Talk:Pro Football Hall of Fame/Archive 1

By Team
Someone went to the trouble of dividing each member of the HOF into "inductees by team," but the HOF itself does not designate an individual inductee to a certain team. For instance, Mike Ditka is listed with the Bears, the Eagles, and the Cowboys, the three teams he played for during his career. The HOF makes no attempt to classify an individual as belonging to a certain team - unless, of course, the individual played/coached/operated one team during his entire career (e.g., Anthony Munoz of the Bengals). My point is, if the HOF doesn't break down players this way, I think the author installs his or her POV by classifying individuals who played for more than one team as "belonging" to just one team. --BrownHornet21 05:46, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You're right. This should definitely be the other way around; List the person, year inducted, years active, and teams active. (Instead of categorizing by team). I can imagine a nice table could probably do the job... Tim Rhymeless (Er...let's shimmy) 06:30, 27 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree. I figure the columns should be:
 * Name
 * Year inducted
 * Position(s) played (or "coach", "owner", "broadcaster")
 * Team(s) with years played/affiliated with each
 * Thoughts? Al 19:00, 3 October 2005 (UTC)


 * For readability, the columns are arranged as described above. KyuuA4 22:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. --BrownHornet21 05:30, 24 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah...whoever did this copied from http://www.profootballhof.com/hof/teams.jsp (and is using the exact same format--probably a copyvio). Anyway, I've started working on listing the inductees alphabetically. Wrathchild 01:26, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Phew! It's done. There's a couple of red names left. Let's be sure to get them at least stubs. --Wrathchild (talk) 16:48, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Franchises moving
There seems to be some inconsistency in the listing. Most teams that move are listed at their current location (e.g. Redskins, Colts). But players for the original Cleveland Browns franchise (now the Baltimore Ravens) are listed at "Cleveland Browns". Shouldn't this be rectified in some way? john k 02:06, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Actually, the Cleveland Browns is a special case. The NFL has ruled that the current Cleveland Browns inherits the old Cleveland Browns records. The Baltimore Ravens are treated as a brand new franchise, not as a moved franchise. Wrathchild 02:22, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Positions
It would be nice to see the position shown for players (RB,WR,QB) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.243.218.121 (talk • contribs)
 * I'll see if I can start adding that in. It might be too much. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Prior to 1981
It can't be prior to 1981, as many post-1981 players are already in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.188.172.165 (talk • contribs)
 * According to the HOF website, the normal selection committee looks at "modern era" players, while the senior committee looks at players from before the "modern era". I've not seen a definition for "modern era" yet, although I would expect that it would be post-Merger, though I'd expect them to use that terminology if c.1970 was the benchmark. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 14:45, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, according to a press release about the 2006 semi-finalists, the seniors committee looks at players (and coaches, presumably) who played over 25 years ago. In 2006 that would be 1981. Since that will continue to be a moving target I'll see about changing the wording so that it doesn't need to be updated every year. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Pro Football Hall of Fame special events
This was just added to the article. I don't think it's encyclopedic. Opinions? &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I've been bold. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 13:50, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Honor Positioning
Non-editor friend of mine has been bugging me about the positioning of the HOF mention on the player's stat boxes. She feels quite strongly that, as it's pretty much as high an honor as a player can achieve, that it should have greater prominence; she pointed out a couple of cases where the stat box is sufficiently long, particularly when a photo is involved, that the HOF mention is not visible when you first look at the page, requiring a bit of scrolling (although, as I pointed out to her, with little success, there is usually a HOF mention in the opening text to the article). I can kinda see her point, though - the HOF is, obviously, a big deal, so it seems that it should have a degree of greater prominence that being right at the bottom. The vast majority of players have a "Career Highlights" section - at the top of that would seem like a logical alternative; granted, the HOF only comes after retirement, but other post-retirement honors are mentioned in that section as well.

Obviously it would be a little time-consuming to make the switch, but I'm quite happy to get it done (not a lot of calls on my time right now), but obviously I didn't want to just go ahead and do it without consulting the pack - kinda rude. So, what do people think? --Tailkinker 06:46, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, but probably something that should be discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League or on the talk page for the template of the stat boxes. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 02:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Good thinking - I shall C&P the question over in that direction.  Thanks.  --Tailkinker 16:05, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

free pictures
I uploaded about 150 pictures I took at the HOF.

I give them to anyone on Wiki who wants to use them for this article or any other article

http://shu.facebook.com/photo_search.php?oid=2396873946

You'll need a facebook account to get em, but anyone who wants them is free to take them and do whatever, I don't care.


 * Thanks! Might have to take you up on it. For the record, are you donating the picture into the public domain? BrownHornet21 23:57, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Arena Football League
It said in the article that the Pro Fotball Hall of Fame refuses to acknowledge the Arena Football League. I took that out because I recently visited the Hall of Fame and there was a small section featuring all of the teams helmet's. It was small, but it stll acknowledged it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.6.117.183 (talk • contribs) 03:56, January 19, 2008

section called NFL hall of fame?
This section is mostly rants. My goodness players from the AFL are in the hof the AFL was only around for 10 years as a separate league how many players who would have only played 10 years or less Between 1960 and 1969 for theses teams would even be hof material. Also the line about there was only 10 AFL writers vs 16 NFL writers is because the AFL had 10 teams hence 10 cities hence 10 writers and the NFL had 16 teams etc. The AAFC was only around for 4 years and was completely dominated by one team. how many players who play only 4 years would be hof material? Also the CFL plays Canadian football and has their own hof. The same complaint could be made the CFL hof does not take into account a players NFL or AFL or AAFC career. I realize pro football and the NFL are not the same thing but can anyone be surprise that a league that has been around almost 90 years who going to get the lion share of players in the league. I believe the reason back in the 1960s to name it the pro football hof as opposed to NFL hof was in part because the college football hof was also known as the National Football Foundation H of F. Plus the pro football h of f also tried to include players from the 1910s (that would be before the NFL) that played only a small part of their careers (later part of careers in the NFL) Smith03 (talk) 05:32, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree, and plus Warren Moon one reason he was inducted was because of his CFL experence and statistics. Same for Steve Young. It also should mention the section created for the Arena Football League, as he has players in it, I'm not sure who all's in it but there are some. -- Cra sh U  nderride  22:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Quantity?
I can't believe that in neither this article, not this one, that I cannot find the number of players in the Hall of Fame. Don't tell me that you can't include it because it changes, because it only changes once a year, and we can certainly keep up with that. Am I missing something? Un sch  ool  03:02, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
 * It might be because it's not as hard-and-fast a number as you might think. There are other people inducted into the Hall besides players. Some of those people may also have been players, even though that's not why they were inducted. Should they count in the total? More reasonable would be to say the total number of inductees. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 12:34, 26 May 2009 (UTC)