Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 7

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

message: Hello all.  I came across the following diff  and believe it is likely vandalism, but someone who know ANYTHING about football may wish to review.  --Jordan 1972 (talk) 02:16, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: NFL lists his birthplace as San Antonio, I have since changed it back. Joesixpac (talk) 02:20, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article that needs attention 

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

message: There's a discussion at what is now Talk:Snow Bowl (New England).  Should this article be called the Tuck Rule Game or Snow Bowl (New England)?  It's been called some variation of "Tuck Rule" since it was created in September 2006, and was just changed recently (possibly due to to this discussion).  Obviously the opening line would mention both names, but what is the most common name? Torc2 (talk) 02:24, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It has nothing to do with that AfD. The title has been bothering me ever since I changed it (Tuck Rule Game simply is rarely used, if at all), and another user (or possibly IP) recently posted about it on the talk page. I agreed with what that user had to say. Pats1 T/C 02:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tuck Rule Game.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Tuck Rule Game]] or [[Snow Bowl (New England)]] 

message: This article lost FL status, but I have fixed/removed dead links and I have added more refs and improved the article. Do you think it can be renominated for FL status?--TrUCo9311 03:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Check here for renomination>>>hereTrUCo9311 21:02, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2005 NFL Draft]] renominated for FL 

message: (I archived this talk page)
Ok I am new to the project but I am an established user, and from my knowledge of other projects, sections that have not been responded for over 7 days are to be archived. If members of this project agree to do so, may you want me to archive this talk page on regular basis?--TrUCo9311 04:01, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In second though I will request a bot to do so.--TrUCo9311 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archival 

message: Would anybody be interested in starting a subproject about the Kansas City Chiefs? RC-0722 (talk) 21:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes! I've been interested in a very long time. Check out my user talk page to check out my contributions. conman33 (. . .talk) 21:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: In fact, I just created the project. Feel free to join and tell others too. Go here: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Kansas City Chiefs subproject.conman33 (. . .talk) 22:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Great! I'll start work on a ubox. RC-0722 (talk) 22:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kansas City Chiefs subproject 

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

message: Anyone interested in a subproject for the Washington Redskins? Let me know here or on my talk page. Jwalte04 (talk) 05:25, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure I'll join. I think I know of another person but he might join just because he hates the cowboys. RC-0722 communicator/kills 18:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redskins SubProject 

message: I was just wondering if anybody would like to help me create articles on the All-Pro Teams using pro-football-reference.com, I already created the 1979 All-Pro Team, if anbody wants to see how it should look. Thanks--Yankees10 23:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Per the discussion (far) above, I am confused about the pro-football-reference data.  Are they not distinguishing between All-pro and All-conference?  How is Alan Page listed as being on 11 All-pro teams but other official sources list him as being on six first-teams, three second-teams, and 10 all-conferences?  I tried doing the math but could never make 6, 3, and 10 add up to 11.  This would seem to be quite relevant to your article writing.  It seems I need some football award education if anyone could oblige...  Thanks!  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah your right I should hold off until we figure out if this is a reliable enough source or not--Yankees10 01:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

message: The :Template:Infobox NFL season is coded in such a way that it reads the city and team that the season is for and automatically assigns colors to the infobox. On the whole this is fine for many teams, but some teams have changed their colors and/or moved and relocated from a different city. For example, see 1999 St. Louis Rams season (the last season using blue and yellow) and 1960 Los Angeles Chargers season when the San Diego Chargers were in Los Angeles. If someone could change the infobox so that colors could optionally be placed in manually, I would appreciate it. --Pinkkeith (talk) 18:28, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will work on it. Give me some time though, I want to compile all the sets of colors for each franchise through their history before I do it. That way, we can add all the true colors to each one once I change the infobox.►Chris NelsonHolla! 20:30, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox NFL season 

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

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

message: Over the past few days, someone/some people have been adding individual team logos to players and coaches infoboxes (examples Joe Washington and Ray Flaherty are just two of a loooooot).  Does anyone else thinks this looks horrible and should be removed?   Jwalte04 (talk) 21:14, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not follow rules 3, 8, and 10c of WP:FUC#Policy anyway. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry, Michfan2123 got to most of it real fact, doesn't seem to be an issue any longer.  Just everyone keep their eyes open for it. Jwalte04 (talk) 06:33, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Team logos on player pages 

message: I know that this might not be the correct place to bring this up, but is there a concensus on the notability of Arena Football League players?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 00:39, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were trying to find it, the projcet page for the Arena Football League is... *drumroll* Wikipedia:WikiProject Arena Football League!!  While the project page doesn't express their notability directly, I assume that it's pretty much how it is for WP:NFL, WP:MLB, et cetera, and that an Arena Football League figure is considered notable if he is a player for an Arena Football League team or a coach of an Arena Football League team.  Note the bold font of "Arena Football League" because I don't believe that players in the af2 (the Arena Football League minor-league system) would be considered notable, much in the same way that American Hockey League players and Triple-A baseball players wouldn't be considered notable solely based on an affiliation with a National Hockey League or Major League Baseball team, respectively.  Ksy92003(talk) 04:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess I could drag this discussion there, but I'm hoping for some feedback here. They are probably homers for their AFL players. My problem  with considereing them notable is that they are basically the minor league for the NFL. I don't think  there's anyone in the AFL that wouldn't rather play in the NFL. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 18:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: While it is true that many people would prefer the pay of an NFL player to an Arena Football League player, and while several players do make the jump, it is also worth noting that the AFL and NFL are two separate leagues.  The AFL is a "lower" league compared to the NFL, but the AFL is the highest level of Arena Football in America.  I think that's enough to make different notability guidelines between NFL and AFL players.  Ksy92003(talk) 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see as two different types of football. What's with the Continental Basketball Association? I'm sure they don't have the same exact rules as the NBA. Should all their players be considered notable because they are in a professional league?--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 19:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I consider the differences between the NFL and Arena Football League significantly more.. significant.  For example, the size of the field is different, the boundaries are different, the running game clock runs differently, and in the AFL you're allowed to have a receiver run to the line of scrimmage prior to the snap, just to name a few.  Yes, there are different rules.  But I think the difference between the rules in the NFL and the Arena Football League are significant enough that they could be considered two separate types of football.  Ksy92003(talk) 19:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree with characterizing the AFL  as a differnt type of sport. But the extent of the difference and how it effects considering them a different type of football shouldn't matter. At the end of the day, these guys aren't notable; none of them have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I still think it'd be best to question their notability at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Arena Football League; they might have different notability guidelines than here, and it's important to know those.  They are, after all, independant projects and the same guidelines might not apply.  Ksy92003(talk) 15:59, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  notability of arena football league players 

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

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

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

message: There was a discussion about All-Pros that has now been archived. Why is there this rush to use Pro Football reference.com's website as the source? They are going to change how they show All-Pros. Here is an email from the webmaster there:
> > By the way, we're also starting to get serious about disaggregating the
> > all-pro data.  No guarantees, but I'd hope we can have it done within the
> > next month or two.
> >
> > Thanks for writing,
> >
> > (name withheld)
It is going to take time, but they are going to show the All-Pros in the tradition method, that is if you are a 1st team All-pro that is one thing. If you are a 2nd team All-Pro that is another. They are not the same thing. Never have been, never will. The source for All-pros is Total Football II: The Official Encyclpoeida of the NFL and ESPN: Pro Football Encyclopoedia, NOT Pro football reference.com.  Anyway, guys who were 5-time 1st team All-pro and 2-times 2nd team all-pro are shown as a 7-time All-pro. This is not accurate. Why are we going to have to go back and change everything when Pro Football Reference.com "disaggregates" the All-pro data? What gives?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-Pros 

message: Please see discussion at Talk:Jim Zorn#NFC Offensive Rookie of the Year in 1976? Says who?  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:35, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The award they are referring to is the NFLPA Offensive Rookie of the Year Award. As you rightly point out the AP, NEA, UPI, and Pro Football Writers Association, The Sporting News, and Pro Football Weekly all named White as the Offesnive Rookie of the Year, the Player's Association also gave out that award. I will note that it was that organization that gave Zorn that Award.72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:33, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Jim Zorn]] was NFC Offensive Rookie of the Year in 1976?  Says who? 

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

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

message: We've identified the Rosey Grier biography as a priority for improvement.  It's start-class right now; let's team together and get it up to B-class.  After all, how many defensive linebackers have ever authored a book called Needlepoint for Men?  Might be the only time our two projects collaborate, so let's chuckle and give Rosey his due. :) DurovaCharge! 09:08, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I worked on it some and added a section that should have been there that wasn't. I think it looks a little bit better. If you need anymore help just leave a message on my talk page. --Crash Underride 02:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the assistance.  Anything else you could add would be great.  We're doing a featured portal drive for textile arts and it'd be a hoot to include his biography in it.  Cheers, DurovaCharge! 04:54, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  An unusual hello from the [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Textile Arts]] 

message: I am getting slammed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Tyrone Wheatley because PFR and DBF don't pass WP:FAC standards.  I have been able to swap out some PFR refs for NFL.com.  However, some things I am unable to.  Can anyone help me find sources to replace the remaining PFR refs so we can get our first post 1930s football bio WP:FA.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  03:35, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone have any arguments on why PFR and DBF should be viewed as reliable sources for WP:FAC consideration.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD)  12:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  PFR and DBF credibility issues 

message: After creating many season schedule summaries for the Pittsburgh Steelers individual season articles, there have been users (usually unregistered) who have added an indiviual date (usually that of Sunday) to the bye week. I don't think that bye weeks should be a given a date, as not all games are played on Sunday. What is the "view" of the project on this matter? I would appreciate knowing one way or the other, so I can either add the date in the future, or report those who add the date for vandalism. Thank You. Blackngold29 (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone? If there is no policy that exists, perhaps there should be one created. Blackngold29 (talk) 07:30, 2 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that dates should NOT be added to bye weeks and that a policy should be created if one doesn't exist. --Crash Underride 05:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No date.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:34, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

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

text: Chris??? lol --Crash Underride 06:06, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bye Week / Date 

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

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

message: Are we going to discuss this? The issue is that a single-source (pro football reference.com) is putting out information that is misleading and is going to change it (why was my post deleted?) What is going on?72.0.36.36 (talk) 01:03, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A previous discussion on this subject was archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 4.  Is that what you're looking for?  Maybe the archiving is set to trigger too quickly...  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:21, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is up with the All-pros? 

message: I know this discussion has come up before, but I thought I would bring it up again, I wanted to know if the links to seasons should be in the infobox. I think they should be there for 3 reasons, 1st there on most of the infoboxes already, second reason is the links are already in the years played section and third reason is I think it looks better with the links (which I know is not a good reason)--Yankees10 18:28, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Which infobox? The one for the team or like during a season? (i.e. New Orleans Saints or 2008 New Orleans Saints season)?--TrUCo9311 19:21, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah that would help to say which one, Template:Infobox NFLretired, sorry about that--Yankees10 19:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: So what do you want to do? You want to add what to the infobox (as It is confusing on what you want to add to it)--TrUCo9311 19:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

text: What links? For the seasons?--TrUCo9311 19:52, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: yeah--Yankees10 19:58, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I dont thinks so, as it would have been mentioned in the article already, and it really is important to list it in the infobox, IMO.TrUCo9311 20:01, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

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

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

text: I Dont think the present should be linked though, thanks for responding--Yankees10 13:59, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Why link 1994 and 2007 when ALL the years in between aren't linked?►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:00, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Tough one.  Ordinarily I agree with Chrisjnelson on this point.  But now I'm picturing people thinking, "oh he started with Dallas in 2005 - was that the year they missed the playoffs?"  *Click*  They could traverse the Cowboys' seasons starting at the first year X played for them.  —Wknight94 (talk) 14:19, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I'm with Dub K on this one. Plue, who knows they about be like some players and be one hit wonders and have a HUGE rookie season and possibly nothin' that big again. --Crash Underride 16:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wknight is Dub K. Dub K as in W-K.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:58, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links to Seasons in Infoboxes 

message: I created a new info box that's an updated version on Template:Infobox Gridiron football person. It's Template:Infobox Gridiron football person alt, and instead of the American Football League (AFL), it retains the Arena Football League (AFL). So in turn, I removed the AFL draft, round, and pick, entries and changed AFLDraftedYear to AFLEntryYear, since the Arena League doesn't have a yearly draft. It still contains the Canadian Football League (CFL), and NFL, of course. I'm also constipating adding the AAFL, and United Football League, that is, if they pan out any. --Crash Underride 05:11, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You're constipating?►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:30, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume s/he meant "contemplating".  Ksy92003 (talk) 14:56, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for sharing. Anywho, that's cool, good work! Kimu 15:18, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

text: Ok, I was thinkin' about somethin' else lol. I need some help though on the position(s) part. I can't get it to register for some reason. Plus, I just thought of it a few minutes ago, I would like to add the players major as well, people might find it interestin'. Ya'll feel free to help me out with those if ya like. --Crash Underride 16:08, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I tried tinkerin' with it but I still couldn't get it. I don'tknow,so I gave up, rather listen to SHOUTcast lol.Crash Underride 04:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Gridiron person infobox 

message: Euphjoe (talk) 15:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems that the Super Bowl VII article may be using http://www.nfl.com/superbowl/history/entertainment which can be viewed by some as a a reliable, published source since it is from the NFL's official website. Unfortunately, since you cannot cite your own personal eyewitness account, you may need to find another different source to cite. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction to Super Bowl VII National Anthem and Halftime information 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

message: So I noticed that baseball players have a template in their External links sections that includes links to various stat websites. Well I don't know if there's an NFL equivalent, but I can't recall seeing one and I know for sure there isn't one widely in use on NFL player articles. To that end, I've created one and it's located at Template:Footballstats. It includes possible links to NFL.com, ESPN, CBS Sports, Yahoo!, Fox Sports, SI and Rotoworld. I'm also going to add links to CFL.ca and ArenaFan.com. If we all could start adding that to NFL player article, that'd be great. It'd definitely cut down on the space in the ELs section spent on various links.►Chris NelsonHolla! 07:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Does this go for coaches too? I'm pretty sure www.pro-football-reference.com has every coach ever. I doubt sites like ESPN has the stats for Chuck Noll. Are there any other sites we could use for coaches? Blackngold29 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Didn't think about coaches, but now I remember I need to add PFR to this template.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New multi-link stats template for external links sections 

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

message: As I predicted, all that changing of the All-pros two editors did now needs to be reversed. The wesbite they used for verification has changed its date to reflect accurately the All-Pros.  Ted Hendricks is not an 11-time All-Pro. Is there going to be control of editors who are out-of-control?  72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALl-Pros 2 

message: I've been working on a draft article, here, when would be an okay time to turn it into an official article? Thanks for any input, I don't want to start this up too soon. HoosierStateTalk 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it is also too early, and you should have waited before publishing it on to the mainspace.--~SRS~ 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Bowl XLVI 

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

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

message: I asked my fiancee last night about this topic.  She has two degrees: one is a Bachelor's of Arts in Speech Communications from Minnesota State University, Mankato and the other is a Bachelors of Science in journalism from the University of Minnesota.  She's worked two years as an assistant editor at the American Journal of Kidney Disease when it was stationed in Minnesota, and now she's working as an Editor at Priority Publishing in Edina, MN.  Needless to say, grammar is her life.
She said normally she wouldn't use Wikipedia or work on Wikipedia because in her field it's considered unreliable and sloppy, but since I've already gotten involved in this she'll help out.  Instead of making a knee-jerk response she said she'd go to work and check her AP Stylebook and ask a couple of other editors at work so she could be 100% sure.  While the ametuer journalist immediately says they are right because they figure they know better, the professional likes to get input from others. She asked two other editors at work today about this, one who has a Master's Degree and one who is a specialist in grammar.  We just got done having a lengthy conversation on it.
 
:I have to strongly agree with your fiancee on this point. Wikipedia is very unreliable. I've seen lots of information that is just incorrect and/or poorly sourced. Many of the sources that I look up don't even mention anything about the point that it is suppose to reference. It seems to me that most of the information placed on here is popular opinion rather then factual information. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:36, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, originally sounds unecessary/redundant.  "<Player Name> was drafted in 2006" makes more sense than "<Player Name> was originally drafted in 2006", especially because in almost all cases you only get drafted once.  Bjewiki (Talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response From An Expert: A Professional Editor With A 4 yr Journalism Degree 

message: It can be taken by a reader one of two ways: the first is to put the emphasis on drafted which would be making what is called a false statement on some articles because it would imply that they've been drafted more than once when in fact many have not.  And you don't write things in articles as if they've already happened just because it may or may not happen in the future(WP:Crystal). The other way to take it would be to as Chrisjnelson wants you to take it which would be that they originally started at this team.  This would also make it improper grammar because it is considered redundant and unnecessary.  You should always use the least amount of words as possible to make your point across.  A good rule of thumb on redundancy is that if you're reading a sentence, and by removing one word it still makes sense, then that word should be removed.  Also keep in mind that some readers may see it as implyng they've already moved to another team (which is a false statement again). 
My fiancee and the one with the Master's Degree took it as being drafted more than once, and the other person took it as this is the team they came from.  All three of them said that if this article came across their desk the way it is now, they would take a red pen and cross the word "orginally" out because if it confuses the reader it shouldn't be in there.  And adding "originally" in every article obviously confuses at least some readers here.  The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information about a popular topic to the layperson, and confusing the reader undermines that purpose.
Also, she was wondering if Chrisjnelson had an alterior motive, because she said consistency doesn't overpower readability.  Consistency is generally used within the scope of the same article, not multiple articles.  Nobody wants to read the same thing over and over again in every article.  In a way she said she could see where he is coming from, because when you're in school you are expected to write a little wordy but when actually writing in your profession you want as little words as possible to create a better finished product.  
Also Chrisjnelson, when you actually get in the field your articles will be edited by sometimes two or three editors before being printed (and they will often edit each other's work).  If you are going to be this defensive and combative on edits to your work this field isn't going to be for you.  But she wasn't too worried about that in your case because this is something they usually teach you to work with in years 3 and 4 in college. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 19:16, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, originally sounds unecessary/redundant.  "<Player Name> was drafted in 2006" makes more sense than "<Player Name> was originally drafted in 2006", especially because in almost all cases you only get drafted once.  Bjewiki (Talk) 09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Their Response: 

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

message: A NFL game cannot end on a defensive peanlty so the zebras botched that call.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.218.53 (talk) 22:22, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL Playoffs 49ers 39 Giants 38 

message: He folks, wanted to make you aware of an ongoing TFD regarding NBA championship navboxes here.  This follows the TFD discussion that resulted in Stanley Cup championship templates being deleted.  It's a pretty active discussion, and seems to be one that may affect other sports projects down the line.  Feel free to chime in on the discussion if you are interested.  - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:29, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This issue is currently under deletion review here.  If you haven't already and are interested in this topic, please provide your input.  If the deletion holds, it is likely that the Super Bowl and NFL/AFL navboxes will be deleted.  - Masonpatriot (talk) 16:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Bowl and NFL/AFL championship navboxes 

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

message: It's not NFL, but maybe someone might know if it's real or not Fasach Nua (talk) 19:51, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw that, although I would be happier if they had more than 0 players, and their, and their contact number wasnt in Germany! Fasach Nua (talk) 21:09, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ireland national American football team]] 

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

message: why was the List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks page redirected to List of Chicago Bears players? --Gman124 (talk) 14:13, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It would appear someone has put the first-round draft picks on that page. Although to match other teams, it should probably have its own. Blackngold29 16:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks 

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

message: It's been suggested to me that this recently-created article is a hoax.  I looked into it a little and found some evidence, but also found a place where his name should probably have been and is not.  Would one of you well-informed folks care to dispose of this one way or the other?  Thanks in advance.  Accounting4Taste:talk 15:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a hoax.  Nobody with that name ever played in the NFL.  How to remove this article? Anson2995 (talk) 18:06, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Demurjian]] 

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

message: Hey there, WP:NFL.  I've put together a template for stadiums that have moved out of the "purposed" phase and have had physical construction started.
Template:Stadium_under_construction
Use it as necessary!  Thanks!  -- MeHolla! 22:43, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Cool. I put it on New Pittsburgh Arena. Thanks! Blackngold29 22:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Template 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gets this.
Hope you guys and gals like it. This is gonna be the one that I use from now on, hopefully. lol Crash Underride 18:41, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good job. Im gonna use it from now on.--SRX--LatinoHeat 18:42, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that the box is still alittle bigger than I'd like, so I'm gonna work on that and get it to the 50 by 45 size that 98% or more use. Crash Underride 20:22, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New Project Userbox 

message: Ok so there are a lot of NFL featured lists now (about 40 I think and always increasing). However looking through them today I noticed that and lot of the old ones (e.g List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks and Chicago Bears seasons) are of a much lower standard. Clearly they passed before the featured list criteria tightened is rules. I'd like to propose a project to get them up to the standard that they should be at. Buc (talk) 19:03, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You could list any lists that no longer meet the criteria on the WP:FLRC page. There are a lot of FLs and as you stated, I definately think some don't deserve to be so. Blackngold29 20:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That's for individual list. I'm talking about a whole bunch of them. Buc (talk) 12:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just saying... if you don't think they're FL class, that's where to put 'em. Blackngold29 06:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Older FL issue 

message: Currently, 981 of the articles assigned to this project, or 11.1%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of .) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. Subsribing is easy - just add a template to your project page. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles flagged for cleanup 

message: :Super Bowl XLI has been listed as a GA, but while I was translating it to the Spanish Wikipedia I noticed that many references are now useless (broken links?). These are: Ref 3, 4, 6, 10, 13, 15, 17, 20, 21, 24, 26, 28, 29, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40 and 42. That is nineteen references out of fifty one. Most of them are from NFL.com. Is there a way to recover those links? Poromiami (talk) 17:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super Bowl XLI 

message: Ok, so here's the thing. I have created an info box that's for AFL players only and it works just great, HOWEVER, I am tryin' to make one for af2 and I am havin' some trouble. Go here Template:Infobox_af2active. It works fine, but the problem is I have a mysterious > in the upper left hand side and I can't figure out why it's there. Also, I am workin' on gettin' all af2 team colors so that I can finish makin' a color template for af2, like the one use for NFL teams, that has the colors for CFL, AFL, AFL, and AAFL team colors. I need help finishin' up on those, I'm almost done with Template:Af2PrimaryColor. I need help with the other three, ALTPrimaryColor, SecondaryColor, and ALTSecondaryColor. I'd really appreciate any help I could get. You may also wish to go to the PrimaryColor one and make sure that the colors are a) right, and b) on the right template, making sure that the teams' main color (such as the Dallas Cowboys being silver, with blue font) is on the correct template. As I said, I would REALLY appreciate any help. It's very time consuming when it's just me, and I have a computer with very bad RAM and I sometimes get frozen up on a teams website for several minutes. So any help would be great. Thanks, Crash Underride 04:14, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some info box help. 

message: As you can see there their souce no longer verifies combining of All-pros. No source, no combining72.0.36.36 (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Archived discussions on All-Pros so the cud isn't chewed again 

message: As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level.  The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.
*The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.  
*The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.  
*A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.  
Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at :Category:C-Class_articles.  If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages.  The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles. 
Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme.  This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year.  Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme 

message: It's apparent that many newer drafts have one off images, and while requests have been made for some vintage or era appropriate art in the earlier draft pages I've had no luck finding anything appropriate. I Just edited the NFL Draft format proposal with the wikiproject image for illustrative purposes and thought immediately this is a possibility for those earlier draft pages. Any thoughts or objections? Slysplace  talk ♫ 17:19, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if having the same color for Pro Bowl and All Pro is a good idea, because one is pro and one is college. Also does that mean Pro Bowl in the season they are drafted or at any point throughout their career? Overall, though it's a good start. Blackngold29 17:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That Draft page proposal was a rough draft and I created it some time ago (with little input from others). I added the Project image to the draft today. I agree on the color issues however I'll point out I took that cue from other pages within the series. My personal preference is the later, any point in career should apply.  Some of the Early era draft pages have appropriate foot notes as to pro / college / HOF etc.. and I've tried to elaborate on much of them. My request for input at this point is as to images for the early era 1936 - Modern era 1989 which have none. It seems trivial I'm sure but is often considered a requirement to boost an articles assesment. Any input on that is appreciated. Slysplace  talk ♫ 17:53, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

text: All-Pro is not college. Hence the word 'pro'.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops, yeah, I was thinking of "All-American". Blackngold29 17:56, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request input on draft page images 

message: Hello, I nominated the List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks at WP:FLRC. I believe some changes are needed in order to keep this list featured. Please, respond here. Thank you.--Crzycheetah 22:55, 5 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers first-round draft picks at FLRC 

message: I was wondering if anyone thought it might be a good idea to break this apart by team: Fearsome Foursome (New York Giants), Fearsome Foursome (Detroit Lions), Fearsome Foursome (San Diego Chargers) and Fearsome Foursome (Los Angeles Rams). --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:55, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fearsome Foursome (football)]] 

message: Does anyone know where I can find some sources for Fred Swearingen, as I was intending to create an article for him. I tried googling his name but got a whole lot of other Fred Swearingens mixed in.  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 16:04, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Who was he? A coach? Player? Cheerleader? Blackngold29 22:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Did you try adding 'nfl' to the search? I got some hits that relate to the NFL. ;) --  StarScream1007  ►Talk   23:00, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Swearingen was an official best remembered for being the referee for The Immaculate Reception game, as well as an official that made a controversial pass-interference call against the Cowboys in Super Bowl XIII.  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 14:34, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

text: I agree that Google is a good source to use, you might also try Google books it is a good resource. Blackngold29 16:56, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources for an article I intend to start 

message: Just to let you know the article 2008 NFL rookie symposium has been listed for deletion.  Personally I think it should be included as a section in an overall NFL rookie symposium article, then each years event can be added to that article.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 11:08, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree. There should be a main article on it, and then if anything notable happens/changes it can be added.►Chris NelsonHolla! 17:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You should make your feelings known about this article in the article for deletion listing.  --Captain-tucker (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[2008 NFL rookie symposium]] at AFD 

message: With the Democratic convention weeks away, and the nominating acceptance speech to take place at INVESCO Field at Mile High, this seems like a good time to get this article in shape.  If anyone knowledgeable about the stadium and its history could improve the article's references and perhaps expand the article, it would be helpful for the curious who wander onto the page.  Thanks.Johnelwayrules (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[INVESCO Field at Mile High]] a priority article 

message: I was inspired to create this article after seeing "List of Chicago Bears starting quarterbacks." Obviously, this article is a lot more expansive than that artilce, but I also DO NOT think this is a list. Is it OK to have an article describing the Chiefs' QB history as well as providing lists and statistics? Please note the title does not include "starting" quarterbacks because the article also includes information on the Chiefs' history of notable backup quarterbacks. This also includes all of the player's statistics with KC and records for the position. Does this somehow violate Wikipedia's policy on notability and format? You can argue that we'll have to create articles similar to it in order to go along, but you can see List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame as a stand-alone article in that format. Please be easy on me--I'm just asking to see if what I did was for something, and it won't just get thrown away. As you can see, I've busted my ass on writing this article with expansive research. So please don't tell me straight up that it should be deleted--maybe we can work something out and keep it, maybe just trim it. I think this is totally ready to be a GA-status article and maybe even eventually a featured article. Oh yeah, I'm fully aware of some minor mistakes that may be present in the article at this time, especially the "Life after Trent Green" section (it may repeat itself or be out of order). I'M STILL WORKING ON THIS ARTICLE, I just wanted to get some feedback and make sure I'm not putting in all this effort for absolutely nothing. Thanks a lot and any help would be of great assistance. conman33 (. . .talk) 05:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Input on article I'm working on: [[Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks]] 

message: As a courtesy note, the above article that is within the scope of your project is being discussed for deletion.  Please feel free to voice your opinions.  Thanks,  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @  20:45, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Logos and uniforms of the New England Patriots]] 

message: I have noticed a number of articles concerning AFL players and coaches are (or began as) cut and paste jobs from [Remember the AFL].  However, it is not clear if this violates copyright.  Their copyright states "©2003  American Football League Hall of Fame  All rights reserved. Duplicate in any form you like, if you're an AFL fan.
You have the permission of the American Football League Hall of Fame.  Please credit/link to: http://www.remembertheafl.com"  On the one hand, this does affirm a copyright, on the other hand, it give anyone the right to duplicate in any form (provided one is an AFL fan).  Ideally, of course, these article should be rewritten and cited to multiple sources, but is it cool to leave them up until this is done?  Thanks-Johnelwayrules (talk) 04:51, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not believe it is a problem because many of those edits were actually made by the guy who runs that site, editing under User:RemembertheAFL and User:SugnuSicilianu. So in fact, he has essentially released his own content under the GFDL by adding the same stuff here on Wikipedia. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:25, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that helps -- I'll just leave them up for now - between his disclaimer and his own editing, it's safe to say he's nice enough to let us use his stuff.Johnelwayrules (talk) 21:07, 2 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of Remember the AFL a copyright violation? 

message: Does anyone think we could include a scoring summary for upcoming Regular Season games? Here's what I had in mind, using the Pit Philly game on Saturday
Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh - Preseason Week One — Scoring Summary
;First Quarter
*PIT -  B. Roethlisberger pass short left to S. Holmes for 19 yards, Touchdown (10:32)
*PHI -  D. Akers 28 yard FG (3:11)
;Second Quarter
*PHI - D. McNabb pass short middle to J. Davis for 3 yards, Touchdown (13:00)
*PIT - J. Reed 20 yard FG (3:37)
;Fourth Quarter
*PIT - J. Reed 24 yard FG (12:02)
*PIT - J. Reed 50 yard FG (7:32)
;Running score
*PIT 7-0
*PIT 7-3
</br>
*PHI 10-7
*TIE 10-10
</br>
*PIT 13-10
*PIT 16-10
I think it would be good info to have, nothing too extensive, but it's there if you want it; but at the same time it's hidden so it's not taking up a lot of space. All info taken from the Official NFL recap. Thoughts? Blackngold29 06:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've used this in the 2007 Kansas City Chiefs season page. It's similar, but not collapsible like yours. Note that I don't include "yard" after the numbers of the play, like "Gonzalez 26 pass from Huard". I like your idea though, I think they should be included.
Scoring summary	Scoring summary	Scoring summary	Scoring summary                   	Scoring summary	Scoring summary
Q              	Team           	Time           	Scoring play                      	Extra point    	Score
1              	KC             	9:39           	FG Rayner 32                      	               	KC 3-0
1              	CIN            	7:39           	Houshmandzadeh 42 pass from Palmer	Graham kick    	CIN 7-3
1              	KC             	:53            	Gonzalez 3 pass from Huard        	Rayner kick    	KC 10-7
2              	KC             	6:27           	Johnson 8 run                     	Rayner kick    	KC 17-7
2              	KC             	:00            	FG Rayner 20                      	               	KC 20-7
4              	CIN            	13:54          	FG Graham 33                      	               	KC 20-10
4              	KC             	8:03           	Gonzalez 26 pass from Huard       	Rayner kick    	KC 27-10
4              	CIN            	5:03           	Houshmandzadeh 30 pass from Palmer	Graham kick    	KC 27-17
4              	KC             	:18            	FG Graham 36                      	               	KC 27-20
conman33 (. . .talk) 21:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

text: It seems that up to this point Scoring summaries have only been used for playoff games, so maybe we could use your style for them. Perhaps add a few columns and make it real descriptive. Blackngold29 04:27, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd hate to take credit for this, but I originally got the idea from whoever contributed to the 2007 New York Jets season article. The problem with these is that they take up too much space in the game summary sections. Check out this to see how I formatted the scoring summaries so that they would fit nicely into the article Maybe we can make them collapsible?  conman33 (. . .talk) 06:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It actually originated on 2007 Tampa Bay Buccaneers season, not the Jets page Doctorindy (talk) 15:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scoring summary 

message: Chicago Bears seasons is a Featured list removal candidate. BUC (talk) 19:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FLRC 

message: WP:CFB invites all interested Wikipedians to participate in the general player notability discussion going on right now.  The question at hand is, "what kind of guidelines can be set up to help clarify notability of active college football players?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Invitation to notability discussion 

message: I started up the page for this controversy magnet of an official yesterday, and am mentioning so anyone with more knowledge of the subject can help out.  WAVY 10 Fan (talk) 15:36, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Fred Swearingen]] article update 

message: In the past 2 hours, mnay one-edit IPs have added claims about Gene Upshaw's death to his article. To this point, I have only been able to find a report from Clear CHannel, and none from the major news or sports outlets. Several users have privately expressed concerns to me that this may still be a hoax. Mr. Upshaw's bio page has been subjected to some pretty vicious vandalism in the past. I do not use WP:ANI noticeboards, as the admins always seem to be the ones who respond treated me as if I'm the vandal! (I'm serious - I haven't used ANI in well over a year!) However, I don't know any admins who work within this project who can step in, protect the page for the time being if necessary, and allow the truth to sort itself out. ANy help onthis would be appreciated. I'm going inactive for about an hour, but I will chaeck back then. Thanks for whatever anyone can do in this situation. - BillCJ (talk) 09:40, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: His death has been confirmed by NBC and ESPN broadcasts, I'm sure there's a reliable article out there now. Blackngold29 16:18, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. It took about six hours, but confirmation did finally come once the East Coast news cycle began. Definitely one of those stories you wish wasn't true, but at least we do nknow the truth now. - BillCJ (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gene Upshaw 

message: See Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER for a proposal about making Notable Player sections into official guidelines.    RGTraynor  17:19, 29 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:NOTED PLAYER]] 

message: I noticed the Browns' supposed "alternate jersey" on the Cleveland Browns article. Can someone give me a source that says that's their alternate jersey? They've worn it twice in the past two years. If anything, it's their throwback jersey, to the '50s (I believe) when they wore numbers on their helmets. Their actual alternate jersey now is a white jersey and brown pants with brown socks. Wlmaltby3 (talk) 02:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleveland Browns alternate jersey 

message: We have two lists of quarterbacks that have thrown for 200 touchdowns. One of the two should be deleted. Here are the links to the two articles. I favor keeping the more detailed one and deleting the less detailed one:
*List of National Football League passing touchdowns leaders
*List of National Football League quarterbacks who have thrown at least 200 career touchdowns
Stylteralmaldo (talk) 01:33, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: A Merge would be the more appropriate solution, with the lesser page becoming a redirect to the larger one. Bring it up on both pages, and see if there are any objections. - BillCJ (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundant list articles 

message: Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.
We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations. 
A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible. 
We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:31, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 0.7 articles have been selected for National Football League 

message: Hi there.  I am posting this here because Lucas Oil Stadium is currently in an edit war, and is a part of your WikiProject.  The war has started over the inclusion of "The Luke" as a nickname for the stadium.  Please see here for archived discussion, and here to add your comments.
Thank you.  -- MeHolla! 22:33, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment - [[Lucas Oil Stadium]] 

message: in similar tables for other teams as with this edit where I added play by play link to the game by game reference data we provided (the first link).  
* The similarity in format of the file name (building) and accessing parts of the retrieval url, suggest this might make a good table-element template... given the nfl.com id# and the week, the template could build both links, and like my example, present them as "clean" plainlinks.
* OTOH, spaced out vertically as I did, the span class, etc. formatting and url's are easily editable and readable, so there isn't a strong reason to templatize here either.
Cheers // FrankB 14:36, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding play by play link suggested 

message: I started pages at 1960 NFL Expansion Draft, 1995 NFL Expansion Draft, and 2002 NFL Expansion Draft.  If anyone has a round-by-round source for the 1976 NFL Expansion Draft, that would be great.  I can only find a alphabetical list, but the Seahawks and the Buccaneers took turns like the Panthers and the Jaguars did in 1995.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 05:56, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[NFL Expansion Draft]]s 

message: See Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2008 September 30#Template:CurrentNFLKickers. delldot ∇. 20:26, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:CurrentNFLKickers]] up for deletion 

message: right|150px|thumbnail|Flozell Adams and Marc Colombo leaving the field at Cleveland Browns Stadium after a week one win over the Browns.
Is this a picture that is good enough to use on Flozell Adams' and Marc Colombo's articles?I took it from the stepps up to section 501 in Cleveland Browns Stadium. Crash Underride 17:12, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, does anyone think it's a decent picture to use for the Colombo article or not? I need answeres people. Crash Underride 18:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, its better than nothing :p At least it portrays the front of the specified subjects. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk   18:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say be WP:BOLD and use it!  A low-quality picture often is better than none, and when a better one comes along from an enthusiastic editor, we'll welcome it!--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:53, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's better for Columbo more so than Adams. Though I am also of the belief that a low-quality pic is better than no pic.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:31, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good picture? 

message: I was looking around and I notice the Template:NHLTeamSeason box, and I was very impressed by the box.  Not only was I impressed by the infobox, but it seems the NHL team season articles are better structured than our NFL articles.  If there is someone talented enough to make an infobox for our NFL team seasons to mimick the ones of the NHL, I think it would be cool. I don't like the current ones in use.  They seem vague and not up to par with other major league sports around the world. I suggest that for our Champions banner that you will notice in their example, we use to division, conference, NFL, Super Bowl champion color scheme from the Chicago Bears seasons/Cleveland Browns seasons legends.
--OSUpharm11 (talk) 03:48, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I goofed around with the templates last night, and I hope I made one successfully.  I have posted the mock new template I have been thinking about on 1933 Chicago Bears season. --OSUpharm11 (talk) 15:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:Infobox NFL season]] 

message: According to the Bills website, they are the first team to switch to a new kind of "NFL Internet Network" website. And all other 31 teams will be switching to similar ones over the next 3 years. So everyone, keep your eyes peeled.
http://www.buffalobills.com/news/article-1/buffalobillscom-launches-new-look-and-feel/8aaff36e-73b0-4525-90cd-f157f92e5ce1
It's really advanced and high-tech, but I like it so far. Jc121383 (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems a lot of sports teams are starting to incorporate more features like video into their sites, NHL.com has been re-vamped for the season and looks terrific. Hopefully it'll give us easier and better ways to cite things, etc. Thanks for the heads up! Blackngold29 18:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be nice if all the NFL team sites were the same and had the same features, kind of like MLB.com does. Makes finding info such as transactions a lot easier, and the updates tend to be better as well.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  New team websites coming over the next 3 years... 

message: Vai Sikahema was a NFL player for eight seasons. However, the longest stretch of prose on his article is about a celebrity boxing match earlier this year that Sikahema won in the first round. That means the majority of his article covers at most 3 minutes of his life. Some NFL history buffs might want to go fill out his football career to provide the proper balance to the article. Gentgeen (talk) 22:34, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vai Sikahema article needs help 

message: I have created a template called Template:NFL All-Pro Teams, although there are really only a few years of All-Pro on Wikipedia (2000-2007, and for some reason, 1979).
Most of the data for these teams can be found at here: , although you have to click a few links to get to each All-Pro Team. Tell me what you think.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bill shannon (talk • contribs) 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All-Pro Template 

message: I have noticed a lot of pages that have a year written as a  pipelink to that NFL season.  Like this:2002.  But the Manual of Style entry that deals with lists specifically states not to link years like that.  That was a critique of the current feature list candidacy of the 2002 NFL Expansion Draft.  Initially I was hostile to the suggestion to change it, but that was before I read that entry in the MoS.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pipelinking NFL Seasons into dates 

message: Drew Pearson (American football) is a perfect example. His "honors" were perfectly listed. However, for some reason, the "combining" did not take place with him. If the Alan Page "11 All-pro" model were to be followed then Pearson would be a 5-time All-Pro, but even after and update, he is listed as All-pro in 1975, 75, 77. That is 3 times. So, for him, the "new" and flawed rules don't apply, but for others (who some editors may like) they get their All-pro resumes puffed up. Like was mention potential synthesis 72.0.36.36 (talk) 16:28, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selectivity on All-Pros 

message: While working on cleaning up :Category:Possibly living people, I noticed an article on a fellow by the name of Andrei Ocho Cinco who is claimed to have been a wide receiver for the Kansas City Chiefs from 1985-1995. A Google search suggests that this may be a hoax, as well as "Andrei Eight Five" being a strange name, but I admit my ignorance of the Chiefs and perhaps I am missing something. Any one know anything? Cheers, CP 22:28, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's vandalism, it just needs to be speedy deleted.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:33, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Thanks for the confirmation! Cheers, CP 22:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Haha! Not only is the name hilarious but the fact that it's under "Possibly living people" makes it even better. Both a great and terrible job at vandalism, whoever did it. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible hoax 

message: I realize Wikipedia doesn't split pages for NFL teams that have relocated.  However, the Oilers are a unique case amongst NFL teams. They are the one and only NFL franchise (in at least 40 years) whose team identity has completely vanished. Yes, they became the Titans, but there simply isn't a team called the "Oilers" anymore, whereas other teams that have relocated have either kept the team name (Colts, Rams, Cardinals), or the city from which the team moved eventually got their team "back" (Browns).  Since the inception of the Super Bowl, the Oilers are the only franchise to simply cease existing under their old team name once they relocated, never to be resurrected (since the Titans' owner "kept" the rights to the Oilers name and Houston now has a completely new team). Because of this exceptional situation, perhaps the Oilers should have their own page. ChargersFan (talk) 22:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I do not understand why the Houston Oilers cannot redirect to the Tennessee Titans, as it currently does.  This situation isn't really all that unique.  Until the Houston Texans formed in 2002, the "Texans" were a defunct team name (Dallas Texans became the Kansas City Chiefs in 1963).  There are many other more obscure names, such as the Kansas City Blues.  They dropped that in 1925 and no NFL team has decided to call themselves the Blues ever since. -- kainaw™ 22:54, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Oilers were a presence in the NFL and in the city of Houston for well over 30 years.  The AFL Texans changed their name (when they moved) after just three seasons.  The AFL Titans also became the Jets (without moving) after just a few seasons.  And both of those team names were later used by other franchises (albeit with different team "themes/colors").  The longevity of the Oilers, followed by their disappearance, is unique in recent NFL history. ChargersFan (talk) 23:06, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That doesn't answer my question: Why can't the Houston Oilers title redirect to the Tennessee Titans article?  As for your point, you've gone from claiming that this case is unique to the Oilers to claiming it is unique to the Oilers if we only consider teams who used the name for a long time.  How long?  The Triangles used their name for 9 years and I don't see any city bidding to use the name any time soon. -- kainaw™ 23:50, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't answer the question because: #1 You never asked a question (until your last reply), and #2, the point is completely moot.  "Houston Oilers" already directs to the Tennesse Titans article, so obviously there's no reason it "can't" redirect there.  I'm just making a suggestion which I believe would make Wikipedia easier and more efficient to use for those who want to learn about the Houston Oilers without having to scroll through a bunch of Titans' information.  It's just a suggestion, not a demand.  And by the way, in my original suggestion, I did state " Since the inception of the Super Bowl..." (which came after the early identity shifts of the teams you mentioned) so I really never changed my claim at all.  I made a suggestion (notice the word "perhaps" in my initial comment), and I've stated my reasons for making it.  You obviously don't agree.  Okay, that's fine, I didn't come here to argue, I came to try and improve Wikipedia with a suggestion. ChargersFan (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

text: As I said in many other similar discussions, we are basically copying what the official team and NFL references are doing: grouping both the history of the entire team together from 1959 to the present. Officially, it is still the same continuous franchise, with the same team records and so forth. This is based on official references already published from the official web sites (see also Wikipedia:Verifiability). So I find the arguments that we should split the page because the team is "the one and only NFL franchise whose team identity has completely vanished" and that it is a "exceptional situation" is more POV or original thought to me. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:22, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for the explanation. ChargersFan (talk) 16:10, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unique Situation of the Houston Oilers 

message: The Detroit Lions page and the 2008 Detroit Lions season page have been constant targets of vandalism this season to due to the Lions' winless record. I strongly believe that the protection levels of both pages need to be raised very high to prevent future vandalism attempts. So if any adminstrators / moderators are reading this, please do so. Thanks and happy editing.TomCat4680 (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You can request page protection at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Hope that helps. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk   04:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did and they denied me. I guess we have to keep our eyes out for vandals ourselves. GO LIONS!TomCat4680 (talk) 05:11, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just tried again. If anyone is as passionate as stopping vandalism against the Detroit Lions page as I am, send a message to the adminstrator User:Tanthalas39. He's a Lions fan so maybe he'll change his mind if enough people tell him how they feel. TomCat4680 (talk) 05:47, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: update: Admin Bearian semi-protected it until November 9. Hopefully it will scare off the vandals, at least for a little while. GO LIONS! TomCat4680 (talk) 07:11, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constant vandalism on Detroit Lions pages 

message: Is there a reason we cannot list other stat sites in the infobox?  I read the discussion above on this issue, and one question that was raised was this: "Well are there really things some provide that others don't? ►Chris Nelson 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But if NFL.com gets top billing, and all players have an NFL.com link, other links will eventually never be used. The point with keeping them all the same is that visitors to ANY player article should be able to know what kind of info there are getting and where they are getting it from. I use PFR often and it's a great site - this is not about PFR. It's about having NFL infoboxes, some with NFL.com links, some with PFR links, some with ESPN links, some with Yahoo, and so on and so on. It seems to be the best strategy is to use one website for everybody's link, so the kind of information provided is the same every time.►Chris NelsonHolla! 05:21, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think that it would be that all of the boxes have nfl.com links.  I just don't see what's wrong with also having pfr.com links.  With them being on there, I would think that some people might wonder why, and when they click on it to investigate, they would discover that pfr offers some more info about the player.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:40, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Other Stat Lines 

message: The user Jwalte04 believes that the order of the categories for NFL articles should be in alphabetical order. The way that is currently done is to put them in this order:birth year, living person, birthplace, there position, college, the teams they played for in order of tenure, and if they were a Pro Bowler.  What order do you think we should use--Yankees10 01:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just feel like alphabetical order is the way to go because a first-time editor can understand the ordering process instead of figuring out the chronological order, as well as anyone wanting to add a cateogry can easily put it in properly.  You dont have to remember a specific sequence, rather you just have to know the alphabet, you know what I'm saying?  Jwalte04 (talk) 01:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I just realized with the Template:Lifetime it automatically is out of order because the birthyear goes right avove the living person category.--Yankees10 01:37, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok well I can bend on this.  How about everything under Living people cat is alphabetical? Jwalte04 (talk) 01:53, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm partial to the chronological method myself. While I can understand the logic behind the alphabetical method, I think we can at least all agree that something good about the chronological method is it groups all similar categories (ex. NFL teams played for) together. That is one big thing I'd hate to lose by switching to alphabetical.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: But a player's categories aren't always limited to football-related categories: What about players who wrote books, starred in movies, won a Grammy, became activists, were elected to political office, murdered someone, appeared on Dancing with the Stars, etc...? How would you order those cats? I vote for birth year > living persons > alphabetical. —xanderer (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. Second. Jwalte04 (talk) 18:48, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That situation happens to 1 player out of 100, and if it did they would go behind the sports categories because these things happen after there NFL careers, with an exception to Jason Taylor--Yankees10 22:43, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Alphabetical is too arbitrary. One could change the order of a biography just by renaming a category.  Wikipedia is an encyclopedia! I have never read an encyclopedia that structured biographies in simple alphabetical order.  At least chronological order gives the article some structure that relates to the person's life.  I vote for chronological order of the person's NFL career, then other things from that person's life in order of importance.  Usually the the person was an NFL player is what makes them notable to begin with, and other notable things they do were enabled by that initial exposure.  Look at the article on Jack Kemp:  Early life, Marriage and family, Football career, Political career, Post-political life. With someone like Jason Taylor, who has simultaneous categories, start with the category that started first, here playing career (in full), followed by his dancing career.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:38, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of categories 

message: I changed the archive timeframe from 7 days to 30 days.  Once a discussion is archived, it can't be edited.  7 days is too quick for consensu-building and general discussion.  I also added the suggestion on the archive bot's page to keep archiving into one archive until it reaches 250K, then having it automatically start a new archive.  The way we had it set up was described by the bot page as, "[w]hile simplest, this is probably not the best option - the [way it is set up now] is most common." --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 01:10, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed the archive timeframe 

message: I would like to expand and improve on the Bears-Packers rivalry.  However, I need help on the article.  I am a Bears fan so to be able to provide a full neutral point of view from both sides I am calling out on any Packer fan Wikipedia members to join me and assist me in expanding and improving this article.
Thanks, --Happyman22 (talk) 14:13, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I reverted your inclusion of a Hall of Fame table in Bears-Packers rivalry. Each team's individual article notes their HoF players, and there's no need to duplicate it in an article that is supposed to be about their rivalry. --ZimZalaBim talk 16:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

text: I'm not a Packers fan, but the best way I find to remain NPOV is to cite everything you can. You might find yourself writing things that are boring to read like "The Bears defeted the Pakers ten consecutive times." And try to avoid things like "The team performed [well, poorly, great]", just say "The team scored 85 points in the game"; not exactly entertaining reading, but it gets the point across and WP has no obligation to be entertainment.  Hope that helps! Blackngold29 14:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Bears-Packers rivalry]] 

message: One of the goals, according to the project page, is a complete history of the NFL.  There are many topics that fall outside a standard retelling of the history of the NFL.  For example, it is not necessary in any way to include Mean Joe Green's Coke commercial.  However, anyone who knew anything about football (and many people who didn't) knew about that commercial.  It quickly became part of NFL lore.  We have an article title National Football League Lore.  If you check it, you will find a list of games that some people think are cool and a list of rules that some people think deserve nicknames, such as the "Chad Johnson Rule".  I have suggested rewriting the NFL Lore page to meet Wikipedia standards (because a list of questionable factoids doesn't).  Those active on the NFL Lore page are too worried that their favorite game from last week might be deleted from the list of cool games, so no discussion has taken place.  I believe that the NFL Lore page, if rewritten in narrative style, is a good place to accompany the history of the NFL article with the extra events (games, rule changes, legal issues, and even commercials) that don't really belong in the main history article.  Anyone else interested in discussing this? -- kainaw™ 03:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NFL Lore 

message: I have created an infobox for active American football players, that is inclusive of all the major football leagues. It includes entry and debut information on af2, Arena Football League, National Football League, oh, and the Canadian Football League. As well, it contains draft information for the NFL and CFL. It also includes a place to list the players high school, which then has a place for awards, and highlights. Then the college section is the same as before, except it has it's own highlights and awards section. As does the professional section (originally the default section). It also includes six stat labels for the AFL, NFL, CFL and af2, in alphabetical order. As well as, an expanded external stats link section, to decrease the number of links in the external section. Not to mention the external links section is placed in alphabetical order, for the most part, not to mention a neatly organized hour glass shape, which was mostly by luck. Crash Underride 18:22, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good info, but, uh, what's the infobox's name?? - BillCJ (talk) 19:05, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry, I forgot about that. lol It's at Template:Infobox American football active. Crash Underride 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Please don't start using a different infobox, at least for NFL players. That goes against the entire purpose of this Project, which is to harmonize the NFL player pages.  The current infobox has places for CFL and AFL team info is needed. Or edit the current infobox if you would like.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:24, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The current one does not have a place for the Arena Football League and CFL debuts, it's just "Professional debut" which is meaningless to some players as they debuted in a little known league like the Indoor Football League (IFL) or something like that (Darnell Dinkins did). Plus all it has for those leagues are a place in the links section and in past teams. Crash Underride 15:13, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  All inclusive infobox 

message: Hello, I would like to get everyone's opinion on the standings templates. I added a link to the standings on NFL.com, and then added the date that the template was last updated, but it was reverted. This is how it is done on the College football templates. There are three possible versions:
AFC South           	AFC South	AFC South	AFC South	AFC South	AFC South	AFC South	AFC South
                    	W        	L        	T        	PCT      	PF       	PA       	STK
Tennessee Titans    	9        	0        	0        	1.000    	220      	117      	W-9
Indianapolis Colts  	5        	4        	0        	.556     	191      	197      	W-2
Jacksonville Jaguars	4        	5        	0        	.444     	198      	186      	W-1
Houston Texans      	3        	6        	0        	.333     	209      	254      	L-2
The old version↑
AFC South           	AFC South           	AFC South           	AFC South           	AFC South           	AFC South           	AFC South           	AFC South
                    	W                   	L                   	T                   	PCT                 	PF                  	PA                  	STK
Tennessee Titans    	9                   	0                   	0                   	1.000               	220                 	117                 	W-9
Indianapolis Colts  	5                   	4                   	0                   	.556                	191                 	197                 	W-2
Jacksonville Jaguars	4                   	5                   	0                   	.444                	198                 	186                 	W-1
Houston Texans      	3                   	6                   	0                   	.333                	209                 	254                 	L-2
Standings on NFL.com	Standings on NFL.com	Standings on NFL.com	Standings on NFL.com	Standings on NFL.com	Standings on NFL.com	Standings on NFL.com	Standings on NFL.com
The current version↑
AFC South                                    	AFC South                                    	AFC South                                    	AFC South                                    	AFC South                                    	AFC South                                    	AFC South                                    	AFC South
                                             	W                                            	L                                            	T                                            	PCT                                          	PF                                           	PA                                           	STK
Tennessee Titans                             	9                                            	0                                            	0                                            	1.000                                        	220                                          	117                                          	W-9
Indianapolis Colts                           	5                                            	4                                            	0                                            	.556                                         	191                                          	197                                          	W-2
Jacksonville Jaguars                         	4                                            	5                                            	0                                            	.444                                         	198                                          	186                                          	W-1
Houston Texans                               	3                                            	6                                            	0                                            	.333                                         	209                                          	254                                          	L-2
As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com	As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com	As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com	As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com	As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com	As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com	As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com	As of November 9, 2008 • Standings on NFL.com
Or the new version↑
The third one lets editors clearly see when the template was last updated. Once again, the college football templates use this. Thoughts? Opinions?--Richmond96 (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not even sure this needs to be voted on. Go for it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:02, 10 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Not so fast; I've disagreed with this twice now. There's no point to having a "last updated date" to the template. That entire movement needs to stop on WP, even on the roster templates. It is understood that the information is going to be up-to-date. It's not like we have to attach a tag to the top of Barack Obama saying "this article was last updated at 7:00 PM November 23, 2008." These things are tedious to maintain. And in the realm of standings templates, games are only played once a week. And as far as the whole "wait until all the games are played" thing goes, that doesn't make sense either. There's nothing wrong with updating the template as the games finish, since that is truly what is done. Also, I know I supported the "NFL.com standings" link initially, but I don't see the point in it now. It's not like the roster templates where the depth chart and transactions link augment the template. This link simply brings the reader to a copy of what is on the template, rendering the thing rather pointless. In all, I think the latest edits by Richmond96 are making what should be a very simple template into one that carries a questionable editing "policy," excessive links, and yet another "last updated" date that needs to be maintained. Just KISS. Pats1 T/C 13:45, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah that makes sense, it's no different than any other article and thus does not a last updated date.►Chris NelsonHolla! 14:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, Chris, I've known you too long to be fooled by your sarcasm. :D Pats1 T/C 14:25, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: You mean on the template page itself? What's the point of that, though. You still have to update it. Why not just look in the article/template history. That accomplishes the same thing. And as we've seen with the roster templates, most people completely forget to update the date. It's an unneeded nuisance. Pats1 T/C 17:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't being sarcastic, you convinced me.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: After reading Pats1's comments, I am also convinced, in the interest of less work to be done,  that the bottom two links don't need to be there.  Nor on the college templates, I guess.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 18:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, I feel awfully persuasive. Perhaps I should run for President next. Pats1 T/C 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Nah I just didn't put much thought into it initially and it's fine on the surface.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

text: Since that's not changing, I don't see why not.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I actually think it does look better without it. Besides, Pats1 has already removed it. ~Richmond96 t•c 02:24, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standings Templates 

message: I created a template which could be very useful in NFL article. Hope you guys enjoy! -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 00:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's just as easy to type 1997 --Richmond96 (talk) 02:24, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Template:NFL Year]] 

message: The Dave Meggyesy article that I started needs some help.  I can find lots about his book and the related controversy, but almost nothing about his college and NFL careers.  The pro football databases do not have defensive statistics for the 1960s, except for the number of games played. There are a couple of Google News hits that say he was an All-American at Syracuse, but I'd have to pay for an article in order to see the details--such as whose list he was on.  If anybody has access to sources of Meggyesy's performance at St. Louis or at Syracuse, please add it to the infobox or start a new section. The article still seems stubbish for the NFL and college football projects, although I classified it as at Start for WP:BIO. BTW, If the deleted section about race was put back into the NFL article or elsewhere, some of the Meggyesy references would probably be usefull.--Hjal (talk) 17:13, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dave Meggyesy 

message: Hello there, the articles Calvin Johnson (American football) and Terry Bradshaw which fall under the auspices of this Wikiproject, have come under review as part of GA Sweeps and a number of problems have been identified and listed on the talk pages. If these problems have not begun to be addressed by seven days from this notice, the articles will be delisted from GA and will have to go through the WP:GAN process all over again to regain their status once improvements have been made. If you have any questions, please drop me a line.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:08, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles under GA review 

message: ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written.  There is a very big discussion here.  The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes.  You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:51, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major Notability Discussion 

message: I was wondering, how did you guys get into a consensus about making the draft pick articles smaller? I am asking this question because I am trying to get WP:HOCKEY to also shorten their lists, but they want it just the way it is. The discussion is right here. -- SRE.K.Annoyomous.L.24[c] 21:44, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of (NFL team) first-round draft picks 

message: Before this starts to become an edit conflict, I am posting this issue here to gain some consensus: The issue is whether or not to use :Image:Wikiproject NFL.png, the logo for this WikiProject, on NFL draft articles as an image placeholder in which we do not have a logo yet. My argument is that it looks pretty bad on the article because it looks very unprofessional, like a poor man's version of the NFL logo. I am especially concerned about how newbies and users on mirror sites think about this, who might feel that we  I would prefer no logo at all in that corner of the page, or some sort of infobox where an image is not necessary. Thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:26, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Prior to the placement of the image in question on the NFL Draft articles the discussion pages were each tagged with image requests for more appropriate art. Eventually we could hope that would happen. The rational for the use of the current image is that its available, and fair use. Further Good article criteria suggests "Illustrated, if possible, by images". More recent draft pages, some featured lists, have individual images appropriate to year and keeping within the scope of this project the addition of the image is an attempt to organize and standardize this series of pages. Slysplace  talk ♫ 13:43, 7 December 2008 (UTC)

text: I don't think it should be used. It's not even the real NFL logo. ~Richmond96 t • c 20:24, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Of coarse it's not even the real logo. Which explains fair use and public domain, there isn't much else available on commons. If you think we should use the "real NFL logo" good luck with the Non-free content rationale. Slysplace  talk ♫ 22:19, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't mean we should use the NFL logo, it just looks unprofessional. I think it should just be left blank. ~Richmond96 t • c 00:53, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: By that logic The 'real" NFL Logo used in 2008 NFL Draft and 2008 NFL season as well as National Football League should also be removed. Maybe we should remove all of the copyrighted images used in the draft series articles starting at 1990 NFL Draft through 2007 NFL Draft Each used only once. Or add Fair use rationale for use in the article 1936 NFL Draft through 1989 NFL Draft to the Current NFL Logo . User:Zzyzx11 used an automated program to remove the existing image rather than comment it out without discussion or consensus based on his opinion that it "looks like an unprofesisonal, poor man's version of the NFL logo on mirror sites" This boils down to whether an image adds to the quality and professional look of the article or is it just fluff. If fluff remove them all. If copyright issue, remove them all. If not get consensus, start discussion before removal or Be bold and actually make an improvement no matter what the commitment to get it accomplished. Maybe we should use the Logo, other articles do. 
Slysplace  talk ♫ 01:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using [[:Image:Wikiproject NFL.png]] on NFL draft articles 

message: Hi, I was wondering if the term "AFL-NFL merger" should have an en dash instead of a hyphen. User:Gary King just moved the page to use en dashes, but I wanted to know from you all. Thanks, Dabomb87 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  AFL-NFL merger: hyphen or en dash? 

message: Is it too early to create '09 team pages? When should we start? ~Richmond96 t • c 00:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Considering that the '09 season starts in September, I say we should create it about 2 months or so after the 2008 NFL season is over. Its hard to predict the future from 9 months of the 2009 NFL season.-- 01:03, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good, thanks. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:27, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Yeah, but if we create them now, they will most likely be deleted or redirected/merged somewhere else because of WP:CRYSTAL.-- 16:58, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2009 Teams 

message: Any thoughts on creating a page like this? I created one in my sandbox here. ~Richmond96 t • c 02:55, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This serves no real purpose but to show images, it could never go to FLC and in addition, there is no prose.-- 02:57, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Um, whats a prose? ~Richmond96 t • c 02:58, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Wording, see WP:PROSE.-- 03:01, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, thanks. ~Richmond96 t • c 03:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of National Football League team uniforms 

message: Take a look the Clarence Williams disambiguation page. I was browsing some pages and noticed there are four running backs with the name of "Clarence Williams". To me, that is way too weird to be a coincidence. I went and did a Google check, and I can't seem to find verification that there really were four Clarence Williams (five if you count the lineman). Help please? Tavix (talk) 21:31, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is pretty weird...must be a popular name. All five of these players have their own NFL.com stats page - you can find a link to their respective NFL profiles on the infobox or in the references/external links sections of their articles. BlueAg09 (Talk) 21:44, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've made it a little less hectic. One player was listed primarily as a tight end (and never had any NFL carries) so he's now at Clarence Williams (tight end). I've also had Clarence Williams (Buffalo Bills) moved to Pooh Bear Williams, as this is the name he's under on Pro-Football-Reference.com and it seems  to pass WP:COMMONNAME.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:58, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

text: *Okay, thanks for your help. Tavix (talk) 22:05, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird coincidence? 

message: There is now an automatically-generated cleanup listing for the project on the main page project page in the To Do section.  Here's the link again:Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Cleanup listing, it's pretty interesting.  Knock yourselves out, I'm going to start on them tomorrow.--2008Olympianchitchat 05:34, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Cleanup listing]] 

message: I and a few other users have been writing articles of lists of NFL starting quarterbacks, by season and by team. Check them out at lists of NFL starting quarterbacks. More people helping write these lists (starting on the redlinks) would be appreciated! :) —Lowellian (reply) 21:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: What's a good reference to start with when creating one of these lists? Gary King (talk) 04:28, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Try Database Football and Pro Football Reference  :Category:National Football League starting quarterback navigational boxes may also be helpful, but I think different lists have different criteria (i.e., starting for the season v. backups who happen to start).  See Template talk:BroncosQuarterbacks for a discussion concerning the use of backups.Johnelwayrules (talk) 05:14, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the one for the Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks but had to split it into two articles (see History of Kansas City Chiefs quarterbacks) because I didn't think a simple list would do justice for events like the Gannon-Grbac controversy and also Montana vs. Elway on Monday Night Football. My format for the list just has the number of games listed next to the starters, but check out List of Washington Redskins starting quarterbacks because I think their way of listing the QBs and stats is best. I'm going to probably change it to this way over time. conman33 (. . .talk) 17:53, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Come to think of it, I think I'm going to keep it at this format because it looks like other team pages have adopted the same thing (Green Bay, Baltimore, Jacksonville, etc). It looks like this might be the template by default since everybody's using it. conman33 (. . .talk) 18:04, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lists of NFL starting quarterbacks 

message: I was just browsing through WP and saw that Logan Mankins' profile picture is pretty ridiculous. Here's the photo. I was just wondering if this is the best picture available because it's pretty silly to have a mug of the guy and he's basically not even noticable. I'm just pointing this out there. If it stays, that's cool, I just think it's kinda funny. conman33 (. . .talk) 04:51, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture for [[Logan Mankins]] 

message: Are they designed to be the same for every player at a given position, or can they be varied when relevant? For example, for kickers, does it have to be FG made/FG attempted/FG %age (FG attempts is redundant if FG made/FG %age are both there). I'd think something like FG made/FG %age/Total points scored would be more useful. Samer (talk) 17:56, 8 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selected statistics 

message: What is the second round technically called? In the past few months, I have created head coaching tables for at least 15 coaches (current and non) and I have put "Divisional Game" in their playoff bracket if they lost. Someone told me that this is incorrect and that it should be "Divisional Playoff". So for instance, we would say that John Fox lost to the Arizona Cardinals in the Divisional Playoff - rather then game. Anybody help on this one? Thanks Aquamelli (talk) 13:35, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, either one can be the second round. The divisional playoff is the second round if you were played on wildcard weekend, but also be the first round if your team had a bye week and was one of the top two seeds. I would say, for instance that the Cardinals played their first round game against the Falcons on wildcard weekend, while when that same Cardinals team played the Panthers, the Panthers were playign their first round game though technically it's the second week of playoff action it was Carolina's first game. I would say it's called the Divisional Playoffs not Divisional Game. Divisional Game would sound like there is only one game when technically there's four of them. Playoffs make it plural saying there are more than one games that take place on the weekend. I may have made this a bit more confusing, but I tried to give my input. conman33 (. . .talk) 20:05, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If it helps, the Official NFL Record and Fact Book uses both "Divisional Playoffs" and "Divisional Playoff Games" interchangeably. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:56, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The way I understand it, there is the Wild-Card Round, the Divisional Playoffs, the Conference Championships, then the Super Bowl. I don;t think that any of them are officially termed first or second rounds for the the reason given by Conman: that would depend on whether a team got a bye.--2008Olympianchitchat 08:29, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds good to me - thanks gentlemen Aquamelli (talk) 20:37, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The names of the rounds go back to the playoff system implemented in 1978, with 5 teams from each conference qualifying. The league has never bothered to change those names since. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:15, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divisional Playoff/Game 

message: CHARGERS ARE OUT AFTER WEEK FOURTEEN  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.9.56.203 (talk) 21:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Chargers are still in the hunt for a playoff spot because they could still win their division. Jc121383 (talk) 17:06, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like the Chargers did the impossible. Stylteralmaldo (talk) 17:40, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Because it is wrong.  The Rams made the playoffs in 2004 at 8-8, the Lions in 1999 at 8-8.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnelwayrules (talk • contribs) 02:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chargers in the playoffs? 

message: Basically, I'm working on spanish wikipedia. I'm currently translating Hall of Famers. I have translated about 100 american football articles, but you have no clue how much info is needed about this sport in spanish.  
See you later. --Ahabvader (talk) 22:43, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hello, people