addressed.--Deejayk (talk) 17:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Brackets

message: The article states that no punters have been inducted, but Sammy Baugh was also the Redskins' punter. Even if it wasn't his primary position it should be acknowledged because he holds single season and all-time records for punting. Slimwarkhan (talk) 10:45, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions represented 

message: I deleted that section since it's unreferenced, and essentially unreferenceable since pretty much anyone who (a) played and (b) has retired or eventually will retire is going to be eligible. It's also going to attract huge amounts of cruft, I fear. Happy to discuss, if it's verifiable, of course. --AndrewHowse (talk) 22:38, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future eligibility 

message: I believe Emmit Smith (NFL All Time leading rusher) is missing from the list. Researching a few other names also.
: Emmitt Smith is not eligible for the HOF until next year.  Players must be retired five seasons before they may be considered for induction. Anson2995 (talk) 22:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgotten Hall of Famers 

message: Currently this article strictly follows WP's linking standards and only the first instance of each team name is linked.  However, since this table is sortable, the "first" instance is bound to change based on the sorting.  The standard contains an exception for "tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own" under which this list clearly qualifies.  I feel that this article would be more useful if we link each team name and I also believe that the benefit would outweigh any loss of readability.However, before undertaking the effort to link each team name, I wanted to throw the suggestion out in this forum in case this has already been considered.  I'd hate to go to a lot of effort just to have someone come along and revert it.  Please let me know what you think. - Deejayk (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have gone ahead and linked all of the team names.  If anyone has a compelling argument against this practice, please share it here.--Deejayk (talk) 17:56, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should ALL team names be linked? 

message: Split - Should this article be split out by team due to its size?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:07, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split article due to size? 

message: The way the table is currently structured, if you attempt to sort by year or position the players come up multiple times who played on more than one team. It makes reading the table very cumbersome. There must be a better way to format it so this doesn't happen.Compy90 (talk) 16:32, 7 February 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Four years later and this still hasn't been fixed. Wolf O'Donnel (talk) 07:31, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: It cannot be fixed with the current sort feature. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table format needs a change 

message: There is an ongoing discussion regarding this page here.  Anyone who follows this page, please feel free to participate in the discussion.
Thanks,  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @  17:45, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevant Discussion of this Article