Talk:List of NFL annual receiving yards leaders

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders. 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://articles.latimes.com/print/1986-08-15/sports/sp-3845_1_wes-chandler
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140209153156/http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HoltTo00.htm to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/H/HoltTo00.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305002308/http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/award_apmvp.htm to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/award_apmvp.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130305063646/http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/award_apopoy.htm to http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/award_apopoy.htm

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) 20:47, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

Separating AFL and NFL records prior to merger
Today's NFL recognizes all AFL records that existed prior to the merger, so I'm not sure why we are separating the two in this article. Thoughts on merging these, perhaps adding some kind of flag to indicate "Pre-merger"? --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No on merging the AFL and NFL receiving leaders by season. That would rewrite history and nullify/strike pre-merger receiving titles won by Raymond Berry (1960), Tommy McDonald (1961), Art Powell (1962-1963), Johnny Morris (1964), Dave Parks (1965), Pat Studstill (1966), Ben Hawkins (1967), Roy Jefferson (1968), and Harold Jackson (1969). Cbl62 (talk) 09:24, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you proposing for this page that during the years that the AFL was active:
 * Have two separate tables, one for NFL leaders and another for AFL?
 * Have a combined table, with NFL leaders on one side and AFL on the other?
 * Have a combined table with only one leader per year, whoever had the highest total of either league?
 * —Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As I understand it (I can't immediately find the NFL's own resource on this online, so correct me if I'm wrong), they're recognised, but separately, as suggested by the two previous replies. Now arguably if you'd some set of sources that demonstrated that if "overall NFL/AFL annual receiving yards leader 196x" was of at all comparable notability as the two separate record, you might consider including that in addition, but even that seems unlikely to me.  Much less that it would be much more significant, compared to the official records (which other sources generally tend to follow).  These probably aren't seen as useful comparisons as they're not like-for-like.  Played against entirely different defences, not always even the same number of games...   109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:54, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Perhaps I should give some background to why this came up. This season as Ja'Marr Chase was chasing several rookie receiving records, the all-time leader in that category has been unanimously reported in reliable sources as Bill Groman in 1960 with 1,473 yards. Yet, when you look at this article, that statistic has been relegated to a less prominent position in its own chart near the bottom of the page. Personally, I think this defies what the sources are telling us. I'm not sure if the solution is to combine into one table listing both leagues for each year or just the highest from each year, and I'm fine with whatever the consensus decides about that, but I don't think it should be the way it is now. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the clarification. Note that this appears directly on List of National Football League records (individual):  "Most receiving yards, rookie, season: 1,473, Bill Groman (AFL), 1960."  That seems a separate issue, as this page doesn't make explicit which record-holders are rookies, and a rookie-record needn't necessarily appear here at all.  I'm not at all clear why you feel we're not following the sources (or even which sources those might that you think we're not).  I pointed out the issues with your second approach.  The first sounds very presentationally awkward, as we'd now need one 90-season table incorporating three different leagues (I assume), with an additional "league" column, and an additional 14 entries for the AFL and the AAFC.  Maybe a less painful solution would be to retitle the "others" section and perhaps to move it earlier, so as to be more nearly chronological.  Or to break the tables up so that they can be presented chronologically, with separate blocks for the periods of time where more than one now-recognised-as-equivalent league was operating.  That'd have the disadvantage of breaking up the "sortability".  109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * First and foremost, I'm only suggesting that we try to avoid burying the AFL leaders at the bottom of the article. They should have more prominence than they currently have. If there is a way to accomplish that without ruining the sortability factor, then we should explore those options. Let's not get caught up on accusations that we aren't following the sources; this is more an issue concerning WP:WEIGHT and placement within the article. Yes, this article isn't about rookie records, but that's irrelevant. The point of my example was to show that when referring back to an all-time record, sources unanimously pick a receiver from the AFL, not the top from the NFL, which in this specific scenario would have been Billy Howton's 1,231 yards in 1952 (I believe). --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:25, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was responding to your comment about the rookie record, so puzzling you're telling me it's irrelevant. The all-time record article does do that;  this isn't that article.  It'd clearly be WP:OR to have a "just the highest from each year" table;  that's not how the sources characterise the "league leader", and that's crucial.  I'd personally be happy to shuffle the sections to be == AAFC == / == AFL == / == NFL == (after a brief comment in the lead section explaining what the heck's going on), other editors might feel differently.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand why your response focused on the rookie record, which is why I was trying to add some clarification suggesting we ignore the term rookie. It is a minor detail in the overall picture. More comments about this below... --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nope, scratch that comment about Howton. There have been multiple rookies post-merger that have broken the 1,231 mark. They would have actually referred back to Jefferson's 1,400 receiving yards in 2020 if the AFL wasn't considered NFL history. So it's still a relevant point, because I came here looking in the main chart only to have to hunt and find Groman at the bottom in a separate chart. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:36, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody's said it "wasn't considered NFL history". It's considered "equivalent", hence it being its own record in NFL's history, just not interchangeable in the sense of NFL record supplanting AFL ones, or AFL ones NFL ones, in the period they ran concurrently.  I don't really follow your "hunting" point.  You might not have found him here at all, were he not somewhat coincidentally a season record holder, as well as the all-time rookie.  If you happened to know he was, it seems a somewhat edge case not to now which league he played in.  I've split the "other" section in two, in the hopes that's clearer, in particular by way of appearing in the ToC.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:13, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I came here to see if he was a season record holder not realizing he was. That's when I eventually noticed he was in the AFL after seeing the leagues in separate charts – one at the top and one buried at the bottom as if it was a footnote. That's the crux of the issue. It shouldn't be buried like that. A reader wastes time to sort what they might initially believe are the overall leaders in a particular category, only to discover later (or maybe not at all if they weren't paying attention) that the first chart doesn't include AFL players. What's confusing is that sources today will refer back to AFL leaders has being NFL leaders, whereas Wikipedia is very consciously keeping the two separate. I appreciate your insight and explanations, don't get me wrong, but I came here to see if anyone had any suggestions that might improve the situation. Placing the two smaller charts up top as you suggest could help alleviate some confusion. That's one idea. Let's see if any other ideas are thrown into the mix. --GoneIn60 (talk) 13:35, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to continue to object to the characterisation that "Wikipedia is very consciously keeping the two separate". No, the sources are doing that.  This player is, according to the NFL and to secondary sources, the all-time rookie in the records it recognises.  Hence we say so in that article.  He's not the NFL 1960 season record holder...  as he didn't play in that.  We don't record him as the "AFL/NFL overall" record holder, as no such record is known the sources.  If you have sources otherwise, or a suggested approach that respects the sources we do have, then have at it.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just looking at one of the sources cited in the article, 2012 NFL Record and Fact Book page 633, both the AFL leader and NFL leader are listed in the same chart for years prior to the merger, and for any given year, the top entry is the one who tallied the most yards regardless of league. So for example in 1960, Groman is clearly listed above Berry. Wikipedia, on the other hand, has split this up into two separate charts.
 * "If you have ... a suggested approach that respects the sources we do have, then have at it."
 * The point of my original post here is to identify an issue and to ask for suggestions. I'm not sure why you seem to be kicking me for not having one, and I even acknowledged your earlier suggestion as one possible solution. Something about this thread is bothering you, but I'm afraid it's for the wrong reasons (or the real reason is over my head). This is just a discussion at this point. --GoneIn60 (talk) 18:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Reformatting along the lines used in the NFL Record and Fact Book appears to be a good solution. Cbl62 (talk) 18:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * (ec) Please, let's not impute ill (or mysteriously vague) motives to people. That really will bother me -- and tends to bother people fairly generally, I've found.  I've been pointing out the "issues" in your suggestions, and your characterisations of what the article actually does.  Deal with those, and I'll be as happy as Larry.  Those are still being listed as separate records, is the (ongoing) point.  Keeping them separate, following the sources.  Combining them into one, not following them.  The NFL's table is similar to a suggestion I already made, except rather than additional "league" column, they're actually cramming three into one (player, team, league), then just skipping the league for the non-AFC years.  (I was previously forgetting that the AAFC isn't treated similarly.)  Whether that's best as one, two, or three columns, or kept as-is, is essentially a presentational tradeoff.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Cbl62 that perhaps rearranging the chart to a similar format as the source is what's needed here. Will wait a bit to see if there are other suggestions, but that seems like the way to go. It's effective and helps alleviate confusion. --GoneIn60 (talk) 20:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Cbl62, GoneIn60, can you expand on the particular "on the same lines as"/"similar to" solution you favour? With specific regards to the number-of-columns point, above?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm thinking we add an additional "league" column that specifies AFL, NFL, AFC, and NFC, just like the source, and list the top player from each league before and after the merger. So every year beginning with 1960 will have two entries, with the highest yardage listed first, which again is just like the source. The "rowspan" parameter can be used for the Year column, so that each year only appears once for each set of entries.Doing this negates the need for a separate AFL chart, but the AAFC would still be separately listed in its own table. --GoneIn60 (talk) 23:13, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the format used in the NFL Record and Fact Book here. Question: Would we deal with the AAFC in similar fashion? Or keep a separate AAFC table? Cbl62 (talk) 00:00, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's the source we're discussing. Point is, that lumps two of the fields in our table here, and adds in the league to it, so if we followed that exactly, we'd be losing some existing structure.  I'm not sure I'm wild about the 'rowspan' option;  that's monkeying around with the functionality of the table quite a lot, just for the sake of even more exactly preserving the format of that table.  (Bear in mind our object is to follow the general sense of the balances of the sources, not to precisely emulate one (primary or otherwise).  As to the AAFC, on the face of it no, unless we heavily annotated it to make clear they're not regarded as NFL records.  But some sources do lump them apparently, so maybe it's arguable either way, depending on the balance of those.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Just to illustrate the kind of change we're looking at: An alternative option would be to only add the additional lines for 1960–69, keeping the rest of the table post 1970 the same. I'd be fine with that option too. Rowspan keeps it neat and doesn't take much effort. Only when you sort does that add some congestion, but on first load or a refresh, it looks normal. As for AAFC, I see no reason to merge that one at this time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 03:25, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * , now that we have a visual of what's being suggested, I'm curious to hear your thoughts, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 04:33, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I strongly object to this. This is not how the NFL reports the records in their record books, so it's not how it should be reported here. Is there a way we could have a special column option for merger years, so that both leagues' records show during the AFL years? I would be okay with that. Toa Nidhiki05 13:45, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Toa Nidhiki05, did you look at the NFL Record source above? That was published at NFL.com, so I'm not sure how we arrive at that's "not how the NFL reports the records". --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:30, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that, GoneIn60, I was pondering doing something similar -- or at least, asking someone else to. So you saved me the trouble on both accounts! That's more structure- and functionality-preserving than I thought a "rowspan" solution would be.  The only downside of this approach is, as I pointed out above, that it adds a column that's redundant for 80 seasons.  But that's not necessarily a fatal objection -- I don't think it would horrendously distracting or intrusive, especially if simply left blank for those others.  But it shouldn't include conference leaders on the same footing as league leaders.  Sources don't do that, and it's not the scope of the article as described.  Toa Nidhiki05, I don't quite understand your objection:  this is a special column being added for those years, and showing both leagues' records.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with 109 on all counts. Cbl62 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for all the feedback. So it appears we have a rough consensus to add the League column but to only have two entries for 1960–69. The rest will remain a single entry for now and not have both conference leaders listed. I'm fine with that.As for the concern that the other 80+ entries will have a redundant NFL designation, I agree that's a downside of the proposal. The only other option I can think of is to color-code the entry instead of having a League column, but then that creates an issue for those that are already color-coded yellow to indicate Hall of Fame. On the plus side, we can move those "Year" links like 1972 NFL season from the "Year" column over to the "League" column. Can't really keep them on the year itself after the change, because that doesn't work for 1960–69. So at least the 80+ NFL entries will serve a new purpose and not be a complete waste of space.Unless someone thinks of a better solution, I assume moving forward with a League column will suffice for now. Thanks everyone! --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:16, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Just thought of this... What if we just put AFL and NFL in parenthesis next to the name instead of creating a new column that would be repetitive for the other 80+ seasons? If we do that instead, then there are only two issues remaining:
 * Have to decide about the "Year" link as I described in the last post. Keeping those links in the "Year" column means for 1960–69, we can only use 1 link, but there are two entries. Do we just link the season that represents the overall leader for that year? For example, in 1962 since Bobby Mitchell was the leader, we would have 1962 NFL season as the link, but in 1965 since Lance Alworth was the leader, we'd use 1965 AFL season?
 * Can't sort the AFL entries separately, but that's a minor concern really. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Additional thoughts? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:28, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I might hold off on declaring "consensus", but nothing stopping you from being WP:BOLD and making the edit anyway, and see who salutes. Better to at least wait for others to reply again, if you want my suggestion on that.  I think it likely needs some sort of "AFL" and "NFL" text in the entry, otherwise it's a little too "huh?!? why's there two entries for 1966??" while people work out what the colour-code or footnote might mean.  As I also said above, that could be a separate column (per your sample), it could be a three-field combo as in the NFL's PDF, it could be grafted on to the player ("Art Powell (AFL record)"), or to the team ("Oakland Raiders, AFL").  Pros and cons to each of those.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's why I called it a rough consensus, but you're right, it would be best to wait for some additional feedback or just boldly change it. So are you saying you'd prefer Lance Alworth (AFL) in the Winner column, or would you rather stick with the original proposal as shown in the chart above? --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:53, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm honestly not sure, and I'm in about four minds. As I said, pros and cons.  If you wanted to give yourself more work to do, but not quite as much as redoing the whole table on spec, you could test-bed whichever you see as the top alternatives, and see if that flushes out clearer preferences generally.  One tiny suggestion:  if we go with the "three column" solution, the "League" column is wider than it needs to be, purely because of the header.  It might be worthwhile abbreviating that ("L." or "Lg", or even to just a footnote link), to minimise how intrusive that column is in the numerous cases where it's redundant.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:27, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we end up with a League column, I can force the width of that column to be narrower, or we can center the text at least. No problem. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
 * FWIW, the pro-football-reference.com list combines with the AFL and AAFC leaders. It doesn't designate the league for each winner, but just has a note on the top of the table that multiple leagues are listed for certain years. Frankly, any solution is going to be a shade of gray, each with it's own pro's and con's.—Bagumba (talk) 10:26, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * If we go with a parenthetical notation for those specific outliers as described above – AFL and AAFC – the only con I can think of is you don't have the ability to sort by league. If we go with the league column, there's about 80 entries or so that will heavily repeat "NFL". Those are the only cons I can think of. Are there any others you're referring to? In either case, I think the pros outweigh the cons. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have strong feelings either way on whether to include the AAFC or not. If we include it, we just need to clearly note the different status of these in the NFL's taxonomy, as against the various others.  Interesting indeed that PFR makes no league distinction, though conversely they're presenting lists per year, not just a single "leader", so it's "non-lossy" in that sense.  If the "extra column" model is used, I think it'd be visually clearer to leave "league" blank outside of the AFL years, albeit that makes sorting work less well.  (I think data-sort-value maybe fixes that.)  As you say, combining it with either other looks better, but functions less well.  Ideally we'd have a "serious journalism" (or book reference, etc) to inform us which was the more common currency/balance of reliable sources, but it looks like we have to make do with primary sources, databases, and users' stylistic preferences.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding color for the league, you'd still need a non-color designiation (like a symbol in the Key) per MOS:COLOR.—Bagumba (talk) 10:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Good to know, thanks. I don't plan to try to go this route, but someone else can if they feel it's necessary. --GoneIn60 (talk) 15:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Apologies for the inadvertent edit of your comment,, don't know how that happened. (Though fat-finger inattention is the bookies' favourite.) As we all seem to be humming and hawing rather, I'm going to suggest the "additional league column" approach. I think it might be possible to combine it with the "references" one, though -- I don't think that loses any information or functionality, and if it's the final column isn't too presentationally strange either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
 * No worries, all squared away. So if we combine the two columns and move to the end as suggested, do we rename it "Notes" or stick with the "League" header? Reason I ask is that with something like "Notes", it would make more sense if we were to decide to leave the other 80+ entries blank.

Here's what that would look like: The Notes column wouldn't be sortable anyway, so it doesn't matter if we choose to leave a majority of the rows blank (no need for "data-sort" workarounds either). For the years where there is only 1 winner listed, we could add AFC or NFC in the Notes column and make it sortable, as some may find that information helpful, particularly with defunct franchise names like the Oilers or with franchises that have switched conferences over the years like the Seahawks. Someone somewhere may want to sort by conference to see the # of winners from each. Just a thought... --GoneIn60 (talk) 08:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * "League + notes/refs" certainly should be sortable, not following the rationale otherwise, sorry. I (still) don't think that's an appropriate place for a conference annotation.  Calling it "Notes" is probably fine, I'd imagine, we'd just have a footnote on that setting out the NFL/AFL situation at slightly greater length.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:25, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * This list is an existing WP:FL. Changing a "Ref" header to a generic "Notes" that commingles leagues with references violates WP:HEADERS: column and row headers should be succinct and self explanatory "Notes" is not succinct, and space is not really a premium here. (Aside: Its strange the current column headers current abbreviates "Yds." (saving "a" and "r" but adding a period) but has a bulky "Games" when the data is only two-digits wide.) If every row has a reference, it's counter productive to remove a precise "Ref" from the header.—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like my example above was modified, but the last column was originally set to "unsortable" simply because that's how it is today in the article. Of course, we can always change that if we go with some kind of combined column solution. Yes, "Notes" might arguably be more ambiguous, but I don't think that necessarily makes it unacceptable. Other featured lists, such as List of U.S. Highways in Michigan have that header, and this highway list example was even promoted to featured topic. Again, it doesn't have to be "Notes", and that was just a suggestion thrown out there. I left further thoughts about this below. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:39, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oops, that was maybe me again! I wanted to double-check if the "sortable" function worked as might be expected, but intended to only do that in preview and thought I'd restored it.  No comment-tampering intended, though I do seem to be making an embarrassing habit of it, sorry once more.  A verbose header makes me wince less if it's dual-purposed as league+notes/refs, as they'd not be empty expanses.  Also a combo header can be soft-hyphened.  I agree that "Yds." is an odd style ("Yds" would be the advice of most style guides, and shorter too), and "Gamesfix" is rather weird.  "Games" would be fine, though sportsball power-abbreviators would probably be very comfortable with "G" or "GP".  109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined not to include AFC/NFC leaders. However, as another data point, I found The football encyclopedia : the complete history of professional NFL football, from 1892 to the present, which is not published by the NFL, but also combines AFC/NFC leaders with AAFC/AFL/NFL like NFL books do. (See p. 980)—Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

If sorting isn't used, another option is to superscript AFL or AAFC, when not the NFL: —Bagumba (talk) 18:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * It completely escaped my attention that this was a WP:FL. Good to point that out, which makes this discussion even more necessary. So it looks like we are down to three different options – League column, combined League/Ref column, or a superscript (or some kind of explanatory footnote using the efn template). I'm actually fine with any of those options. My goal was to get it to this point, and the actual presentation choice is a much smaller concern for me. If anyone has a strong preference, let's just go with that to get something in place. We can continue to improve and optimize it over time. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:22, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * As a final tweak, maybe we go with the clean superscript option, which reduces clutter, but instead of having it hover next to the player name (which may already be using a superscript), we move that to the team name to avoid cramming two superscripts together? Just a thought. I modified your example,, to show how that would look. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the superscript less, though it's functionally equivalent to my own "textually combine league and team" option, and doesn't outrage me either. If we also include the AAFC (which I'm open to doing if a reasonable balance of sources treat them as equivalent, but bear in mind the scope implied by the article title), then I think that argues a little more strongly for a separate (or combined only with refs/notes) "League" column, so that sorting recovers the "hey I only wanted to see the proper stats, not have them jumbled in with this crap!" functionality.  Assuming optimal play on their part.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break
OK, well hopefully this won't require an WP:RFC to decide. So it appears we need to first decide if sorting by league is needed, and if AAFC is going to be combined, which might impact the need to sort. If we conclude that sorting is not needed, then the superscript idea is probably the least intrusive of the three options. Here's how the options stack up:
 * 1) League column
 * Pros: Self-explanatory header, sortable, straight-forward presentation
 * Cons: Adds a new column widening the chart, can be overly redundant repeating "NFL" unless only used for the years 1960–69 leaving the other years blank
 * 2) Combined League/Ref column
 * Pros: Reduces chart width compared to having a dedicated column, can be made sortable if needed
 * Cons: Header name will need to be updated and may be a challenge to agree on, still suffers from the same "NFL" repetitiveness concern as the League column option, slightly less straight forward in presentation
 * 3) Superscript
 * Pros: Least intrusive presentation of the 3, doesn't require any header modifications or new columns
 * Cons: Not sortable, placement next to Winner name or Team name may cause disagreements

All the cons are minor in my book, but that's where we're at. If this discussion stalls, then the next step is an RfC, though hopefully we can at least cross one of these ideas off the list before going that route. The fewer options in the RfC, the more productive the result will be. While some good points have been made about the AAFC, I'm not sure there's enough push right now to combine that list. I suggest we set that aside for now to avoid dragging this out any longer. --GoneIn60 (talk) 19:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I'll let ya'll figure this out. But it's good to see that the NFL treats the AFL with respect. The NHL refuses to add the WHA records to their (NHL) records. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 * The AAFC thing is the most important question... and the one I have the least idea about the answer on.  It depends on what the balance of the sources say, and it depends on how you interpret the scope of the article.  I feel strongishly that we should have a sortable league-containing column, and that it should be left blank (but sortkeyed) for any NFL-unique years.  (i.e. non-AFL, and non-AAFC if included.)  I think I'd slightly favour #2 over #1.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:11, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for weighing back in. As described, the problem we may run into with option 2 is how to title the column header. If the plan is to only list the league from 1960–69, then we need a title that works for the years that are left blank and only contain a ref. I'm not sure "League+Ref" would work for . I'll wait a bit longer and drop another notice at the project to see if we can get a few more opinions. I'm fine with anything at this point! --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know, but that wasn't the objection raised. TBH, at the risk of working for Bagumba even less, I'd still on balance favour "Notes".  The guideline they cite as precluding that actually exemplifies it: Manual of Style/Tables.  But if people would strongly prefer wordier, I can live with a consequently wider box.  109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:44, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Doesn't look like we're getting any new participants. After looking at a number of featured lists, I came across List of governors of Ohio, and I really like the way they used rowspan to represent 28 rows that all contained the same entry, . We could do something similar with a "League" column, stating "NFL" in one large grayed out block instead of having it repeat dozens of times. In my opinion, that's better than leaving those lines blank. I thought more about changing "Ref" to "Notes", and after combing through all those lists, I noticed that "Notes" was only used for columns that contained actual text. It was NOT used in situations when only a ref was cited. So I say we abandon #2 and #3, and move forward with #1 with this ingenious tweak. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The guideline they cite as precluding that actually exemplifies it: More likely that the explicit text at WP:HEADERS for "column and row headers should be succinct and self explanatory" is the intent, and it;s the example table that needs improvement. If something is going to be consistently listed in a generic "Notes", it seems like it should be broken out, not commingled.—Bagumba (talk) 08:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 3. Superscipt seems to have the least downside. While it's not sortable, the years spans for AFL or AAFC is not so big that eyeballing it is unmanageable.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks for weighing back in. Are you good with the layout in the modified example above? Also, what's your second choice, as it seems we have 1 vote for each option at the moment. --GoneIn60 (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
 * 2nd would be "1) League column" (or more accurately not 2 w/ comingled column).—Bagumba (talk) 13:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)