Talk:Jacksonville Jaguars/Archive 1

Improvement drive
National Football League is currently a candidate on WP:IDRIVE. Vote for it if you are interested!--Fenice 20:39, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Link to Dan Connolly is ambiguous
There's evidently another Dan Connolly. I'm not sure what's the best way to handle this kind of ambiguity. DanConnolly 22:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Pats1 03:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JAX 3552.gif
Image:JAX 3552.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:31, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JAX 3551.gif
Image:JAX 3551.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:32, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JAX 3550.gif
Image:JAX 3550.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JAX 3549.gif
Image:JAX 3549.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:34, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:JAX 3548.gif
Image:JAX 3548.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 02:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Criticism section
There's no mention of the controversial donations made by the Weaver family from the Jaguar foundation, so I'm adding the section Benwetmore (talk) 09:23, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Good luck in keeping that section as part of the article. It's peripheral at best. ChargersFan (talk) 16:41, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Jaguars Wikia link
I put one in as I've just started a Jaguar Wikia. Why was it removed? There's links to the Star Wars, Star Trek, Muppets wikias, etc. on their respective pages? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LordNyax113 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposed Merger with List of Jacksonville Jaguars head coaches
Oppose--See User:Milk's Favorite Cookie; there are seperate lists for every other NFL team.  the_ed 17  00:14, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

1995 NFL Draft
Does anyone know why the Jags got the first pick in the 1995 NFL Expansion Draft as well as getting to pick ahead of the Carolina Panthers in the 1995 NFL Draft? Doesn't seem very fair.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

The expansion draft picks were picks made by the Texans, the Jacksonville players listed there were lost by the Jaguars. The Panthers picked second en the Jags ninth in the 2002 draft basely purely in the record both achieved in the 2001 NFL season. You got your stuff mixed up DragonFury (talk) 10:54, 24 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I meant the 1995 draft.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 04:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC)


 * I realize now that they didn't, the panthers traded their overall number one to the Bengals.--2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 08:29, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Image correction
The images of the team uniforms need to be corrected to reflect the actual coloration of the white pants' stripe colors, which are in the reverse of what they were before. Previously, they were thin black/thick teal/thin black. Now they are thin teal/thick black/thin teal. This reflects the Jaguars' trend in recent years to feature black as a primary team color, removing the stripes from the black pants, adding the black jersey, etc.   JAGUITAR    (Rawr)  15:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, yes, this needs to take effect on the 2008 season page too. I'd do it, but I dun have any image software.  JAGUITAR    (Rawr)  15:32, 16 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Problem fixed. Thank you!! JohnnySeoul (talk) 01:42, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Uniforms
The black on black alternate uniform should be removed, as the Jaguars do not wear them any longer. themanbeast9 09:57, 9 December 2008 (EST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.251.224 (talk)


 * Until an official statement comes out from the Jaguars, the black uniform is still their official alternate uniform. JohnnySeoul (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Other notable alumni section"
I think this section should be removed. This section has has basically become a list of favorite players. And while list is very interesting, I can't see how it contributes to making the article any better. Over the next several years, I think the Jags will be placing more of a focus on their "Pride of the Jaguars" and many of the players listed in the "other notables" section will eventually find a place there (i.e. Brunell, Taylor, Smith, Brady). Are there any objections to this section's removal? --Pennsylvania Penguin (talk) 12:26, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

The section should be revamped by eliminating those that don't fit into the guidelines at WP:NOTED PLAYER. 2008Olympian chitchatseemywork 08:33, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It was listing far too many players who really were not important. Also, does Richard Collier deserve any mention? Bktrey —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC).

Season-by-Season Schedule
The current version is superior to what was up before. Please don't revert w/o approval from other board members--fredd7271 20:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.1.140.188 (talk)


 * Approval? I'm not going to assess the edits you made, but did you seek approval before editing? What you wrote makes no sense.  Enigma msg  06:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Approval? For starters, you should probably model this article after the Chicago Bears page, which is currently the only NFL article out of the 32 that is designated as a Wikipedia featured article. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Team has been sold
Not sure when the change of ownership takes place exactly but the team has been sold to Shahid Khan. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shahid_Khan

source: http://jacksonville.com/sports/football/jaguars/2011-11-29/story/jack-del-rio-fired-jaguars-being-sold?page=1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.231.25 (talk) 18:23, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Eras?
Currently I have the article referring to different "eras" by different owners, different "tenures" of different coaches. I'm not wedded to this terminology, and if someone has some good synonyms for "era" I'd love to hear them.98.82.34.127 (talk) 01:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I like the way you've organized it. I've been trying to rearrange it myself but I could never find the right wording. With that being said, I think we should discuss some of the header names.... ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   02:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * These, specifically: "Star rookie sensation", "Dramatic quarterback change", and "Front office reorganization". Personally, I think "Rookie sensation becomes star of team (or face of franchise)", "Change at quarterback leads to playoff run", and "New GM begins rebuilding phase" are more descriptive and specific.  As for their length, I don't see a problem with it. ~  Richmond 96   t  •  c   02:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree they're more descriptive, but if that's your standard, what about this:
 * "Star rookie running back Maurice Jones-Drew becomes the new face of the franchise"
 * That's even more descriptive, isn't it? Is that what you'd want?  Maybe you would, but I'm sure most editors would not favor this.  While yes, it is more descriptive, headers/headlines aren't usually done this way, right?  Almost always, they're shorter than sentences, partly because of stylistic norms.  Another reason for keeping them short is that they show up in the table of contents.  I've seen some articles on which the table of contents is a nightmare because it simply takes too long to read.


 * But I will admit one thing that is not good about my headers: They don't help the reader navigate if he's looking for a specific thing (such as, when did MJD join the team?)  I like pithy headers, but if they don't help navigate, I admit they're not optimal. 98.82.34.127 (talk) 17:01, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, there is a point where a header is too long and descriptive, such as your above example. In that case, I still prefer "Star rookie running back becomes star of team" or "Sensational rookie becomes face of franchise". It is descriptive enough, helps with navigating the page, and is in proper context. Also, I believe "New GM begins rebuilding phase" is more appropriate because the paragraph describes kind of a "new beginning" with the youth movement and Team Teal etc. "Jaguars adopt GM model" does not infer any significance (One might ask "What's so important about the Jags getting a GM model?") And finally, I don't think the table of contents is not an issue because of the TOC limit template. ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   17:54, 15 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given your acknowledgement that a header can be too long, I'll defer to you on this, but I would ask you--as long as you're going to employ longer headers than some of us might like--if you could maximize their navigational utility. For instance, I think MJD should be mentioned by name (or initials or nickname or some way identifying him personally) for those looking for info on him.  I mean, if he's worthy of inclusion in the header, let's actually include him, and not make it mysterious.  ( Who's that rookie? ) You think that's doable? 98.82.34.127 (talk) 19:27, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly is, although isn't that what the following paragraph is for? ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   19:39, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Black alternate uniform
The black alternate uniform shown in the infobox has NOT been officially confirmed. There has been talk and rumors about it been reintroduced in the near future but it is currently not an official uniform. Could someone with more knowledge and skills please correct this in the image and the article? Or if I'm mistaken post a link here to the confirmation of the black alternate. DragonFury (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A bit more digging has revealed more issues; the image is of the new Nike produced uniforms and was uploaded by JohnnySeoul on April 7th. But he simply replaced the old image and doesn't appear to have bothered giving the old image a separate article. Now the Nike uniform is also shown on the articles for the 2009, 2010 and 2011 seasons. he also removed the fair use rationale for those articles. So now we've got the following:


 * 2009 Jacksonville Jaguars season; Wrong uniform, no rationale
 * 2010 Jacksonville Jaguars season; Wrong uniform, no rationale
 * 2011 Jacksonville Jaguars season; Wrong uniform, no rationale
 * 2012 Jacksonville Jaguars season; Correct uniform but black alternate is not official. Rationale is correct.
 * Jacksonville Jaguars; Correct uniform but black alternate is not official. Rationale is correct.


 * I'll be contacting JohnnySeoul about this to see if he's going to correct this mess. DragonFury (talk) 14:35, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * When Nike announced the new NFL unis on April 2, photos of the black alternate were released. The team has also been saying for months that they will be wering the black jersey in 2012, specifically. ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   22:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see those photos. I assume you mean official photos because the only one I saw was the leaked photo that had what looked like a black jersey half hidden behind other uniforms. Fact is neither Nike or the Jags have announced anything official about black alternates and until they do the black alternates shouldn't be shown on here. DragonFury (talk) 22:55, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, thats the photo I am referring to, but I do know that the team owner and equipment manager have confirmed that there will be a black jersey next year. But I understand that there needs to be something official. ~ Richmond 96   t  •  c   23:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

London
We need to handle the new London announcement in a better way. This is big news, but it's simply not true that Wembly is becoming a "home field" for the team. Teams have been playing home games in London for years; all that's happened here is that the Jags have signed on to play a game every year, rather than it being different teams each year. Everything we say needs to follow reliable sources.Cúchullain t/ c 22:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I concur. I would like to add that though it might appear that the Jags situation is similar to the Bills'and Rogers Center but there is a key difference: The sales for London are coordinated by the NFL while the Bills maintain control over ticket sales in Canada. PS. All edits are coming from a single IP address. DragonFury (talk) 22:10, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I've requested temporary semi-protection to prevent further edits from said IP address while we can properly add the correct information. DragonFury (talk) 22:24, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I still feel that while a four year agreement has been made by one team then the situation is similar to the Bills'. Where the sales of tickets are coming from is irrelevant — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.17.176 (talk) 23:01, 21 August 2012(UTC)
 * It's a fundamental difference; The Toronto games are a strictly Bills' event, they organize it, they sell the tickets and they collect the revenue. The London games are an NFL event featuring the Jaguars, the NFL organizes it, the NFL sells the tickets and the NFL collects the revenue and the NFL pays the Jaguars compensation for losing a home game. Wembley isn't the home field for the Jaguars it's the home field for the NFL International Series. And you can see from the Rams deal how safe these multiyear deals are. DragonFury (talk) 23:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I completely agree that Wembley Stadium should not be considered a home stadium. The game will be presented as a neutral site event.  For example, there won't be any more fanfare inside the stadium when the Jaguars score as versus when the opponent scores.  That is a difference from Buffalo.  I'm fairly confident that the majority of people in attendance will be non-Jaguars fans anyway.  I bet you'll see other teams making multi-year agreements in the near future.  This sounds to me like someone jumping to conclusions e.g., "The Jaguars are moving to London!" ~  Richmond 96   t  •  c   00:54, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps, I think it's more likely that certain people (or perhaps only one persistent person) reading far too much into the sources. Other teams have played in London and elsewhere internationally before; the foreign stadiums have never been considered an additional "home stadium" before. This material needs to stay out unless reliable sources specifically start reporting this.--Cúchullain t/ c 12:55, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think people are reading it as the Jaguars are playing a home game in London, where they are actually giving up a home game to play in London. They are the official "home" team but they are not using Wembley as a home stadium.  There should be no difference between a one year deal like the Rams, Giants, Pats etc. and a four year deal. ~  Richmond 96   t  •  c   19:50, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It appears the anon is back. To reiterate, that material isn't going in the article unless and until the sources specifically make that claim.--Cúchullain t/ c 17:32, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Organization proposal for history section
The structure of the Franchise history section has been bugging me for a while. To me it doesn't really make sense to breakdown the team's history by ownership. I think the main headers should reflect the most recognizable "eras" of the Jaguars. Here's what I think it should be:


 * 1) Pre-franchise era (before 1993)
 * 2) Tom Coughlin era (1995–2002)
 * 3) Jack Del Rio era (2003–2011)
 * 4) Ownership change (2012)    <-- Mularkey will be a subheader
 * 5) Gus Bradley era (2013–present)   <-- Since this period in franchise hoistry is just beginning, we don't know how it will end up being remembered.

Any objections? ~ Richmond 96   T  •  C   23:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

2009-2011 Uniform Image
I'm not familiar with how the media and image side of Wikipedia works. Why was the image removed and can't we get it back? It was a good image. DragonFury (talk) 00:59, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
 * It looks like User: JohnnySeoul decided to leave Wikipedia and take his uniform images with him. As far as I know that is why the 2009–2011 image was removed even though I didn't see him request it to be deleted. Strange. Nevertheless, the 2012 image is tagged for speedy deletion so it looks like that one will be gone soon too. ~ Richmond 96   T  •  C   01:11, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Teal as secondary color
Obviously black is now the primary color but looking at the uniform teal seems to be featured more in the primary jersey and it's the main color in the alternate. I'd say teal is the secondary color and gold is the tertiary color. DragonFury (talk)
 * It's a toss up for me. Teal is definitely featured more than gold in the uniforms, but if you look at the team website, gold is overwhelmingly used as the main accent color. In the wordmark logo, the color of "Jacksonville" was changed from teal to gold. The Jaguars Foundation logo is exclusively black and gold. I would be okay with changing the infobox color back to black and teal, but I still prefer a gold outline in team navigation boxes. ~ Richmond 96   T  •  C   23:15, 1 May 2013 (UTC)

Weird line in history section.
"There were 635,000 people in Jacksonville proper according to the 1990 census, but only 900,000 people in the metropolitan area." What? How many people were actually in Jacksonville at this point? 20:15, 29 September 2013 (UTC)

Free photos
I've found a lot of photos of 2014 training camp with a suitable license for wikicommons here. Unfortunately I can't recognize all the players, can anybody upload them on commons? 79.41.248.195 (talk) 08:40, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Wembley & home stadium
We've had this discussion before (see section "London") but since it's come up again; Wembley is NOT a home stadium for the Jaguars. They are the designated home team but the game is part of the NFL International Series. There are no references on the Jaguars site (or any NFL site that I know of) that refer to Wembley as a (or the) home stadium of the Jaguars, there is a large section about EverBank Field though. Furthermore the tickets for the London game are sold under the moniker of the NFL International Series, as opposed to regular tickets which are sold through the standard channels. DragonFury (talk) 16:17, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Wembley IS a home stadium for the Jaguars at least until the conclusion of the 2016 NFL season; see this article on Jaguars.com. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:50, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
 * You keep referring to that article but that only says they play a home game at Wembley. And the argument is the same as in the section above: It's an NFL International Series game with the Jaguars as the designated home team. Wembley is the home stadium for the Series, not the team DragonFury (talk) 19:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment I'm leaning towards inclusion. If the Jaguars play at Wembley as the home team, then the stadium can be considered a "home stadium". Other articles use the same method. There is precedence for this. JOJ  Hutton  01:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
 * What precedence and what articles? Because the articles of the other "home teams" in the International Series make no reference to Wembley. The Wembley Stadium article doesn't even list the Series as a tenant, let alone the Jaguars. Even the Bills' page no longer has Rogers Centre as a home stadium even though they have a much stronger case to call it a home stadium. I maintain Wembley is the host of the NFL International Series in which the Jaguars are one of the designated home teams. DragonFury (talk) 07:09, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

If Wembley was a home game for the Jaguars, then every other team that ever plays there as the designated home team would have to list Wembley as their home stadium too. The only thing that makes the Jaguars' case different is that they play there on a multi-year basis. It wouldn't make sense for Wembley to be the home stadium for every team that plays a "home" game there. ~ Richmond 96   T  •  C   16:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Jacksonville Jaguars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20091126151314/http://www.news4jax.com:80/sports/18190653/detail.html to http://www.news4jax.com/sports/18190653/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:20, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jacksonville Jaguars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20120730183857/http://www.firstcoastnews.com/rss/article/217049/3/1998-Video-When-the-Jaguars-Drafted-Fred-Taylor to http://www.firstcoastnews.com/rss/article/217049/3/1998-Video-When-the-Jaguars-Drafted-Fred-Taylor
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100209022514/http://www.news4jax.com/sports/22477762/detail.html to http://www.news4jax.com/sports/22477762/detail.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 14:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sacksonville as a nickname
Looking around at the other articles on NFL teams, only a few list any nicknames of any kind and most are simple abbreviations like Patriots -> Pats or Dollphins -> The Fins. Very few list nicknames referring to specific teams or units and those that do only do so for units that played together for several years and had a significant impact not only on that team's history but NFL history as well. Examples are "No Name Defense" for the Dolphins and "The Purple People Eaters" for the Vikings. The supposed nickname "Sacksonville" meets neither of those criteria, it has been in use only for a single season and the team it refers to hasn't done anything noteworthy. The fact the Jaguars use the name themselves is irrelevant because they only do so in terms of marketing. If three or fours years from now we're still using the Sacksonville moniker then there might be a case for adding it as a nickname but for now it has no place on this page beyond may be a reference in the main text. DragonFury (talk) 20:00, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

You know what? Good case. I’ll concede for now. We’ll wait. Earliest possible case for sacksonville as an official nickname is should they make and/or win this years super bowl. Latest is 3-4 years and if it remains a strong NFL force. :)  DrewieStewie of RaiderNation 23:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrewieStewie (talk • contribs)