Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21

Roster templates
Is there an issue with the roster templates? The IR isn't displaying. Even looking at previous versions (see here) they aren't displaying it.-- Rockchalk 717 18:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I haven't noticed, was this fixed? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * Yesterday apparently. In this revision the reserve list is still not there. After this edit it displays. The capitalization fix? --DB1729 (talk) 12:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)


 * ...cont. I just made the same edit on the Jags template. Revision from earlier no IR. Change 'Lists' to 'lists' it's there.
 * I guess I'll go around and make this change on all of them? --DB1729 (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just double checked and it looks like you got them all, good stuff! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I should've noted here when I was done. Thank you for confirming. Funny that all the other elements work fine despite the inconsistent capitalization. Reserve Lists was probably intended to behave the same way. When I first discovered WP, I myself was a bit startled by its use of sentence case in titles/headings. After all this time we still need crutches like that for MOS:SECTIONCAPS non-compliance. DB1729 (talk) 14:13, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Here's the issue that was introduced in the template. Now either the template needs to be re-coded for both capitalizations, changed back to the former, or the parameter needs to be updated everywhere that uses Template:NFL roster (Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:NFL_roster). Eagles 24/7 (C)  13:48, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I see now. Thanks. I was thinking something probably changed somewhere, but that it had somehow accepted either capitalizations before.
 * Yeah it should put back to  at Template:NFL roster. And also then, that parameter in all the teams' roster templates will need to be put back to Reserve Lists. I have changed any that weren't already converted, even if they were empty e.g. DB1729 (talk) 15:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've changed back Template:NFL roster to use "Reserve Lists" and changed back all of the current NFL roster templates. Eagles 24/7 (C)  20:10, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

PUP and NFI lists in the offseason
This has been an issue with the templates in recent years, and I feel like we should standardize the protocol. Should players placed on the PUP and NFI lists at the start of training camp be shown on the reserve lists, even though they still count on the active roster? I feel like in years past the list was renamed to "active/reserve lists" or something and the players are given "Active/PUP" and "Active/NFI" designations, but still count towards the active roster count. Couple options I thought of was either keep the players in the active roster and just add the "Active/XXX" designation, or if we want to group the players together, maybe create a separate list than "Reserve Lists". I'm open to anything, I just want to standardize what to do. Jrooster49 (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I think keeping those players in the active roster section but adding their designations (like "Active/PUP") makes sense. Eagles 24/7 (C)  23:58, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
 * I've discovered a problem with this though. If you go to the Chiefs roster template you'll see it. If it's a section we don't list a positon, like QB, RB, or WR, the "Active/PUP" parameter doesn't function properly.-- Rockchalk 717 00:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * You'll have to use  in those cases, as I've done here. Eagles 24/7  (C)  12:26, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
 * Gotcha I'll remember that. The player that made me post this has been activated since but I'll remember that.-- Rockchalk 717 23:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Requested move: Acrisure Stadium → Heinz Field
A requested move is under discussion at. –– FormalDude   talk   21:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)


 * For anybody who doesn't want to follow the link, it was a snow close for oppose. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Section for regular season and playoff stats combined
I've started a discussion on Talk:List of National Football League career passing completions leaders about lists that combine regular season and post season stats. Only two pages out of the list of articles on Template:NFL Lists contain a combined list. I removed them today but my removal was reverted and this discussion was started as a result. I just wanted to share that a discussion was taking place in case anybody had any interest in it. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:12, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Academic teams selections in infobox
I tried to search for whether this has been discussed before, but unfortunately this suggestion by GPL93 is the closest I got. They mentioned also excluding academic teams in a reply and it was not directly responded to by anybody.

I want to see if there is any objection to updating WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT to include academic team honorees. I strongly believe it doesn't belong in the infobox under achievements as it has nothing to do with their on field performance. In 2021 alone there were 699 football students who earned the Academic All-Big Ten honor, awarded to players who carried a cumulative GPO of 3.0 or higher. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)
 * In the infobox, no. Even in the article period, I think only academic All-American should be mentioned as that is more exclusive. Athletes getting good grades is more common than I think most people realize as is evident roughly 47% of Big Ten football players making academic All-Conference, academic accomplishments should be reserved even within the article for Academic All-American or things like Magna Cum Laude and Summa Cum Laude or the William V. Campbell Trophy also known as the Academic Heisman.-- Rockchalk 717 06:24, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No conference academic awards in the infobox, as it's generally not a core part of a players' notability. FWIW, I think college basketball Academic All-American are listed in the infobox, but I'd leave it out per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE to have it be more exclusive and not an exhaustive list.—Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the changes to the player format page. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Colours
Has someone been messing with the NFL team colour templates? I don't know if it's showing up for anyone else, but infoboxes in certain Vikings season articles are showing up with a black secondary title (see 1999 Minnesota Vikings season for example). – PeeJay 14:36, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Seems to be that way all the up to the 2013 Minnesota Vikings season. I also just checked out the Vikings' draft navboxes. Anything prior to 2013 has a black footer. So, the team's colours appear to have been defined as purple and black up until the 2013 season (at least by Wiki formatting). Hey man im josh (talk) 15:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That must be a very recent change as it wasn't like that a couple of weeks ago. Unfortunately, I can't work out where the change may have been made. Any ideas? – PeeJay 15:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So, looking at the templates for draft navboxes, I eventually found that all colours are pulled from Module:Gridiron color/data. This page was changed a number of times in August by User:Charlesaaronthompson. This includes an item at line 219 which changes the colour for the Vikings from 1960 to 2012. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, what a surprise that Charles is responsible. Mind fixing that, Charlie boy? – PeeJay 16:48, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have fixed that now. The problem was that when I had added an entry for the Minnesota Vikings' team color codes at Module:Gridiron color/data, I had forgotten to add a border color. I have fixed that now. The Vikings' draft navboxes should not have a black footer now. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 18:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That fixed it, thank you! Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Position field for ex-players now in front office roles
In his infobox, LaDainian Tomlinson's position is currently listed as "Special assistant". This is technically true, but it's quite a minor ambassadorial role (the citation in the article describes it as "largely symbolic"), while he's primarily known as a running back. Similarly, John Elway is listed as a consultant rather than a quarterback. Should individuals be listed by their most famous role, by their current role, or maybe both? Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:16, 21 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Those ought to be changed. Template:Infobox NFL biography says the position field is "used to display the player's most frequently played position" and doesn't mention anything about post-playing careers. Hatman31 (talk) 21:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I get what you're saying, but what do you do with a guy like Dieon Sanders? Or Hall of Fame linebacker / general manager John Lynch?
 * My opinion is that you have them as their current position with whatever team they're a part of, in whatever capacity they're currently in, or you add an additional parameter for situations like this. Something that encompasses a post-playing career role, specifically as an executive or coach and not including going into being an analyst or TV personality. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Lynch's position could easily be listed as Linebacker / General Manager, or a new parameter could be added as you suggest. I think either of those options would be better than the status quo. Hatman31 (talk) 18:12, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Would we then list only the more important non-playing roles (e.g. head coach, general manager), or also more minor roles (e.g. special assistant, consultant). Head coaches and general managers are notable in their own right, after all, whereas Tomlinson's special assistant role wouldn't merit a mention if it wasn't being filled by a Hall of Famer. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that's essentially the right way to go about things; head coach, general manager, and possibly coordinator positions should be included, while special assistant and consultant roles aren't necessary; they should probably be mentioned in the lead but not the infobox. Hatman31 (talk) 19:56, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Notability of personal records
All,

Looking at LaDainian Tomlinson, there are 59 records listed, a lot of which seem rather obscure (e.g. Most games with 14 or more points in a season, Most consecutive seasons with 6+ rushing touchdowns). I feel these obscure the more significant records (e.g. Most single season touchdowns, Most consecutive games with a touchdown). They're also largely unsourced, or sourced with broken links. Is there a general rule deciding which records are significant?

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 21:50, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Rely on your gut instinct and if you're unsure go to the talk page. I'm not aware of any rule but I would agree the more obscure records can be deleted. We're supposed to rely on summary style on Wikipedia. Therapyisgood (talk) 23:23, 6 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oof, looking at these there's a whole lot of cherry picked stats and unnecessary WP:FANCRUFT, much of which may fall under WP:TRIVIA. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , not to mention, the number of citation needed tags throughout the section. I totally agree with you, a good bit of it falls under WP:FANCRUFT. SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 14:39, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Some of those CN tags were from me. I reformatted the section, removed some records (more should honestly be removed), and started to add citations. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh! fair enough. I didn't check to see how long the tags were there, but yeah it does seem like some could be removed. The section itself looks good aesthetically, just a little bloated (which it seems there's agreement on.) SPF121188  (talk this way) (contribs) 15:07, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * The LaDainian Tomlinson records section is super crufty. Any record worth mentioning here should be mentioned explicitly by some reliable source, not merely minable from a reliable database. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Have at it people. Slash what you think is appropriate. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:45, 23 August 2022 (UTC)
 * So, I guess that each record should have two citations: one from a reliable source, showing that the record is notable, and one from a database to show that the record still stands? Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:31, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

1921 Cardinals season
There appears to be some confusion over whether or not during that season, they were the Racine Cardinals or the Chicago Cardinals. GoodDay (talk) 01:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)


 * It looks like they used both names in 1920 and 1921. As the NFL Record & Fact Book has them in the standings as the Chicago Cardinals that season, I'd suggest that is the name we should use. I don't know how to rename an article, though. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * To move an article, click on the box saying "more" next to "view history" and "edit source" at the top of the page. Then a button saying "move" should pop up. Click that and it will let you rename the page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:19, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks - it looks like there's a procedure for potentially controversial moves. I can imagine people disagreeing with this, so I'll follow that procedure. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:35, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Team and history pages
Just want to inform everyone that a certain editor has recently been running around and copying content (duplicating would be a better word for that) from team history (for example, History of the New York Jets to main page (for example, New York Jets. I have already reverted the editor's edits and want to see everyone other's opinions about it. – Sabbatino 03:17, 24 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Yeah I wasn't a huge fan of those changes. If they want to combine the two pages as they are they should propose a merge instead of duplicating the text. I saw they posted about this on your talk page and I encouraged them to open a dialogue here if they want to make large changes like that across all the franchise articles. I also mentioned it in a few of the reverts I did of their changes. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:03, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I can understand the dislike of the changes. Just trying to have all 32 teams have a similar history section. Individual history sections are a bit messy and I do believe that the history should be on the main page of each individual team. I have had some positive feedback from what I have been trying to achieve. I think this discussion should go further and we should consider merging the history pages with the team pages and cataloging them in an encyclopedic fashion. Whiterabbitzero (talk) 22:21, 24 August 2022 (UTC)
 * That's what the separate articles that each team have are for though. By including that, you're stretching out the article, and when does it become too much? By having a separate history page we can go more in depth while keeping the main franchise page to the key points, with pointing to other articles that expand further. I feel like the massive histories of some teams being listed in depth as they are, on the history pages, being included in the main articles would actually dissuade people from reading further. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Still new to editing. Should have created a discussion first. Thanks for the feedback :) Whiterabbitzero (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

A relevant guideline is Summary style, where details are typically left for the subtopic article.—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 25 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Based on that guideline ("The original article should contain a section with a summary of the subtopic's article as well as a link to it."), it seems to me that the history sections on team pages are typically too long. E.g. the history section in Los Angeles Chargers is about 6,200 words, while the dedicated history pages History of the Los Angeles Chargers and San Diego Chargers add up to about 9,100 words. Far from being a summary of the history subtopics, the history section is well over half their length, with extensive duplication. It's pretty much the same story for every NFL team. Really, the summary should only be a couple of paragraphs. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Learning a lot here. Great point about that the team history pages being a better place than the team main article. I think that those should at least be cleaned up and cataloged better Whiterabbitzero (talk) 22:38, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

Franchise Histories
I was attempting to organize all 32 NFL team articles history section into a format that all 32 teams would have, to make the history sections more encyclopedic.

The format that I came up with is as follows:

Franchise History

Subheading 1) Owner era (years owned) *can combine eras if ownership was for a short period of time

Subheading 2) Head Coach years (years coached) *only coaches who have won SB/NFL championship, AFC/NFC champ, and/or Division champ

Subheading 3) SB/NFL/AFL champions (year won)

any other subheading could also include relevant information such as a relocation or other footnote of team history.

I am also thinking that perhaps there should only be two subsections (Owner & championship) and leave out head coaches. Obviously there are more head coaches in NFL history than owners.

As far as separate history pages are concerned I do believe (after the great points brought up by @Hey man im josh) that there should be a summarized history on the main team page, while this format should be included on the more extensive "History of" pages. Also clean up the history pages. Most of them are very messy and should be cleaned up regardless.

My goal here is to have all 32 teams conform to the same format for history section so that we have a sense of continuity. This could also apply for the order of each section for all the team pages. Since I was informed that it is better to start discussion before making any mass edits, here I am. Just wanted to get everyone's opinion on the matter. Have a great day everyone!

Whiterabbitzero (talk) 01:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)


 * There are some teams where it might make more sense to talk about city eras than owner eras, e.g. the Raiders' history breaks down quite naturally into Oakland-Los Angeles-Oakland-Las Vegas, whereas Al Davis was their owner for 39 years. Also, with the Colts it seems more natural to think in terms of the Manning era than any of their head coaches. That said, I can see the benefit of a consistent system and wouldn't object if people prefer that. Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * It's a disservice to make it so mechanical. Franchise owners are rarely definining for an era, and neither are head coaches inherently so, exceptions being iconic ones like Lombardi, Belichick, etc, but it's just as likely to be notable for a player or other reason, e.g. History of the Pittsburgh Steelers.—Bagumba (talk) 20:37, 27 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree with Bagumba. It's not a bad idea by any means, but not every NFL franchise fits this cookie-cutter template. --   StarScream1007  ►Talk  21:46, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Accessibility issues with NFL brackets
Hello. There is an issue with the current tournament brackets used in NFL pages, such as 14TeamBracket-NFL implemented on 2021 NFL season. The background colors used cause an accessibility issue. Specifically, neither the red nor the blue background is WCAG AAA compatible for standard blue links and purple visited links. Per MOS:COLOR, we should be meeting the AAA standard whenever possible. It is in my opinion that the colors are largely unnecessary, and we should be using the standard grey background that is used for every other team bracket, such as 8TeamBracket. Nonetheless, the accessibility issue should be addressed. – Pbrks (t • c) 05:49, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Player's position
What do you do when a team's website lists a player as one thing, and their depth chart lists them in a different position? The most prominent example I've seen so far is that Von Miller's player page lists him as a linebacker. But if you look at the Bills' depth chart, he's listed as a defensive end. It makes it a pain to define positions for team roster templates.

Also, what do we give more weight to when deciding which position for a player is accurate? A team's website, NFL's website, or Pro-Football-Reference? I've seen all three list something differently, but when a player is a free agent and not on a team, I personally find PFR to be more reliable for a player's position, but I'd like to establish consensus on which to lean on in times of dispute. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:10, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd generally go with the depth chart over their "official" position, but even that can be iffy or just straight up wrong. In cases like that I would try to just go for a more encompassing term, like edge rusher, defensive back, or offensive lineman.
 * As for which is more accurate, I will always go with the team's website for position, jersey number, height, and weight. The only reason people even use NFL.com for that sort of thing is because of its integration in the infobox. I still think we can have the team's profile page for that player get automatically pulled from current_team since the URLs are standardized across all 32 teams (with the exception of some Dallas players for some reason, but those can be manually fixed). I'd even go with PFR over NFL.com since they tend to respond quickly to any errors unlike NFL.com ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 11:45, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd prefer to list edge rusher on some players' pages, as it's more accurate for some guys, but it's something I don't see gaining steam when most official sites don't use that term for a player's position. One difficulty with the depth charts is when simply list "DL" for all 3 slots they plan on utilizing in a 3-4 defense. Technically we can infer that the middle "DL" spot should be NT, but we don't actually know. Same thing when they list all 4 slots as DL, like the Lions do. But when it's explicitly defined in the depth chart, I do lean towards that as being their official position.
 * Pulling the player's page from the team's site is actually a great idea if it's as feasible as you say. There is one particular user out there who bases a lot of their edits for weight off the NFL's page, which typically goes un-updated from the point they're drafted. Completely agree with referencing a team's player page for weight since they're the ones who would be most knowledgeable, and more likely to keep a player's weight up to date. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:01, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Third-party reliable sources take priority over profile pages, so if they are consistently cited as just a pass/edge rusher then we shouldn't have any problem using that here too. And the 3-4 DL issue you brought up are even easier to figure out since their roles are more defined and thus are generally mentioned in the media.
 * And I'm well aware of that user, I've told him that eventually NFL.com and PFR updates their weights with the same one listed on the team's page but they did not care. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 12:55, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Are team websites considered third party? I'm sure PFR would be considered as such, but the team websites is where I get confused for that. Perhaps we should add something to the WP:NFLINFOBOX that mentions team websites should be prioritized for height and weight over NFL and PFR. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * No, they would be considered a primary source (WP:PRIMARY) while PFR is a database that verifies information but does not establish notability. We'd also need consensus to stop using NFL.com for player measurements. The last time I tried to propose such a thing, it died as it lacked much discussion. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 14:26, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to send a ping in case you had any interest in participating in the discussion. Pinging you because I updated Von's position based on the depth chart and you changed it back based on the team's position listed on his player page. No hard feelings about it, because I don't think either of us is technically wrong, but I thought you might want to contribute to the discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:05, 22 August 2022 (UTC)
 * My preference is for both to be listed, the "actual" position (usually listed on the depth chart) and the "technical" position (what's listed on the player profile and matching the player numbering rules). In the case of Miller, sources for both positions are about equal weight (primary sources from the team) so I wouldn't include one over the other. Qwaiiplayer (talk) 14:28, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This is where I lean towards edge rusher being a listed position personally. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:57, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, about the positions of the players, I'd prefer to give more importance to the depth chart of the team, and if they're listed as DL or DB for example, write it down like this, in the Von Miller's case I changed his position from DE to OLB because #40 is technically illegal to wear for DLs, and his profile says he's a LB, but if he's listed as a DE, I'd rather write that here too. Sergio Skol (talk) 15:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Good point about the jersey numbers, I hadn't factored that in. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:28, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tex Kelly
Tex Kelly, a player with 17 games in the NFL, has been nominated for deletion. See here for the discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:04, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Ah BeanieFan11, the perpetual saver of articles that go to AfD. I love how you always seem to expand pages significantly and save them from deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Help add Depict statements to NFL player photos on Commons
There is a project on Wikimedia Commons to add structed data elements to as many files as possible. One of the important data elements is the Depict statement which says what is depicted in the image. A very easy to use tool called Depictor has been written using a game like interface to add Depict statements to Commons images. It's very easy and anyone can do it. I have created a challenge on the Depictor tool site to add Depict statements to all of the possible photos of NFL players on Commons. If anyone would like to help you can find the challenge here. When you click on the link you will be shown a known photo of an NFL player on the left and another photo on the right. If the photo on the right showns the NFL player you just click on Yes, if it doesn't click on No, if you are not sure then click on Skip (On a mobile device the known photo will be on the top and the other on the bottom). There is a Youtube video describing the tool and how to use it here Thanks Captain-tucker (talk) 16:17, 17 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Oh this is cool. I've already started chipping away. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:28, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Made a small dent in it. Useight (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

New parameters for NFL infobox?
What's the best way to request new parameters for the Template:Infobox NFL biography? I do a lot with infoboxes and there's been something that's been bugging me. We have "statseason" and "statweek" parameters for players that make it easy to know when the statistics in the infobox were last updated, but it's difficult to tell for coaching records. I'd like to suggest new parameters such as "coachstatseason" and "coachstatweek". Hey man im josh (talk) 12:02, 19 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As it's got template protection, I would suggest establishing consensus at a well-watched place like here at WT:NFL. If after consensus it's still not completed by a passerby with permission, make a formal request at that template's talk page with a link to the prior discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the answer, I've never had to request any parameters for an infobox so this was good to know. I guess I'll hope I get feedback based on this post, unless it'd be better off to start a fresh section with a better section title and just the proposal without the question. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Matt Araiza lede stating that he "joined" the NFL
I'm trying to gain consensus to determine how Matt Araiza's entry into the NFL should be described in the lede. The current structure states that "joined the National Football League (NFL) when he was selected by the Buffalo Bills in the sixth round of the 2022 NFL Draft". I might be wrong, but I feel like referring to a player's entry as "joining the league" is rather uncommon and also not super accurate given the specifics of the draft/udfa process in the NFL. Any attempt to reword the sentence is undone by another editor. Personally, I feel like stating that Araiza was selected in the 2022 NFL Draft by the Buffalo Bills is perfectly fine and we can leave out the National Football League article entirely but I'm open to any suggestions and just coming to clear consensus either way. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:46, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * That is funny sounding. I think PeeJay improved it, but I thought I'd ping to contribute to the discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We have to reference National Football League in the lead because it's the biggest notability factor of the subject. If a player is a free agent, I generally think it's best to say he "began his career in the National Football League", but since Araiza was cut before the regular season, I don't think that's the most appropriate wording for him. I support PeeJay's revision - he still did enter / join the league by being on the Bills roster and other free agent / former player articles aren't always the best basis because they leave out vital details. Bluerules (talk) 17:31, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think that it has to especially given that the Bills and the Draft article links make it pretty apparent. Maybe spell out the league's full name for the 2022 draft link? GPL93 (talk) 18:03, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not apparent for anyone who doesn't know what NFL stands for - and like I said, being in NFL is the biggest notability factor for the subject. The problem with spelling out NFL in the draft link is the draft article is "NFL Draft" and expanding it would be awkward. Plus, we still wouldn't have an NFL hyperlink. I support maintaining the current version. Bluerules (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alternative: Araiza joined the Buffalo Bills of the National Football League (NFL) after they selected him in the sixth round of the 2022 NFL Draft. Introduces "National Football League" while avoiding "joining/entering the National Football League". —Bagumba (talk) 06:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Bluerules, the league should be mentioned and linked with the abbreviation next to it in the lead. The team's association to the NFL is obvious to us but it's not obvious to people unfamiliar with the sport. It's standard that we mention it in the lead of most players and former players, more often than not being mentioned in the very first sentence. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Should We Follow Official Game Notes (Provided by the Team) for Player Positions?
User Hey_man_im_josh and I have been having a disagreement over how to show player positions on the Dallas Cowboys' roster template. He says we should follow the team's roster as listed on the team's website (which I retorted often has small inaccuracies), while I believe we should primarily follow official game notes provided to the NFL by the team if they are available. Example here:

https://static.clubs.nfl.com/image/upload/cowboys/x6xabe1bghed4yb814uh.pdf?email=cmV2YW5mYW5AY29tY2FzdC5uZXQ=&utm_term2&utm_term3

Those are the team's official game notes provided to the NFL and to the fans through the Dallas Cowboys United program. I feel that should be the primary authority for player positions on the template, with the team's website as the secondary source. RevanFan (talk) 17:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * As for what should we follow when teams don't publish game notes? Again, I say use the team's website as a secondary source, along with reports from reporters covering the team. RevanFan (talk) 17:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't think either one of us is wrong in this instance, but it's a question of what do we prioritize? It's easier when a player plays the game, but when they're just on the practice squad, there's not nearly as much information for a player.
 * My concern with the PDF linked is that they mention free agency moves, and reference Watkins as a DT signing. My view is that players shift positions all the time, and that it's better to rely on the depth chart and position listed for a player by the team itself. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In general, I've always gone by: 1. Game notes. 2. Reports from respected team beat reporters. 3. The official team website. 4. Other sources (NFL.com, etc.) In the past, the roster posted on dallascowboys.com was HIGHLY inaccurate. They wouldn't note jersey number or even some roster changes for WEEKS on end. It was so annoying. They're better at it now, but I stopped trusting them as a primary source due to how late they were on updates in years past. Some teams are better than others at timely updates to their roster. RevanFan (talk) 17:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Also I'll note that the reporters and webmasters who publish depth charts on the official team websites, at least for Dallas, will often stress that they are "unofficial". Meaning their depth chart page isn't that great of a source usually. 18:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC) RevanFan (talk) 18:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As for your concern about players moving around a lot, that's why I like to list primary and secondary positions if players have them. For example, Watkins. He mostly is a DT but he sometimes plays off the edge. Therefore, I list him as DT/DE. If a player plays more than two positions, I only list the top two. But most players don't play more than two positions. RevanFan (talk) 18:05, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I support using the team's website. It represents a general overview of the roster, which is what the roster template is supposed to provide. The game notes prioritize the individual game, not the season as a whole. Bluerules (talk) 13:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Score order
There is a discussion about the order of scores (i.e. winner–loser vs. loser-winner) at .—Bagumba (talk) 04:14, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

ProFootballArchives.com
I'm reviewing 1987 San Diego Chargers season for GA, and asked on Talk:1987 San Diego Chargers season/GA1 about profootballarchives.com. I can't tell if it's a one-person site or not, but it doesn't seem to have any information available that would help me establish it's reliable. The nominator,, found this, but it's just a forum post, so I don't think it helps. Does the site get referenced as reliable by professional sports news organizations, for example? That would be good evidence. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 14:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, PFA is considered a reliable source (its been as a reference at least 1,500 times here and I've found it accurate in just about all cases). There appears to be some news sources which have cited it as well, see The Ball State Daily News, San Antonio Express-News, The Dispatch, The State, Indianapolis Recorder, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 247Sports, The Sport Journal, and the Burlington Free Press. Its pretty much the only good source you can get for minor league football statistics from the 1910s to 1970s. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:08, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've also found it very reliable. Never had an issue with it. As Beanie said, it's particularly good because its data extends beyond just the NFL and covers other pro leagues, including CFL, USFL, World Football League, Dixie League, American Association, etc. Whether it's one person or 100, their research is crazy impressive -- they even compile the years when players lettered in college ball. Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that settles it for me -- the links to news organizations treating them as reliable is just what I was hoping to find. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:29, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've found minor quibbles here and there. For example: PFA shows Fran Tarkenton getting sacked 44 times in 1961: https://www.profootballarchives.com/playert/tark00200.html while PFR shows him getting sacked 41 times: https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/T/TarkFr00/gamelog/1961/.  Of course, PFR's stats are blank for two games, so it's possible that Tarkenton was sacked three times between the two games, but PFR's 41 sacks show him losing 425 yards while PFA's 44 sacks have it as only 416.  Probably just a case of sack statistics being unreliable, as a whole, prior to 1982.  Useight (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Dispute at Gardner Minshew
Hello. Rather than going to the talk page, where it is unlikely to be seen, I wanted to bring this right to the WikiProject. has significantly reduced the lede of Gardner Minshew claiming there is no substance to this content. In all of my athlete bio GAs, I typically utilize a format where one paragraph is devoted to amateur career and the next to professional. This has never been seriously disputed. Rather than unproductive edit warring, I thought to propose the question to a larger audience. I am unlikely to be responsive today, as I have other obligations that require me to be offline. —  Ghost River  16:45, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * The lead of Gardner Minshew suffers from WP:UNDUE and unnecessary bloat. There are references to Wyatt Rogers, Tyler Hilinski, Alex McGough, and Tanner Lee, who are mentioned only once or twice in the body of the article; Rogers does not even have his own article. His time at East Carolina and Washington State, the two major college programs he played for, is stretched out across three sentences and 431 characters. I condensed this into one sentence with 227 characters that maintains the most important information: him setting a conference record and winning a major college award. This is information that's buried in the current lead by significantly less notable information (high school and junior college championships, which normally wouldn't warrant notability for an article). Conversely, key information about his professional career - the most notable component of his career - is missing from the lead. There is no mention of him setting a rookie franchise and no mention on him currently holding a backup role on his team. And even if this was added, the reader is overwhelmed by information about his amateur career before they can get to his professional career in the lead. Again, the subject's professional career should be the priority in the lead.
 * This is veering into WP:OTHERCONTENT territory, but there is no guideline requiring an entire paragraph to be dedicated to the amateur career. Scott Zolak's article has less than a sentence about his amateur career in the lead and that's an FA. The lead of Zolak's article is almost entirely about his professional career. Bluerules (talk) 17:20, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm with Bluerules on this one. Too much in the lead that should be moved to another section, if retained.  Useight (talk) 19:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I also agree with Bluerules, with the lone exception of mentioning he played at Northwest Mississippi Community College prior to East Carolina. The lede is way too bloated. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:18, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mention high school career in the lead, save for someone with national honors. Follow MOS:LEADREL: —Bagumba (talk) 02:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Araiza's college in lead
From the Matt Araiza thread above, I noticed that his lead shows his college as "San Diego State", piped from San Diego State University. At a previous discussion, there was a rough consensus that we link to the school's football team (e.g. San Diego State Aztecs) in the lead, which is also consistent with the infobox. Is there a new reason to not follow that? —Bagumba (talk) 09:29, 21 September 2022 (UTC)


 * When I was working on the Corey Dillon page in late 2020, changed the hyperlink for Washington Huskies football in the lead to University of Washington. I've been following that example since.
 * I can't speak for Rockchalk and don't know if he still supports this approach, but I support hyperlinking the school over the school's football team because it is grammatically correct (the player played "at" the school, not "at" the football team). Furthermore, there are situations in which it's more appropriate we give the school's full name. For example, it needs to be clear Kenny Pickett's college Pittsburgh team is not the same as his NFL team. There are also individuals such as Steve Largent and Herschel Walker who are notable outside of football and referencing their school in the lead also identifies their educational background. This is the standard I've seen for politician's articles, which applies to Largent and Walker. Bluerules (talk) 16:06, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes I do 100% support linking and using the school's name, especially if it says something like "...played college football at (school)". It's partially because we already have the football page linked in the infobox so I feel like the school should be linked in the opening.-- Rockchalk 717 16:18, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The ones in the infobox are WP:EASTEREGG links. I don't see any valid reason why we shouldn't be listing the team name instead of just the school. This seems like yet another 2000s-era Wikipedia policy that we stuck with without questioning why. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 17:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using the school is grammatically correct (Kenny Pickett played at the University of Pittsburgh, not at Pittsburgh Panthers football) and allows for more flexibility if the subject becomes notable outside of football. The team name is unneeded space, especially when college teams are usually referred to by just the school name. Bluerules (talk) 18:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I am fine with the status quo for a former player's alma mater. What is an anomaly are coaches with stints in both pro and college, e.g. Jim Harbaugh, where the team name is inconsistently omitted in the team history listing. —Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Played for: My preferred wording in the lead is the format He played college football for the San Diego State Aztecs (e.g. San Diego State Aztecs). I agree that "played at " should never be mixed with an MOS:EGG link to a school program.—Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)


 * My issue with "played for" is it adds unnecessary wording - "played college football at San Diego State" gets the same information across as "played college football for the San Diego State Aztecs" in less words. Plus, the college team's name typically isn't used for an NFL's player's background. NFL profiles don't identify the college team name for players and only the school name is used when a player is drafted. Bluerules (talk) 02:24, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My perspective is that a link in the lead of a football bio to the actual college football program, San Diego State Aztecs football, is more relevant to a football player than merely its location, San Diego State University. As noted, "played college football at" should not have an EGG link to San Diego State Aztecs football, so we word it as "played college football for the San Diego State Aztecs", linking to the footbal program. —Bagumba (talk) 03:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Like I mentioned above, I find it more flexible to hyperlink to the school because some subjects become notable outside of football - Steve Largent held federal office and his educational background shouldn't be limited to him playing football in college. And it's not the "location", it's the school itself. It's what the football program is part of. I find the school more relevant because that's the main article. Bluerules (talk) 18:06, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This wording (or something similar) makes the most sense to me as well. If someone wants to get to the school's main article instead it's just one extra click. Hatman31 (talk) 23:56, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The school's football team is also one extra click from the main article - and we're able to include both by having the main article in the lead and the football program in the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 16:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Not everyone who reads the lead necessarily looks at the infobox, and it's MOS:EGGy to have two links with the same display go to different pages. Likewise, the school link is one click away from the football program page. —Bagumba (talk) 17:21, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I find that the school article should be more obvious than the football program article (which also typically appears in the body of the article) on account of it being the main article and the aforementioned grammar ("at") indicates where the hyperlink is headed. The "one click away" point applies to both articles. Bluerules (talk) 19:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The more relevant article is almost always the team's article, which certain exceptions if the subject is more notable for something outside of football. The subject's coverage about their time spent in college is usually in the context of them as a member of the football team and not as a student, As pointed out in the previous discussion. I believe that this should also extend to when linking schools in reference to scholarship offers. Scholarship offers and status are controlled entirely by the football program, a coach can revoke a scholarship or withdraw a scholarship offer with a high degree of autonomy. Generally the academic administration is involved is the admissions process, which is usually just rubber stamping an application as long as minimum standards are met, and issues regarding discipline for off-field incidents (and even then not always) and eligibility to remain a student at the institution given that the NCAA determines eligibility to play and not much else. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:49, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The school article is not about only academics. It is about the school as a whole, including the football team, and the player ultimately represented the school. This is demonstrated by only the school being mentioned when a player is drafted and only the school being shown in player's official NFL profiles. There are also other cases in which the school needs to be spelled out, such as Kenny Pickett (to draw a distinction between his school and NFL team) and Ben Roethlisberger (to establish he played at Miami University in Ohio, not the University of Miami). To display the school's full name, but hyperlink the football program (as I saw done with Pickett's article) is misleading improper piping.
 * As for scholarship offers and status, the football program is controlled entirely by the school. The school hires and fires the coaches. Again, the school article represents the school as a whole, not just the academic administration. In the case of Matt Araiza's article, the altered wording caused the SDSU acronym to be lost - and if the school's full name is used, the school should be hyperlinked to ensure proper piping. Mac Jones' article once had a normal hyperlink to the University of Kentucky, but presented a hyperlink to Alabama's football team as the University of Alabama in the same sentence, which was inconsistent and confusing. Bluerules (talk) 17:22, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It is incredibly common for state universities to be referred to as "X State" without "university" while maintaining the "U" acronymn, so we aren't exactly "losing" the acronym. And yes, on a super-macro level the school is involved, but it is certainly not misleading to link to the football program as the reference is to what team they played for, rather than the school they attended. GPL93 (talk) 17:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * We are losing the "U" acronym if we're putting "SDSU" right next to "San Diego State". In text, what the acronym stands for should be provided in full. And the school's involvement isn't macro-level - the football program answers to the school. It may not be necessarily wrong, but when the football program is already hyperlinked in the proceeding college career section, it's more appropriate to have a school hyperlink in the early life section. Bluerules (talk) 19:43, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
 * You're really starting to get on my nerves with your pernickety attitude towards things on this site. People refer to the school as "SDSU" and "San Diego State". The fact that the acronym doesn't perfectly match the longer name is totally irrelevant, since people don't call it San Diego State University in everyday discourse. Why must you insist on making everything difficult? – PeeJay 21:24, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I recommend reading WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS before you write another comment like this one. The fact that the acronym doesn't perfectly match what it's supposed to stand for is completely relevant because you cannot assume everyone knows what SDSU stands for and when we provide an acronym in text, we are supposed to establish what the acronym stands for in full. SDSU stands for San Diego State University; we reference the full name and give the acronym to ensure the information is complete for all readers. Simple as that. Bluerules (talk) 22:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If he played college football for SDSU, he played for San Diego State. The "University" is redundant, especially since most people don't refer to the institution as San Diego State University. Thanks for playing. – PeeJay 23:35, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If we are identifying what creates the acronym SDSU, we identify where every letter comes from - San Diego State University. The current version of the page says "San Diego State University (SDSU)", neatly providing each piece of the acronym. The proposal is to say "San Diego State (SDSU)", which fails to provide each piece of the acronym and makes the "U" look like it came from nowhere. If "University" was redundant, it would not be in the acronym. What people refer to the institution as is irrelevant - what's relevant is the proper name. Most people apparently not referring to the institution as "San Diego State University" doesn't impact the article being called "San Diego State University" and it doesn't change how we identify what makes up an acronym. Thanks for playing. Bluerules (talk) 05:30, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * ...the altered wording caused the SDSU acronym to be lost...: The SDSU expansion is already in the body, which satisfies MOS:ACRO1STUSE. —Bagumba (talk) 05:35, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The SDSU expansion is in the body because of the current edit. The proposal is to remove the expansion. And that's not the only issue with the proposal - schools are more commonly hyperlinked in the early life section and the football program is already hyperlinked in the following section, making the school hyperlink more appropriate. Bluerules (talk) 12:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The proposal is to remove the expansion: No, the proposal is whether to link and display the football program in the lead. That is independent of whether or not an abbrev like SDSU gets introduced later in the article.—Bagumba (talk) 15:04, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The schools are not more commonly hyperlinked and because the offer is specifically to play for the football program it is much more relevant. It is also usually easier to get to the school article from the team article than the other way around. Also, the argument has been made that this is common and acceptable for the "University" part to not be included but to still use the "U" acronym. The MoS states that acronyms do not need to be written out in full. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:06, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The schools are more commonly hyperlinked in "Early life" sections in general. For football players, it is actually more common to not even mention the schools / college football programs in this section because there is a section immediately following it about their college career. And in this context, both the school (which is much more relevant in the context of the offer because the football program answers to the school) and the football program (which is more relevant once they start playing college football) can be hyperlinked. Since Araiza's article mentions his offers in the "Early life" section instead of the "College career" section, it is redundant to have two hyperlinks to the football program follow each other. Not only is still easy to get to the program article from the school article, there's still already a football program hyperlink. Having the school hyperlinked in the "Early life" section is both more appropriate and avoids the redundancy. The argument for "University" to not be included was not an effective one because it ignores how acronyms work. When we give the full name before giving the acronym, we are supposed to give the actual full name. Bluerules (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * No, that's not the proposal being discussed in this conversation. This conversation shifted to a discussion over the "Early life and high school" section, which currently says Araiza committed to play at "San Diego State University (SDSU)" and hyperlinks the school. The proposal in this conversation is to change the wording to "San Diego State (SDSU)" and hyperlink the football program. One of the issues (and not the only issue) with this proposal is it removes what the acronym stands for in full. Bluerules (talk) 21:05, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * In this case, do we even need the acronym? Can't we just refer to them as San Diego State throughout? – PeeJay 23:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Using SDSU is an editorial decision that is independent of whether we have the football program link in the lead. After the lead, the body can say something like "at San Diego State University (SDSU)..." if one chooses to use SDSU for some brevity and variety.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * What's the harm in using the full name in the body? That's where the school hyperlink can be used alongside the football program hyperlink. Bluerules (talk) 02:50, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This conversation shifted to a discussion over the "Early life and high school" section...: I didn't catch that you went on a tangent. Getting back to the lead, linking the football program there doesn't preclude linking to the university later in the body; those are independent issues.—Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * GPL93 brought up a proposal to change the school hyperlinks in the body to football program hyperlinks and I explained my opposition to this proposal. I don't have an issue with hyperlinking the football program in the lead and the school in the body; I'm opposed to having two hyperlinks to the football program right on top of each other, which would be the result of changing the hyperlinks in the "Early life and high school section". At the very least, there should be a hyperlink to the school, even if it's not in the lead. Bluerules (talk) 02:57, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd suggest modifying the body to something like "Araiza committed to play college football at San Diego State University (SDSU) for the Aztecs ..." I've seen the argument made that non-sports fans and non-Americans may be more familiar with the university, so a link to it at some point makes the connection more obvious. —Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agreed. We could move the information about his college offers from the "Early life and high school" section to the "College career" section, where it's more appropriate. Bluerules (talk) 17:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

RFC: Volume stats sections combining regular season and playoffs
Should the tables with the combined regular season and playoff statistics be deleted?

This keeps happening on a number of pages (primarily on statistics in which Tom Brady would be on the top of the leaderboard). See:


 * List of National Football League career passing completions leaders
 * List of National Football League career passing touchdowns leaders
 * List of National Football League career passing yards leaders

There may be other articles with the same problem. The NFL does not combine regular season and post-season statistics. See, for example, page 622 of the 2022 Official National Football League Record & Fact Book (PDF found here: https://operations.nfl.com/updates/the-game/2022-nfl-record-and-fact-book/). Combining the statistics constitutes original research. I am opening this discussion to talk about the removal of combined regular season and post-season stats from all articles within the scope of the NFL WikiProject. Useight (talk) 16:45, 12 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I've been making the case on several pages that these combined stats should not exist in articles. They're never tracked together and I've been dealing with a user at Talk:Tom Brady strongly advocating for it on Brady's article. I'd much rather those sections be deleted altogether as they're just puffery in my opinion. For what it's worth, all 3 of those sections were added by the same user, User:Randy Kryn.
 * They also don't seem to be included on any of the stat lists that are unrelated to passing. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Sounds like crufty OR. Delete with impunity. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:55, 12 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe I pinged, as I edited my reply to include their name, so sending a ping their way so they can chime in. Only fair to give them a chance to advocate for the content they're adding in to articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Misleading language right off the bat (I didn't add the sections, I readded these long-term sections back after they all were removed without discussion), never a good sign. Please read the titles of the pages and their leads - each of the sections are covered in the title! Nothing broken here. Whoever first added them has done Wikipedia and its football pages a favor, as I for one have been checking those interesting sections for years. May I ask the naysayers, what exactly is your problem with the information? How does any of it harm rather than build and improve the encyclopedia? Which of the sections in question do not relate to the page titles they exist on? I could say more but let's jump over this misleading and "I don't like it" stuff first, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:57, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * My apologies then if you were not the original, but I felt it relevant to include you since you were the one who did add them back. I thought you would be interested in participating and it does seem that way.
 * Can you show me any website that tracks the combined regular season and playoff statistics together? I haven't found them on NFL's website, Pro-Football-Reference, ESPN, none of the major website try it as a statistic.
 * When "career" statistics are discussed, regular and post-season stats are always mentioned separately instead of being added together. The one exception to this? Tom Brady. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:15, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping and correction. I don't edit the Tom Brady page outside of seven minor edits since 2017, and haven't read it aside from a skim for styling. He is quite the player though, we are lucky to be interested in football during his last seasons. As for the sections in question, they fit the page titles perfectly. I'm still not seeing a problem but rather see the sections as improving the encyclopedic coverage maintained by the page titles. Seriously, what information presented is not beneficial and encyclopedic to share with readers or is outside the scope of the page titles? Randy Kryn (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh no, sorry, there's a completely separate user I've bene dealing with on Tom Brady's talk page. As I'm sure you're aware you were pinged because of the additions to the above linked lists. I feel the need to explain that for anybody else reading.
 * To me they don't appear as an improvement. Wikipedia is not a database and including stats that major stat websites don't track, at least in my opinion, goes against that. It comes across as WP:TRIVIA and WP:FANCRUFT. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for chiming in. I won't be addressing the WP:IDONTLIKEIT versus WP:ILIKEIT stuff, nor anything regarding specific players.  I will address the rest, though.  The tables do not fit the page titles.  Per the PDF I linked above, per Pro-Football-Reference's leaderboard,  and per NFL.com's stat pages, playoff stats are not included in career totals.  Ergo, within a Wikipedia article entitled "List of National Football League career passing yards leaders", playoff statistics would not be included.  To that end, I would also support removing the playoff-specific tables off those pages and onto their own (but that's another discussion).  That all being said, even if these tables in question did fit within the scope of the article's title, that does not inherently qualify them for the page, even if a subset of people believe the information to be beneficial and/or encyclopedic.  Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.  These tables are original research and not notable.  Useight (talk) 15:06, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I had brought up making standalone lists of notable playoff stats at Talk:List of National Football League career passing completions leaders. Agree that the combined totals still seem WP:UNDUE / WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 16:51, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Unpopular opinion but stats tables shouldn't really belong on Wikipedia. We have Pro Football Reference that does the exact same thing in a better format. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 18:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)
 * To the extent that a grouping meets WP:LISTN, a standalone list has merit, along with some meaningful stats for entries in said list. But yes, Wikipedia does not maintain stats lists merely because they are verifiable (WP:ONUS).—Bagumba (talk) 00:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Fully agree. No reason to put stat tables in player articles when we already link to three or more sources (team, NFL.com, PFR, college). ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 17:39, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Gonna throw my hat into the ring here and say that these shouldn't be included. Combined totals aren't a thing in the NFL, so no reason to do so here. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 03:52, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The three article's names and leads define the sections in question. Nothing is broken here. For example, the name of the page is List of National Football League career passing completions leaders and that's exactly what it covers, in full. Regular, post season, and combined stats. What exactly is the problem, and why are you all focused on removing long-standing and obviously title-relevant statistics? Randy Kryn (talk) 02:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * As mentioned, in summation,
 * It's WP:TRIVIA
 * Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate database
 * It's WP:OR
 * It's WP:FANCRUFT
 * Combined regular season and playoff statistics are not a measured statistic, though they can obviously be calculated
 * It's WP:UNDUE
 * These stats have only been tracked, combined, on the passing related statistics pages
 * Just because something has remained on Wikipedia for an extended period of time does not mean it should have or should remain. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * This seems more "I don't like it" reasoning enhanced by throwing around names of guidelines and policies and essays which contain little page-defining language that applies to anything we are discussing. To emphasis without boldfacing: The long-standing statistics all pertain to the titles of their pages. Nothing broken. Exact matches. And two of the three leads cover the criteria presented - I tried to bring the third into language which would both be consistent with the other two and accurately define what is on the page, but was reverted. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:21, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There has been press about Brady nearing 100,000 regular and post season combined passing yards (here's the latest, from NBC Sports). I don't know if the NFL has commented on this, but sourced coverage about this 100,000 mark seems to justify, if we are going to get technical, the existence of all of the simple and page-title encompassing combinations mentioned here. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * If a particular player passing a particular combined milestone like this gets enough coverage, it may make sense to note that in his bio article. For a somewhat analogous example, the lead of Ichiro Suzuki mentions his combined 4,367 hits in pro baseball between MLB and Japan. But while we have List of Major League Baseball career hits leaders and List of Nippon Professional Baseball career hits leaders, we don't have a whole list of MLB plus Japan combined hits leaders. One-off mentions of particularly salient combined totals do not make those combined stats notable enough to deserve an entire list on Wikipedia. Rather, we'd need reliable sources to list out these combined stats., can you show us official NFL records or definitive statistical almanacs like Pro-Football-Reference.com providing a full list treatment to combined regular season plus playoffs stats? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:41, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Moving the goalposts (something Brady could do with help from Gronk), but I'll play. Japan's Nippon and U.S. Major League baseball do not list combined crossover stats for good reason - they are different leagues. Apples and rice. As Brady nears the quickly-becoming-legendary and notable 100,000 combined regular season and playoff yards, more and more sources will add to the good sources already focusing on this recognized record (here's another, from Profootballnetwork.com). This attention doesn't apply to Brady's stats alone but is sourced recognition that combined regular season and playoff stats do have notable meaning. This provides real-world justification that Wikipedia's long-term quarterback combination statistics, which go deeper than the 100,000 mark but still align with NFL career figures, follow the same logical concept. Career means career, not regular season only, and unlike your Japan-American baseball comparison which has no formal connection these NFL regular season and playoff stats both relate to one league. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:49, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * So add it to Brady's article. Significant coverage includes coverage of more than one person, even if there's a significant number of coverage for the one person.
 * Career means career, not regular season only,
 * Not in the context of the NFL. I'm going to point you towards Tom Brady's NFL.com page. Playoff stats are missing under the career stats sections because the NFL considers "career stats" as regular season stats excluding playoffs. This is echoed by all stat websites. Look at Pro-Football-Reference, ESPN, and Football Database, they're the most relied upon databases for stats besides the NFL's own website, and they also list career stats as only regular season stats. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:03, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Covering the 100,000 number does apply to more than one person, it applies to every quarterback who ever played in the NFL who hasn't achieved that mark. What you and the others are asking for here is to remove massive amounts of long-standing information from the lead and body of the three articles in question, something which harms the encyclopedia (thus WP:IAR kicks in) and hinders readers like myself who follow these stats week-by-week. Here's another reputable source which mentions the 100,000 mark in terms of "total career passing yards". Randy Kryn (talk) 13:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * An article from MSN does not overrule the primary source of the NFL, or the other mentioned reliable sources, regarding the definition of career statistics. As mentioned, you're still only showing coverage of the combined statistics relating to one person. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the combined rankings from the articles, for now, given there's an ongoing discussion and the general vibe is these shouldn't be there. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 13:54, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverted. This needs a full RfC to remove these long-term stats which are harming nobody and improving the encyclopedia, the talk pages weren't notified of this discussion, very few editors are aware of this local discussion, and as mentioned above the 100,000 number for Brady's passing yards are very notable and will become more so as the season proceeds. Randy Kryn (talk) 21:57, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Added RFC tag to this thread and added comment to talk page of each relevant individual page. Complete overkill for determining consensus regarding the inclusion of a section of text on some articles, but, sure, I'll file the paperwork.  No problem.  Useight (talk) 22:39, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * , this is really getting ridiculous. We need an RFC before we can remove uncited content? I mean we have one now, but it's absurd for you to demand that someone else open one for this. I could add lots of things to lots of articles that wouldn't "harm" anyone. But "harm" or lack thereof is not the standard for inclusion. Rather, notability established by coverage in reliable sources is the standard for inclusion. Did you have any such sources that list out combined regular season and playoff NFL statistics like this? Jweiss11 (talk) 22:50, 14 September 2022 (UTC)
 * It really is. There seems to be a solid consensus here, with a number of experienced editors stating valid reasons and supporting its removal. The only opposition in this case has been Randy who hasn't given us anything beyond WP:ILIKEIT and significant coverage of Brady's combined stat. However, focusing the entire argument around Brady giving undue weight to coverage of Brady's significant stats, which at this point are basically routine.
 * I've been, from the start, asking to show any type of significant coverage for the stat beyond articles mentioning Brady closing in on 100k combined yards, or something similar. They've since tried to redefine what career statistics are considered. It does more harm to favour inclusion of stats that favour Brady than it does to remove the statistic that's not tracked. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:00, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Just going to jump in after having skimmed everything else. I say there's nothing wrong with it provided, of course, they're actually sourced and not merely WP:OR based on other stats we already have lying around with sources attached to them. We disambiguate alongside the combined stats, i.e. we could show totals for regular and post season results  the two categories separately. At the same time, however, I've seen concern that combining the two categories only rarely comes up in the press we could cite, if it ever comes up at all, so perhaps it's not really a significant point of intersection for the particular interests of the encyclopedia (i.e. it's not a notable aspect unto itself so we shouldn't really care if no one else we normally cite does). The buzz about e.g. Tom Brady on his way to 100K passing yards could be brought up on his article or in whichever few places it's truly relevant. I would say another argument to keep the status quo is that not everyone makes it to the post season, so those who do tend to benefit from their stats being enhanced by post season games, therefore it carries additional implications of notability and dominance for the palyers involved, but again, that's just my point of view and not really something that seems to be cared much about on the whole, so we wouldn't find it in too many publications. I'm fine with things the way they are if we can source them, but the trouble seems to have been exactly that, so I'll go with the flow on this one. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 01:55, 15 September 2022 (UTC)


 * ...they're actually sourced and not merely WP:OR based on other stats we already have lying around with sources attached to them: It actually can be considered OR. Per the policy WP:CALC:  To date, there only seems to be one editor who believes that the sum is meaningful and a reflection of sources. —Bagumba (talk) 11:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Based on your reply, the key is whether the sum actually illuminates anything for the reader that would otherwise be overlooked, or if any value is added that would otherwise not be present. This actually makes it seem as if there is more value in presenting things separately because, again, making the post season repeatedly would bulk up the stats in that category, and making it that far in a given season is prestigious on its own, so those stats can and should be left to speak for themselves. That appears to be where the emphasis is among editors, readers, and journalists, so that is where we should be heading with our consensus. Indeed, that does appear to be the case. Consider me on board. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist  (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 08:04, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Creating the RfC seemed like more of a stall tactic and hail Mary, are there any objections to me requesting a closure? The consensus was clear prior to the RfC and still seems as such. The content cannot be sourced and it's only notable in the context of Tom Brady. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:53, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * There's no rush. I would let the RFC run for at least a week before requesting closure.  Useight (talk) 19:57, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I've kept away as insults flew towards my position, but this seems a malformed RfC in the first place as it was just tossed onto an existing long-winded discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 20:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Agree with Useight. Taking the good-faith approach hopefully minimizes any potential Wikilawyering later. —Bagumba (talk) 23:43, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Need help with a consensus
Can I get some project members to comment on Matt Birk's talkpage please? I'm in a discussion with someone about mentioning he won the Walter Payton Man of the Year award in the opening.-- Rockchalk 717 04:50, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Current NFL player AFDs
A group of current NFL players have been nominated for deletion. Please see the following discussions: BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:05, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Johnny Johnson III
 * Articles for deletion/Alec Anderson (American football)
 * Articles for deletion/Quandre Mosely
 * Articles for deletion/Tay Martin
 * Articles for deletion/Stanley Berryhill
 * Articles for deletion/Roy Mbaeteka
 * Articles for deletion/Malik Davis
 * Articles for deletion/Irvin Charles
 * Articles for deletion/Brad Hawkins (American football)
 * Articles for deletion/William Kwenkeu
 * Articles for deletion/Mike Harley Jr.
 * Articles for deletion/Roderick Perry II
 * Articles for deletion/Zaire Mitchell-Paden
 * Articles for deletion/Brock Hoffman

NFL Slimetime
So, NFL Slimetime premiered its second season a few weeks back. However, due to the article's importance being rated "Low", no one has been able to update it (increasing the episode count and adding the weekly NVP). I've been doing this for nearly a month, and I am tired of being the only contributor. Feel free to reply with any thoughts about this. BrickMaster02 (talk) 23:55, 5 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm confused. What do you mean when you say no one has been able to update it because of it's importance being rated "Low"? The article's importance rating to the WikiProject has no bearing on whether someone is able to edit an article or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was told that the reason why no one else was doing it was because the article's importance was rated "Low". I don't know if I'm missing something, but it's weird how no one else has taken advantage of the article whenever a new episode airs. BrickMaster02 (talk) 01:48, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The majority of articles that have the WikiProject tag and an importance rating set have the importance set as "low". The stats for class and importance can be found here. Quick stats:
 * Unrated - 19,345
 * Low rating - 9,767 (65.6% of rated)
 * Mid rating - 3,907 (26.3% of rated)
 * High rating - 722 (4.9% of rated)
 * Top rating - 487 (3.3% of rated)
 * I think you're seeing low participation in that article because of a lack of interest in the topic, not because of its rating. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't know why anyone isn't editing the article, as it's related to the NFL. I don't want to continue editing it, as it is getting old being the only one contributing. BrickMaster02 (talk) 02:07, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Contributing to Wikipedia is voluntary, both for yourself and others. Don't feel obligated if you have other interests. —Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2022 (UTC)

Adding teams abbreviations to articles
I proposed adding the team abbreviations to the infoboxes (or at least the articles bodies) here. Please state your opinion. Thanks. -- Angus (talk) 14:13, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Angus, can you give an example where you would want this mentioned in the infobox and/or article?
 * I don't see how this would be a benefit in the main space of an article. Personally I prefer referring to Detroit Lions as the Lions in an article after the first mention, but I understand my preference may not be the same as others.
 * As for the infobox, I don't see the benefit of adding an abbreviation for the team. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The main purpose is to make the reader aware that when they see ATL on the top of nfl.com, it means the Falcons. How would it be mentioned, I'm not sure. It could be after the name
 * The Atlanta Falcons (ATL) are a professional ...
 * and/or in the infobox, maybe with its own heading after "Team Nicknames". --Angus (talk) 21:22, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Stat tables on player articles
So there's some problems with stat tables, including some inconsistencies and some things being done that don't make much sense. For starters, when it comes to career highs there's some strange things being done. For example, it seems career highs for interceptions and fumbles are being marked in bold for some reason, despite those being stats where the higher the number, the worse the stat is. Career high is to identify the best a player has done in the individual stat. Why are we identifying a career worst stat line? It doesn't make any sense. Next, games played and started. These are getting career highs marked. But what makes that seem pointless is instance like Brett Favre who played and started 16 games in a seasons for 17 seasons in a row. I've removed these on some players, especially ones who started/played 16 games multiple times. Next is quarterback rating. If a quarterback throws a 75 yard touchdown on his first pass attempt of the season then has a season ending injury before he can attempt a 2nd pass, his quarterback rating would be a perfect 158.3 which would be a career high. Obviously that's an extreme scenario but for something like that, do we decide on a minimum attempts? I feel like we need to answer these questions because there's a lot strange stuff happening to player stat tables.-- Rockchalk 717 18:43, 18 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Looks like the strange stuff has been happening for a long time. When I see career high, I think what was his career high in interceptions ... oh, his high was 23 in 2016. It states 'high'. Maybe it should read 'career best'. The reason I started saying things was because for months, 99% of the players are marked that way. So when I saw Tua, Mahomes, Allen and Murray with career lows .... I shook my head. Maybe we can wipe the whole slate clean and remove 'career highs'. Bottom line, does it really matter? Especially if we have multiple opinions. Going round and round makes no sense. I saw another user change the NFL infobox template for a different matter weeks ago, and who is going to uniform all the player pages? Nobody. Let's all make up a rule. With each passing week I find another section to stay away from. Hope it all works out everybody. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * If it's any consolation, even Pro-football-reference ranks those with the most interceptions as the highest.. This is a problem with terminology and dealing with negative stats like interceptions, fumbles, and sacks, where the most on offense isn't necessarily the best. We could say these are technically the "high" and correct as is. If we were to change it, then relabel it as "best" instead. —Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I actually had Patrick Mahomes stats as career best for a long time but after enough times of people changing it to career high and then marking interceptions with the highest, I added a tooltip. Then Bringingthewood came in and removed it marked the actual highs on interceptions and claimed "it wasn't broken". It is broken because we're doing something that doesn't make any sense. I noticed a while back pro football reference does it. Honestly I'm even willing to stop marking career highs altogether just purely because of these issues. NFL.com doesn't provide career highs neither does ESPN and it's not like it's something somebody can't figure out themselves just by looking at the stats.-- Rockchalk 717 15:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I'd suggest changing the legend to read "Career best", instead of relying on a tooltip to explain why the "high" is sometimes a "low". I have no objection to removing it altogether; however, practically speaking, I expect a lot of drive-by copycats to just add it back, which happens often on NFL pages, so the regulars will need to be patient in educating others and avoid getting into edit wars. I'll defer to the editors who regularly patrol the stats tables and those who plan to make the changes. —Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I removed it because I didn't think it was you who put it there. You're a thorough person and I figured it would be on dozens of other players to correct. I needed a seeing eye dog to find a line that I never thought would ever be on the table. Why look for it when for months it was done a certain way. I apologize. I thought another user fixed what wasn't broken for a few players. And why not the sack section? This all went through my mind at the time. Believe me, I'm not here to aggravate people on purpose, that's why I no longer remove the statweeks and statseasons. Hopefully most of the player pages will be easy to understand soon. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:01, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Yes, the "Career best" does sound very good if the decision is to keep it. Or like Rockchalk717 mentioned, scrapping it completely might not be the worst thing going forward. Letting the readers do a little homework looking over the stats won't be the end of the world. At least the colored tabs are right to the point and easy to understand. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:05, 19 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Just chiming in to say I'm in agreement that it should be phrased as career best instead of highest. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:17, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It's all good. If we do go with career best, what Bagumba said is 100% right. We're gonna get a lot of those editors coming through completely unaware of this conversation. New policies take time to implement on this project because we do have a high amount of inexperienced editors that edit frequently on player pages.-- Rockchalk 717 19:41, 20 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi Josh, I was hoping you would chime in, lol. I'm glad I'm good with Rockchalk and I agree with Bagumba also, it'll take time. Whenever this project begins I'm all for helping out. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:55, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

If the project plans to change every page, I'd recommend standardizing on a legend and stat row header with a template, e.g. Template:NBA player statistics legend and Template:NBA player statistics start.—Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * @Bagumba, can a template be set up in a way similar to infoboxes, where a parameter in use would add the column and have a predefined display order? Hey man im josh (talk) 00:33, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Should be doable. —Bagumba (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I am totally ok with creating something like that, but I've never created a template like that from scratch, I've only done ones where I could copy and paste. I'm sure someone on this project has the skill set to create that and have it look good. If did a stat thing, we'd definitely have to have a parameter for each position to display certain stats for each position. Something like "position=QB/RB/WR" etc.-- Rockchalk 717 00:57, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Would certain stats be mandatory by position, or do we leave each column up to the editor? —Bagumba (talk) 01:05, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd say leave the columns up to the editor, with guidelines in the documentation for what's considered standard. There are outliers for each position and sometimes certain stats are relevant to include, so flexibility would be ideal. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Too much flexibility also defeats the purpose of a template. Maybe have standard rushing, receiving, and passing stats, and have each group be toggled? —Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * True. The original reply I typed out had 5 possible default templates:
 * Passer
 * Skills player (receiving and rushing both listed)
 * Offensive lineman
 * Defensive player
 * Kicker
 * Can you have multiple groups of columns toggled or would you only be able to select one? If you can toggle multiple column groups it could allow for separate receiving and rushing groups to be included for players like Christian McCaffrey and LaDainian Tomlinson. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Multiple groups can work. I think if we can agree on the requirements, a template editor can then point out if there are any limitations. We would also want to specify that passing stats come first for a QB, but come after rushing stats if we show for some RB like Tomlinson.—Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we're on the right track. It's late for me now but I have some ideas on the groupings that I'll write up tomorrow morning unless someone puts forth something solid before then. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * "Skills player" as defined above makes sense as a category, but is very non-standard terminology. Normally "Skill position" includes QBs, and non-lineman defensive players.  Maybe Deebo's "wideback" coinage's time has come?  Runceiver?  109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

@Bagumba, I took a stab at it here and made what I believe should be the default template by position. I broke it down by subtemplates and included possible subtemplates that could be added for positions like kick and punt return. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:43, 21 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Actually I should have pinged @Rockchalk717 and @Bringingthewood for input too. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I like I only have a comment for offensive linemen. There's not enough stats for them to really justify a stat table for that position because things like sacks allowed and pancakes are hard to find consistent reliable stats for. As a former offensive lineman I wish there was, but unfortunately there isn't.-- Rockchalk 717 15:34, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockchalk717: Personally I agree with you, but stat tables in that format do exist on some linemen pages so I included it anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for asking, but there are three very smart computer oriented people here. Whatever you choose ... point a finger of where I should go and I'll start to shovel. You see, this is why I never fix anything, lol. But I do have to say, you guys definitely seem to like doing different things. Good group of editors!! Bringingthewood (talk) 22:08, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good work. A few comments: For fumbles on offense, is there a reliable source? I notice that Ben Roethlisberger has different numbers for "Lost" than at pro-football-reference.com. For Defense, "PD" seem like it should not be the first item for a section labelled "Interceptions". Move it to the end? For tackles, it's still an unofficial stat IIRC.  Which site's stats do we normalize to? —Bagumba (talk) 07:19, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've re-arranged the interception section to put "PD" at the end of the interceptions category.
 * Regarding fumbles lost, I'm in favour of removing it altogether but I included it as it was listed in a lot of stat tables. I believe recovery rate of the fumble is a team stat, not an individual QB stat, as they're usually not the ones to recover said fumble anyways. I've long argued something similar for Fantasy football, in that, the recovery rate of the fumble shouldn't cause a QB to lose fewer points, all the points should be based on the simple act of fumbling.
 * I compared Ben's fumbles lost stats across various stat databases:
 * FootballDB - Career fumbles lost: 51/115
 * StatMuse - Career fumbles lost: 51/115
 * Pro-Football-Reference - Career fumbles recovered by player or team: 40/115
 * PFR's stat implies Ben lost 75 fumbles. That's way off compared to the other sites and I don't have an explanation as to why it differs so much. I feel like I'm missing something, but I'm going to think on it.
 * As for the tackles, that's a tough one for me and something I've been bothered by for a while. I've wanted to create an annual tackles leader page but NFL and PFR list different stats in a lot of cases. I'll compare the stats across sites later on, but from what I've seen, the NFL infobox and stat tables usually match the stats listed at PFR. I'll try to find instances where they're different and see what's listed in stat tables. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Brady redux: He should pass 100,000 yards passing next game, let's bring back this mark on List of NFL career passing yards leaders
Withdrawn, Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

When Brady gets his 100,000 combined season and playoff passing yards mark, probably next week if he plays and his offensive line can stand up while keeping their shoelaces tied together (both individual feet and all of them as a unit), reputable media will likely highlight that. Even though the Wikipedia page List of NFL career passing yards leaders was stripped of this combined stat a few weeks ago, I'd suggest that it be brought back when further sourced reputable media focus on this record (counting not only the WikiProject's "accepted" media criteria but all reputable media sources as per Wikipedia accepted sources). It is not a "Brady page alone" type of stat, as when reputable sources highlight the 100,000 mark they are also recognizing that statistic as a "thing" by 1) mentioning it, and 2) comparing this Brady mark to other quarterbacks career combined passing yards, thus making it encyclopedically notable as a career passing record. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:27, 29 October 2022 (UTC)


 *  Strong oppose, this topic was settled less than 2 months ago and included a RFC on the issue. The discussion can be found here. Put it on Brady's page and not on the career passing yards page.Hey man im josh (talk) 13:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong Support Settled? Well, the 100,000 mark is almost upon us and I'm guessing more reputable media than the sources used to settle the matter will come into play (to coin-flip a phrase). This is not just a Brady mark but a career NFL quarterback stat, let's go with the sources as we do on all other Wikipedia pages. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It should be noted that this opinion was cast by the same user who started the discussion. Other users who pass by should not be misled to think there is an additional “support” viewpoint.  Frank  Anchor  16:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out, my mistake. I've seen nominators add their opinions but this one wasn't that, it was just a quick response to the "oppose" and I got carried away. Will probably withdraw this but I'll wait until tomorrow to see if anyone agrees or comes up with a good aternative, maybe a stand-alone page on the event (Brady obtaining 100,000 career passing yards) if it is, as I expect, widely covered in major media.  Randy Kryn (talk) 02:59, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * No problem. It can get easy to get caught up in the heat of an argument.  Frank   Anchor  03:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Very strong oppose the NFL has historically kept regular and postseason stats separately and this has been discussed at length before with consensus to keep stats separate in all cases. Getting 100,000 yards is impressive, but the official NFL convention to record regular season stats and postseason stats separately.   Frank   Anchor  15:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. I concur with Hey man im josh. This may be worthy of mention at Tom Brady pending coverage, but we're still a no-go on a combined list here. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:32, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose In line with other editors comments, not to mention I've personally never been a big fan of when regular season and post season stats are combined.-- Rockchalk 717 19:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Withdrawn, although would a page on the achievement be acceptable (this event would seem to be page worthy outside of the Tom Brady page)? Randy Kryn (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally don't see a milestone as being page worthy but it's up to you whether you want to give it a shot, I could very well be wrong. As long as you won't be bothered if it gets taken to AfD by someone (won't be me) and don't mind putting in the work. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * , thanks. Will check what kind of media the mark picks up, both before and after next weeks game (that is, if he manages to pass 164 yards). Hopefully they will stop the game to announce it and give Brady the ball. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment The record alone would likely not warrant a standalone page. As for a list of combined leaders, I'd expect multiple players' totals to be discussed in sources per WP:LISTN: —Bagumba (talk) 12:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hello, will be interested in the amount of coverage. By reliable sources covering the 100,000 mark they would arguably be pointing out the mark in comparison with other players' total passing yardage, even if no other names were mentioned. I'll wait to see what occurs next week and if a new page is created will alert the wikiproject on here. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:13, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Another point to consider is the spirit of WP:PERSISTENCE: Similarly, I'd be wary if there was some coverage of this grouping immediately after Brady presumably hits it, but notsomuch after. —Bagumba (talk) 11:55, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Strong oppose NFL records do not recognize playoff and postseason stats as career stats, and instead only recognize regular season stats. It's a nice trivia point for Brady's page but this simply isn't recognized by the league. <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Toa</i> <i style="color: green; font-family: Mistral;">Nidhiki05</i> 17:36, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Vital article discussion of relevance
I wanted to call attention here to Wikipedia_talk:Vital_articles/Level/5.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:40, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The article has expanded to candidates beyond just Flutie and Moon. Click on the link above to participate. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Click on these links to weigh in. Cbl62 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The current proposals are:
 * Add Warren Moon
 * Add Night Train Lane
 * Add Jim Parker
 * Add Gino Marchetti
 * Add Walter Camp
 * Remove Doug Flutie
 * Remove Ray Guy
 * Remove Kurt Warner
 * Remove Joe Namath.

Stats in infobox
These are getting out of control for players. Inexperienced editors and IPs keep adding as many stats parameters as they can and even occasionally adding stats the player hasn't recorded yet for rookies. At this point, I'm tempted to suggest just eliminating the stat parameter but I wanna give setting a standard a try first. The only place that will get complicated is with quarterbacks and we include rushing stats. At one point, Tom Brady had rushing stats included. I've also removed sacks from several defensive backs' pages and interceptions from several defensive linemen pages. I'm proposing setting a standard for each position and figuring out what the standards will be, and possibly (if it's not too difficult) programming this into the infobox.-- Rockchalk 717 21:11, 11 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Sounds good. To cut these lists down would look much better. When I was an IP user I did add parameters, but for a player that had a good total in their career. The amount of zeros I see now makes no sense. I've removed some parameters lately from retired players that had for example '0 - sacks' listed. The player is already retired. I agree with Rockchalk717, It would be nice to have a standard going forward in order to stop the nightmare regarding the rookies. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:41, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Truth be told I'm more concerned about every quarterback having rushing stats, every defensive back having sacks (that have one), and every defensive lineman with an interception having them listed but yes the rookie thing is getting obnoxious too.-- Rockchalk 717 02:35, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockchalk717: By the way you just explained it, I can see your concern. Those three things should definitely take top priority for having a new standard. Unfortunately the quarterbacks that are extremely mobile need those stats to be listed. When passing used to be priority number one, there wouldn't even be a discussion. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:59, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh I agree, but we need to create a solid definition for what we consider a "running quarterback" to determine what we need. Most are pretty obvious like Lamar Jackson, Josh Allen, Colin Kaepernick, Michael Vick, etc. but there's some that might be questionable.-- Rockchalk 717 03:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Rockchalk717: I agree 100%. Just like what Justin Fields did last week will keep his name on the sheet. To stop some of these users from adding things when they see a few good weeks will be a chore I'm sure. Hopefully someone will read all this and have good input. I know I can screw things up with the best of them, I just need someone to stop me fairly quickly. Like you said, a 'solid definition'. That's how the stat table mess began, I saw other pages and ran with it. A solid definition would stop new users and IP's from running also I believe. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:33, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I support its removal per your reasoning. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 15:13, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes definitely. Let's see if other active editors on this project wanna give some input. It seems some sort of change is gonna be coming.-- Rockchalk 717 23:00, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Less is definitely better for NFL infoboxes, per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Frankly, career stats for active players have little meaning to most readers. And there generally is already a stats section in the body of most of these players anyways. —Bagumba (talk) 05:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree. It's ridiculous that some quarterbacks like Matt Ryan and Tom Brady have rushing stats included when it's inevitable that some rushing yards are racked up over a long career. I'd support standards that help to dictate which stats should and shouldn't be included in the infobox. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Just wondering, if we removed these parameters for some players due to our own beliefs ... who do we ask, who do we answer to?
 * Seems like when some users believe to follow a certain path, they do what they believe is correct, why shouldn't we?
 * At least when a current or new user, or an IP comes along and wants to add it back, we can say  .. not applicable.
 * Just saying. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well we have WP:NFLINFOBOX which could be expanded to included a guide on when it's appropriate to include certain statistics. But this would be after solid definitions are created based on discussions. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a good idea. I now have that page on my watchlist. The infobox has been changed before, not saying it was for the wrong reason, but sometimes the person who changes it will have to let an editor know what they're doing wrong. It was said to me regarding certain things, so I know it could be a slippery slope with some people. It's all trial and error, I get that. Rockchalk mentioned solid definitions and that will make life easier going forward. Again, like the other topics mentioned on this page, there are good people here that know how to get things done the right way. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:18, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion involving coloring of NFL templates
See this thread. Frietjes (talk) 21:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

NFL deletion discussions
A group of NFL players have been nominated for deletion. See the following discussions: Also sent to AFD was the List of National Football League players with unidentified given names. Also, speaking of deletion nominations, you may be interested in this RFC on mass deletions, which is currently in the workshopping phase. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Articles for deletion/Roy Vassau
 * Articles for deletion/E. Bobadash
 * Articles for deletion/Adolph Kliebhan
 * Articles for deletion/Ed Rate
 * Articles for deletion/Buck Saunders
 * Articles for deletion/Karl Hower
 * Articles for deletion/Fred Brumm
 * Articles for deletion/Ralph Meadow
 * Articles for deletion/Herbert Clow
 * As for the nine player AfDs, each appeared in only one game in the 1920s. I started the process by redirecting them. I did this because each of them was a sub-stub, each lacking any SIGCOV whatsoever, most having been in that state for more than a decade. Such sub-stubs violate WP:SPORTBASIC which states: "Sports biographies must include at least one reference to a source providing significant coverage of the subject, excluding database sources." My redirects were to List of players who appeared in only one game in the NFL (1920–1929), a list repository that preserves the information found in the sub-stubs. BeanieFan11 reverted each of the redirects, without adding any SIGCOV, indicating that he believed SPORTBASIC was "illogical" and should apparently just be ignored. BeanieFan's mass reverts are under discussion here. Faced with the mass reverts, I nominated nine out of dozens for deletion. It remains my view that redirects are the best option in such cases. Cbl62 (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sunday's Vikings-Bills Game needs its own wikipedia page
Can some one create a page for that game? Jumpy542 (talk) 03:40, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * NO IT DOES NOT. Overtime regular season game between two good teams an interesting ending. No notable storylines outside of both having good records.  This type of regular season game happens a few times every year.   Frank   Anchor  04:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with Frank. You're talking about a wikipedia page. A couple of storylines would have helped your case. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Individual regular season games are generally covered in the respective team season page e.g. 2022 Minnesota Vikings season. A dedicated page for a game would needs to meet WP:NEVENT.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah, hard no on that one. As others have said, this was just a random regular season game with an exciting ending, nothing more. Happens all the time in the NFL. And, while we're at it, can we finally go ahead and delete this article about another random regular season game with an exciting ending between two non-conference opponents that had no significant long-term effect on either team, much less the entire league as a whole? Ejgreen77 (talk) 06:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The full well-sourced article you'd like to delete is about a famous play, Hail Murray, which won the Play of the Year Award. Editors took the time to write and source it, it is known within the lore of the teams involved, and seems fine. Maybe just let it be, especially as a "finally go ahead and delete this article" afterthought and additional question to this ongoing discussion section. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:48, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'd support its deletion. Rodgers has the most notably Hail Mary in recent memory and that doesn't have its own article. There's a play of the year every year, but they don't all need their own articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I must say, I watched the game live, and that ending may have been the craziest I've ever seen (one of the most insane catches ever on 4th & 18 + failed 4th and inches at the goal line + when the game's just about over, a fumbled snap on a kneel results in a touchdown + the fumbling team drives down and ties it upwith no time left, thanks to some missed calls by the officials + game-winning INT in overtime). I have no opinion on whether it deserves its own article. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose: While it was a good game, it does not need it's own page. Regular season games, unless causing extreme wide spread controversy or leading to rule changes, don't need their own page. You're always welcome to create a page yourself if you feel strongly, but be prepared for it to potentially go to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 03:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Add it if it wins Play of the Year, especially if it develops a common name. I'd suggest that all Play of the Year awardees could have a page if well sourced, or, at a bare minimum, if the Play of the Year has developed a common name. There are five named PotY's now, only one without an article. Randy Kryn (talk) 01:36, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even as a Vikings fan, I'm not in favour of this. The game is covered in sufficient detail at 2022 Minnesota Vikings season, and a similar level of detail could be added at the equivalent Bills page. What more would need adding? – PeeJay 09:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good game, but not deserving of a page.-- Rockchalk 717 20:40, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Why does this project just now care about original research records?
The list of combined regular season and playoffs records was removed from the yards and touchdowns articles because they "constituted original research". Yet the project is fine with listing a number of records that don't exist anywhere outside of bare URL Stathead queries on Pro Football Reference. Just check any suspiciously specific List of National Football League records (individual) record and chances are it will be sourced from a Stathead query.

Why does this project care about obscure original research records such as "most games with at least 75% pass completion rate and no interceptions, career (minimum 20 attempts per game)", but not ones that have actually gotten media attention? What is the rule to distinguish legitimate records that only exist in Stathead vs illegitimate records that only exist in Stathead? Somarain (talk) 02:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)


 * You're looking at two separate issues as the same one. Fact of the matter is, aside from Tom Brady, regular season and playoff statistics are never combined. THAT was the issue, not whether some records are obscure or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:34, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So they're combined infinitely more than "games with at least 75% pass completion rate and no interceptions, career (minimum 20 attempts per game)" by people who don't edit this wiki. So why is one okay and the other isn't? Somarain (talk) 23:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree that plenty of records on the NFL records page could be taken out, including the ones you mentioned. However, there's a limited number of people in this project, and it's quite a big job to tidy that page up. I don't think anyone's endorsing its current state, it's just that no-one's got around to working on it yet. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:32, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I've been trying to remove some of the random off the wall records getting added to pages but there's still a lot of pages with these on them.-- Rockchalk 717 20:42, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't necessarily mean that it should.—Bagumba (talk) 20:58, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Bill Nunn Award
Hello. I was wondering if anyone would like to help write bios for the redlinks at Bill Nunn Award. This is a Professional Football Writers of America award. There's currently 14 redlinks there. Thanks :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 19:50, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Jamal Fountaine
When exactly was Jamal Fountaine born, in 1971? January 26 or 29. GoodDay (talk) 19:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * @GoodDay I amended the infobox to read the 29th. It looks like it may have been a typo. My reference was PFR and ESPN. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:54, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Team-season page draft tables
Recently, User:PeeJay has unilaterally implemented new tables for each team's drafts that include every pick the team had including those traded away, claiming them to be "more informative" though the purpose of Wikipedia is not to be an infodump for every single piece of potentially informative info. In my opinion, adding in every traded pick into the table distracts from the meaning of these tables, which are to illustrate who was selected and when. The extra information PeeJay claims is being added is already included in the list of trades underneath the table. Before PeeJay and I start an edit war (and from past edits, I know both of us have tendencies to be stubborn), I would like to gather the consensus of the group. As an illustration, I have included the original version and the updated version of the Baltimore Ravens' table from this season (collapsed below so as to not take over this page).


 * Original version

I believe the original version should be kept as they are informative, concise, and not loaded with trivia. For example, is it really necessary to display that the Ravens acquired the Texans' 7th round pick via the Patriots only to trade it to the Dolphins? I think not.  Frank  Anchor  02:03, 25 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I mean, you say “unilaterally”, but the style I implemented was already in use for a few teams, it was just inconsistently applied. Honestly, I think it makes for a level of completeness, since those teams did hold those picks at some point, and the fact that they traded them is encyclopaedically relevant. The trades should be mentioned, and doing it in prose is not as easy for a reader to process as if we put them in the table. – PeeJay 02:09, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * What PeeJay included is usually listed in the notes under the draft tables from what I've seen. Instead of reading the notes, which do (typically) expand in detail about what the picks were traded for, readers can look at the table to see that x team didn't have an x round pick because it was traded (or forfeited in some cases). I think it makes the information more easily digestible.
 * Do we have any documentation or past discussions about this topic by any chance? Hey man im josh (talk) 11:58, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Nothing I’m aware of outside of edit summaries  Frank  Anchor  12:53, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Note There are templates, Template:NFL team draft start, and Template:NFL team draft entry that should be in use. Either they (the templates) need to be universally adopted or deleted altogether.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:48, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it's being used plenty. No need to jump to deleting it. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * If we come up with a consensus that the table format is better, though, we should start migrating all the templates to tables. Even if we can't find trade info for historical drafts, a table might be a better idea anyway. – PeeJay 12:13, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For starters, PeeJay needs to leave the proposed version out of articles that didn't already have it in while this is being discussed. Mass changes should not be made without a consensus, included at the Chiefs article. Second, the original version is fine. Adding traded picks doesn't make any sense, not to mention it makes it look (in my opinion) gaudy and excessive. We have the notes for that exact reason. If we add anything, it's utilizing the notes for compensatory picks and picks acquired via trade. Additionally PeeJay, there seems to be more than just me and one other person wanting keep the original version.-- Rockchalk 717 21:20, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Out of the 32 teams, only the Chiefs and Browns seem to have any issue with it. Everyone who maintains the other 30 teams seems to be pretty happy with the changes. – PeeJay 21:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * First of all, I maintain more than just the Browns page (though as a Columbus OH resident and Browns fan that is my primary focus of NFL pages). I only changed one because I expected PeeJay to step in and defend his work, and no need for everyone involved to go through the work of changing many pages before starting a discussion.  Second, not immediately reverting edits does not imply being “happy” with them.  Frank   Anchor  22:06, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Silence may be the weakest form of consensus, but it is a form of consensus. Anyway, if you're looking for a defence of my changes, let's take the Browns' article as an example: before my changes, it was not immediately obvious why the Browns didn't have any picks in the first or second rounds of the draft. Yes, readers could look at the notes to find out what happened to those picks, but they would essentially have to read all of the notes to make sure they had all the information regarding that pick. With my changes, readers can see that the Browns traded their first two picks to the Texans. In fact, with my changes in effect, readers can see that the Browns traded away six of their seven original picks. I will concede that we could use the footnotes system to link readers to the relevant notes for each trade (c.f. 2022 Minnesota Vikings season), but otherwise I see no negatives to my changes. – PeeJay 22:31, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The new tables are terrible and are horribly distracting when I want to just look at the draft class 140.162.13.31 (talk) 15:40, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * As has been pointed out, a team's draft consists not just of how they use their picks on players but also how they trade picks to get better value. I'm sorry you don't like it, but we've done our best to make it as visually obvious as possible which picks were used on players and which were traded. – PeeJay 17:13, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I get that but we get all the trades in another section. I think most visitors are just trying to see the draft class and this misses the mark on showing the draft class effectively. I only check wiki when I want to check a draft class but now I'll stop if it will look like this. This isnt what people expect when they want to see a teams draft class for a given year.
 * Its like, for free agency should we show everyone they had in for a workout? No, we just show the players the team signs. For staff changes should we show every coach they interview? No, we just show the ones they hire.
 * Same thing for the draft, it should just show the players the team drafts.
 * Right? 149.8.13.178 (talk) 23:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Also this doesnt scale well because teams trade players for picks and these tables dont show the players used to generate those picks (the footnotes do).
 * It makes no sense and is such a terrible way to display the draft class.
 * I'm gonna stop donating until its changed back. 2600:4040:252F:4900:E04E:F92E:E9BE:FC94 (talk) 23:56, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * (reset indent) 
 * Except the main thing the readers want to see is the list of the PLAYERS taken in the draft, not to see how many picks a team acquired or traded away. The table being cluttered by details of picks a team didn’t use, in some cases picks that a team possesses for a matter of hours, distracts from its main purpose. Again, this is sufficiently covered in the footnotes, which is appropriate for something that is not the main topic of the section.  Frank  Anchor  00:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's a good perspective I hadn't considered. I was looking at it as a recap of the draft itself, not as a recap of the players taken. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:02, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A team's involvement in the draft includes more than just the players taken. A sign of a good draft for some analysts is not which players a team took, but the value they got out of the picks they had and the picks they traded, as well as how they used them. Besides, it's pretty easy to look at the table and see which lines are picks and which are trades. The info is all easy visible and shouldn't be shied away from. – PeeJay 01:26, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For starters, I don't make all that many edits to the Chiefs season pages. When I do, it's usually adding transactions after I've ensured the roster template is updated with the transaction. Most of my Chiefs related edits are to the roster template and player articles. Also, the trades are listed in the notes for that exact reason. Some teams make a multitude of trades. The Chiefs had at some point held 19 different draft selections, between their standard 7 picks, compensatory picks, and picks traded and acquired in a trade. The Chiefs are an example of why traded picks shouldn't be specifically listed in the draft table. Some teams make multiple trades (Patriots for example), while some are usually pretty silent on trades (Bengals come to mine). The purpose of the draft table (we mentioned by Frank Anchor) is show the players drafted. And no, silence isn't a form of consensus, not sure where the heck that is coming from. Most editors on Wikipedia don't care to engage in these discussions (on any project) but it doesn't mean they agree with specific decisions. There's some editors on this project that edit pages attached the project but rarely (if ever) participate in these discussions.-- Rockchalk 717 05:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The page @Frank Anchor linked to above (WP:WEAKSILENCE) says the exact opposite of what you just asserted. Silence may be weakest form of consensus, but it is still a form of consensus. Anyway, to address your relevant point, I understand why we have the notes, but my point is that just having the notes is not as helpful as listing the traded picks in the table. With footnotes implemented, readers can immediately see which notes apply to which picks, as well as seeing which picks were held and then traded away. – PeeJay 09:44, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * WP:WEAKSILENCE also states that "a lack of response does not necessarily imply that no one is interested in the topic, and could have any one of several different implications, some of which are contradictory." Nonetheless, the fact that the changes PeeJay made to the tables were not immediately reverted would be superseded if there is not a consensus to make these changes in the appropriate forum (i.e. this discussion).  Frank  Anchor  12:13, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of talking about Wikipedia technicalities, why don't you address my actual points about how my changes benefit these pages? At the minute, all I can see from you is an argument that it clutters up the table, which it blatantly doesn't, and that the info is already there in note form, which I have addressed as being insufficient when we have the option to include it in a more user-friendly way in the table as well. In the absence of an actual argument, your obstinence boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. – PeeJay 12:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Funny how you're considering my legitimate concerns to fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT, when your arguments for making this change are largely based on WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSUSEFUL. Adding in selections that were traded to and from each team certainly do clutter the table and make it much larger (as has been referred to as "gaudy" by another user) than it needs to be for its intended purpose (to list players selected by the team) with content in the "notes" column (e.g. "compensatory selection" or "from Arizona") supplemented by footnotes in prose to explain why a team may have multiple selections or no selections in a particular round. Per WP:MOSTABLE, information that can be stated in prose "is preferred in articles as prose allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context, in a way that a table may not." and there is certainly no reason to include supplimental information both in the table and in the notes section underneath it.  That just makes a long article that much longer.  Frank   Anchor  14:20, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * In what way are your concerns "legitimate"? You've failed to address my point that a team's performance in the draft is not just determined by the players they select, it's about how they maximise the value in the picks they have. Besides, footnotes do not really constitute prose. If you want a prose account of a draft, check out 2021 Minnesota Vikings season. The prose is supplemented by the table, which lets users see at-a-glance how each pick was used, with notes below to show which picks were involved in the same trades. If you ask me, that 2021 Vikings article presents the team's draft in about as perfect as way as it's possible to do so. You can call the table gaudy if you like, but it's difficult to see how you can come to that conclusion re: a standard wikitable. – PeeJay 15:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And WP:ITSUSEFUL? Don't make me laugh. I've substantiated my claims about how it's useful, so for you to suggest that I've fallen foul of WP:ITSUSEFUL is reductive and a textbook case of strawmanning. – PeeJay 15:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * And I have also substantiated my claims of why they are unnecessary, so your suggestion that my arguments are based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT is absurd and baseless.  Frank  Anchor  16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I will further add that in my efforts to convert a couple of the articles to use footnotes, not all of the trades were even covered by the notes. You're claiming that the notes are enough, but they're not even comprehensive. – PeeJay 15:58, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The footnotes ARE enough when they are present. If footnotes are not present, they can be added. Thank you for doing that where you have.  Frank  Anchor  16:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The footnotes are insufficient when the table could be showing the team's entire involvement in the draft. As I have explained, a team's involvement is not just limited to the players they pick. Would you care to refute that (at some point in the next century)? – PeeJay 16:36, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I never said a team's involvement in the draft was limited to the players selected. What I said (or at least implied) was that the behind-the-scenes trading of picks is secondary to the players being selected. The casual reader is not interested in seeing all of the picks a team acquired or traded away over the course of the years leading up to the draft, or in many cases, the days of the draft.  A casual reader only cares about the players selected.  The footnotes (along with trade descriptions at the NFL Draft page itself) are available for the minority of readers who are interested in the in-depth  maneuverings of the front offices before and during the draft but including all of these picks in the tables is distracting from their primary point.  Frank   Anchor  16:51, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay, I disagree. It's not difficult to see which picks in the table were used on players and which were traded away. If a casual reader can't discern the difference, perhaps they would be better suited to the Simple English Wikipedia... – PeeJay 17:15, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Though a casual reader should not have to discern between the primary topic of the table and a topic of much lesser importance.  Frank  Anchor  17:18, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * You make it sound like it’s an absolute chore to discern a selected player from a traded pick, when it’s hardly difficult at all. It’s literally possible to tell the difference at a glance. And again, you’re baselessly asserting that the players selected are the primary concern of the table. – PeeJay 17:38, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I agree with this. We dont show the FAs they bring in for workouts, we just show the ones they actually sign.
 * We dont show the coaches they interview, we only show the ones they hire.
 * I dont understand showing draft picks we held for minutes and didn't select a player with. 2600:4040:252F:4900:E04E:F92E:E9BE:FC94 (talk) 23:54, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not just saying this because I agree but Frank Anchor has made some solid points and I personally haven't seen any solid arguments for inclusion of trades in the table. The draft picks table sole purpose in existence is to identify picks made, when they were selected, and from what school. These claims aren't baseless either and the inclusion of the trades 100% clutter the table up and I'll repeat something I said earlier, your version of the Chiefs 2022 draft table proves it clutters the table.-- Rockchalk 717 17:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't believe it clutters the table at all, but all that proves is that this is entirely subjective. And yes, those claims are baseless; you can't just say "that table is just for picks used on players" and expect people to just agree with you. What are you basing that on? – PeeJay 18:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Anyway, I think this discussion has heard enough from the three of us. I implore other editors to throw their two pence into the ring because at the moment support doesn't seem to be leaning one way or the other. – PeeJay 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How about giving the rows featuring traded picks a gray background, so that the rows featuring players drafted will stand more for people only interested in that? Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:23, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I’d be on board with that. – PeeJay 11:07, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * An improvement over PeeJay's version as it would visually distinguish selected players from traded selections, but still conveys information that is, in my opinion, more appropriate for notes under the table than on the table itself.  Though I am interested to see if this type of idea could catch on with the group in this discussion.  Any possibility that we could see a small "example" table?  Frank   Anchor  12:12, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * For clarity, I'm going to ask this. Would the intention be to only include picks the team originally had? Or to also include picks received from other teams? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:43, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think for completeness' sake, it should include picks received from other teams, even if those were subsequently traded away. – PeeJay 12:45, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I mean, they're already visually distinguished by the fact that traded picks span three columns and don't have any player names in them... – PeeJay 12:46, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

requested an example of the table so I did one up quickly.

I don't mind this, but I do have a suggestion. I think we should link the relevant note next to the pick number of the greyed out rows. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I think the grey background is too dark, and should also include the "Traded to Team X" info. Otherwise there really is no point in having them there. – PeeJay 13:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is fine. I dont love it, but it makes the traded picks distinguishable from the players selected (which was not the case on PeeJay's charts). Obviously include the "traded to X" info in the gray sections (and NOT in bold text).  I realize User:Hey man im josh was trying to put something together quickly and I appreciate his efforts.  Frank   Anchor  13:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Ohhh I think I understand what you're asking for now. Give me a few minutes. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * How about this:

Draft trades

— Preceding unsigned comment added by PeeJay (talk • contribs) 13:17, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Version 5 without the bolding (edit conflicted when I went to post a moment ago):

Thoughts? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:19, 28 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Maybe I'm biased, but out of the two we've posted, I think I prefer mine. The grey background doesn't need to be too dark, so I went for the same colour as the column and row headers, and I think it actually works with the bolding. – PeeJay 13:34, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I lightened up the background from the first example I posted (table #3), but I do think it should be darker than your table #4. I'm in favour of the non-bolded version personally. Pinging @Frank Anchor for their input. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:55, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I think this looks good. Maybe extend the dark gray to the "notes" column on the traded picks as well. Josh's version it clearly displays the traded selections as being of secondary importance to the players picked themselves, which is needed.  Frank   Anchor  15:08, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Version 6 with the grey extended to the notes column:

Pinging and  for feedback and further discussion. Once the two of you agree on it I think we should start a new section for feedback from others, as this discussion has run long and would be a pain to catch up on for others. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:36, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Good with me. I think this is a reasonable compromise of PeeJay’s and my opinions on what the chart should look like.  Frank   Anchor  17:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm in agreement. Let's just make sure we use the footnotes system too, as I demonstrated above. – PeeJay 20:47, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Oppose all use the template. It is easy, it ensures consistency across the board, and it works. Listing all the excess is getting into WP:FANCRUFT territory, and unless we are talking the Hershel Walker trade is clutter anyway and could be better listed in prose.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:09, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I still stand firmly on excluding picks trading away because (no matter how much PeeJay insists it doesn't) it 100% clutters up the table with unneeded and unnecessary extra information especially with teams that have made multiple trades. The Vikings are another good example of this.-- Rockchalk 717 19:45, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it unneeded? You keep saying that, but you've provided no basis for it. – PeeJay 21:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * How is it excess? The draft is not just picking players, it's trading picks too. – PeeJay 21:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
 * While I support your right to oppose a change, I disagree that it's fancruft. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:20, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Voting
Well I hoped someone else would make this but I'll go ahead and do so since the conversation has stalled. It seems that and  came to a compromise on a table that they can agree might be acceptable, but there are other members of the community that should get a chance to contribute since the above section has noted a couple of oppositions to the changes altogether.


 * Original version

Please share your thoughts on a standard for the team-season page draft tables. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support - As expected, I'm in favour of these changes. I'm glad we've managed to find a layout that helps the picked players stand out among the traded picks. – PeeJay 14:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per PeeJay's comments.  Frank  Anchor  14:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - I prefer the new version. The additional data conveys information that is notable in evaluating the team's overall performance in the draft. And the shading helps with the original "clutter" objection. Cbl62 (talk) 14:55, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment - I wanted to send a ping to others that had been involved in the conversation at some point so they do not feel left out or miss their opportunity to chime in. I probably should have done this when I created the new section instead of just pinging the two most involved editors in the discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:09, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 *  Oppose - seems like I'm in the minority here, but I don't see the need to clutter these articles with more trivial info that is better left for Pro Football Reference or the main draft page. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 17:26, 31 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Support - Looks good to me. I do think the trades are worth including. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:16, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose - Trading picks is better served mentioning in prose above a table, when discussing a draft. Just listing tables/stats is what gets people against WP:NSPORTS. Have we learned anything from these discussions? I would be okay with updating the team draft templates to reflect this change but except for the shading of the trades it is basically the same format. Would an average reader be served knowing that a team traded a fifth round pick? Just use the existing templates, it stops stuff like |this, we need consistency through current and historical articles. And just look at those roster sections, oh wait we have templates for those. (I hate if this sounds passive aggressive, but I view this as trying to solve an issue that has already been solved nine years ago.) I know consensus can change but the answer is just so obvious to me.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to adapt the proposed format and integrate it into the template, but the template isn't fit for purpose. If we include "From Buffalo" and "From Arizona" to indicate picks that were gained by trade, why can't we add rows for the picks that were traded away? I agree we shouldn't be just relying on tables and templates, but if you look at the way 2021 Minnesota Vikings season deals with the issue, you'll see there is a good amount of prose and a table to summarise the team's entire draft process. Neither of those takes up too much space, even if you're reading the article on a mobile device. – PeeJay 12:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I only posted it as an example of how it could be used. I am not in favor of including "From Team X." Many historical articles of the actual drafts lack trade information. Does it really matter in the grand scheme of things? I argue, not really. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose to trade inclusion however, if we must include trades I'm ok with the version that's been implemented.-- Rockchalk 717 22:04, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose Mostly repeats trade info that is already at sections like 2022 Cleveland Browns season.—Bagumba (talk) 07:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * So a solution is having more tables instead of less? I thought having too much content in tables was one of the issues User:UCO2009bluejay mentioned. This solution consolidates the tables (we can delete the one in the section you mentioned) and adds prose in the form of footnotes. – PeeJay 12:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I disagree. Sections like 2022 Cleveland Browns season only refer to trades involving players made during that specific off-season. They do nothing to discuss trades from previous seasons that may affect draft choices or any "picks-for-picks" trades made on draft day itself.  Frank  Anchor  12:17, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That said, that table does include trades that happened this year that didn't involve any 2022 draft picks (e.g. the Mack Wilson/Chase Winovich trade or those involving Troy Hill or Baker Mayfield). – PeeJay 12:25, 2 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Support I enjoy the look, it's a solid way to include all relevant information, which might otherwise not be so easy to find. KristofferAG (talk) 15:36, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Chris Weinke
What's going on here? Aren't the NYG game's records lower than the ARI game's? Are those supposed to be record by a non-rookie QB (in which case, why is that worth noting)? I can't figure out why the NYG game's stats are marked as franchise records, but I don't want to remove it incase there's an actual reason it's noted.

(I ask here because I have a feeling that the talk page for the article would take a while to get a response.) Skarmory   (talk •   contribs)  09:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree, the NYG game shouldn't be there. Also, Teddy Bridgewater has tied the completions record. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Featured list removal candidate notification
I have nominated List of Cleveland Browns first-round draft picks for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 18:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

TSL Stats
I would like to add TSL stats for Bryan Scott in the infobox, so that it says This 2018 TSL page also has the info. Is this allowed? Nfllove (talk) 00:44, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * TSL 2018 MVP
 * TSL 2020 MVP
 * TSL 2020 Champion


 * @Nfllove Hi Nfllove. Eagles247 addressed this on 12/9. You might want to go to Bryan Scott's talk page and check out what was said.
 * Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 25 August2022
 * Maybe it will help you out.
 * Regards, Bringingthewood (talk) 01:38, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bringingthewood If you check further up for his other comment here Talk:Bryan Scott (quarterback), he said that "I brought up The Spring League at WT:NFL last year (here), and while one response is not much of a consensus, there also was not opposition to excluding TSL from infoboxes. I recommend starting a new discussion at WT:NFL to revisit this if you desire." Hence he is not against it and hence why I am asking here. WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT does not exclude TSL. What do you think? Nfllove (talk) 07:00, 16 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Nfllove I did see that comment earlier. Best bet, I'm thinking that maybe you should send a message to Eagles247 regarding this matter. You would get a better answer and/or advice that way, being that I'm not familiar at all with TSL. I was just doing a little detective work to see if I can find something in order to help you out.
 * Wishing you luck in advance! Bringingthewood (talk) 07:19, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Buck Saunders DRV
You may be interested in the deletion review of Buck Saunders, one of the articles redirected during the above Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:17, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 Indianapolis Colts–Minnesota Vikings game
Please keep an eye on this, another newly created article on a game that just ended like less than an hour ago, and the issues previously raised on above as to whether this should be kept in the long-run. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:55, 17 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I would think the greatest comeback in NFL history would warrant an article for the game. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:03, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Given that the previous record for largest comeback was notable enough to have its own page I see no reason for the new largest comeback to not. The real difficulty will be determining a name for the article. Newtothisedit (talk) 01:44, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * "2022 Indianapolis Colts–Minnesota Vikings game" is fine for now. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:07, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It does not matter if a regular season game has broken any type of significant record like that. What matters in the long run is whether it continues to meet WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, or the point listed on WP:SPORTSEVENT whether it is "widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable, outside routine coverage". Zzyzx11 (talk) 08:21, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Premature to say that it meets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, but it likely will.—Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It should hold up historically. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:46, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

What about the Las Vegas Lateral? It's a game with a name, Julian Edelman does a podcast about it.

Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 December 27
You may be interested in this discussion on the deletion of XFL roster templates. Although not exactly related to the NFL, deletion of these could probably lead to deletion of the NFL counterparts. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:32, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Create a Wikipedia page for that "Left Hand Up" commanders Song.
It's taken on a life of its own. Jumpy542 (talk) 20:34, 24 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Where are your sources for that? – PeeJay 21:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Here is the song being perfoemed at Fedex Field. https://twitter.com/Sam4TR/status/1604625844936314882?s=20&t=SCA9SHVYfiwcRri0b7SM5A Jumpy542 (talk) 21:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * A Twitter post of the song being performed at the stadium isn’t really enough. You need to provide third-party coverage of it. – PeeJay 22:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2022/11/18/commanders-song-left-hand-up/ Jumpy542 (talk) 23:03, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Has anyone outside of DC given similar coverage?—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * no but here's one from the team: https://www.commanders.com/news/dj-oh-goody-big-57-realize-dream-with-commanders-song Jumpy542 (talk) 01:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * To determine if a topic is notable per the WP:GNG guideline, we only consider independent sources. —Bagumba (talk) 01:23, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Guardians
You may be interested in this deletion discussion on an XFL team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:14, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

FL candidate: List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks
The featured list candidate List of Los Angeles Chargers starting quarterbacks has been open for four months, but needs more comments or votes to pass. Can people check it out if you have the time?

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:30, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

NFLPA All-Pro / "2022 Players’ All-Pro"
I'd like to ask what others thing about including NFLPA All-Pro elections in the infobox, as this is the first year that they've put out an All-Pro team. Personally, I'm very much against it, as the process is similar to that of the Pro Bowl or the Top 100 lists which players have openly stated they don't take seriously. They vote for people they like instead of those who are most deserving.

For reference, this is the NFLPA list of players. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)


 * As a new award, it seems like this one needs to establish itself as significant before meriting a place in the infobox. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * At a minimum, there should be a standalone article for the general award, if and when it meets WP:GNG. —Bagumba (talk) 00:25, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Reading this again, if the intent is just to have this be another All-Pro selector, and not a dedicated Players’ All-Pro line item in the infobox, then a dedicated page is not required, as we don't even have a dedicated AP All-Pro page. However, there needs to be agreement that is WP:DUE for mention in the infobox, which is probably too early to decide in its debut year.—Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * We currently only include the AP's. ~ <b style="color: #660000;">Dissident93</b> (<b style="color: #D18719;">talk</b>) 00:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

"U.S." in infobox
I noticed there's an editor whose going through entire NFL team rosters and is changing each of the infoboxes and adding "U.S." after the birth_place (example). Is this how we do things now? I don't recall a discussion about it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:45, 14 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I was curious about this as well. I didn't find anything in Template:Infobox NFL biography or WP:NFLINFOBOX that tells me whether or not it should be included. Though I know it's a different template, the closest thing I could find MOS wise was at Template:Infobox person. The birth_place row explanation states the format should be Place of birth: city, administrative region, country.
 * I don't oppose the addition of "U.S." where appropriate for the birth_place parameter, but I think we should clear up and document what the default format should be on the template documentation for Infobox NFL biography. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:03, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I personally find it unnecessary to include – I mean – does the average football article reader really need to know that California is in the US? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Presumably non-Americans would also recognize NY, TX, and maybe FLA and a few others as U.S. states, but for the rest—generally no. I'd say just be consistent and list for all. On a similar note, I find it weird to just list a city in an infobox (or table), e.g. Los Angeles without California, while listing, in 99% of other cases. —Bagumba (talk) 02:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the ping. Every English-speaking reader won't know the names of every US state. As well as clarity, it's also for consistency (always a good thing); the majority of modern-day BLPs include the country. I don't see why American athletes should be any different. It was also somewhat clarified in a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Infoboxes/Archive 17 (the second section titled INFONAT) that country should be included in place of birth to bring infoboxes in line with WP:INFONAT. I believe Josh's suggestion is the way forward; amend the documentation for the template to match that of Template:Infobox person (arguably the "parent" template). – 2 . O . Boxing  18:36, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with adding the country to the player's place of birth in all circumstances, but it should say "United States", not just "U.S." – PeeJay 18:52, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, if adding "U.S." is what there's a consensus for, you've got a lot of work to do – I estimate there's probably about 20,000 football articles currently missing that. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I think with some time to set things up properly WP:AWB would be able to handle this. If we decide to go forward with it I have no problem helping out. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I don't mind gradually making my way through articles. has also mentioned they would be willing to lend a hand. If AWB can do the majority of work then that would be cracking (never used it so I have no clue). As for U.S. vs United States, I see the former significantly more than the latter and have changed a few that I've happened across. But I'm not fussed if folks want to spell it out. –  2 . O . Boxing  22:01, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Another thing I managed to start. This is like the article for career highs and lows for interceptions and fumbles. Why we always fix what's not broken is beyond me. I saw that the majority of U.S. born American football players had no U.S. distinction, so I removed U.S., now this happens. Like 99% of the players have career highs meaning career highs - 22 --- not 3 as career best. I edited that also. I'm as lazy as they come, so I need everyone here to realize I never intended to throw a wrench in the spokes. Wouldn't it be easier to correct a few things to make it uniformed, other than re-writing the record book? Bringingthewood (talk) 22:59, 14 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be easier to correct a few things to make it uniformed...: Some are looking at it from the perspective that NFL bios are not uniform with non-NFL bios. —Bagumba (talk) 01:20, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Expansion of "U.S." is not required, as its an exception listed at MOS:ACRO1STUSE. MOS:ABBREV also reads: If it is necessary to abbreviate in small spaces (infoboxes, navboxes and tables), use widely recognised abbreviations. Using "U.S." in the infobox seems fine. —Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba Honestly, I didn't want the NFL to be different than any other bio on Wikipedia. I just thought the NFL could be an easy 'uniform' fix being that there has to be over 90% of players that do not have it listed. If the rule is to have U.S. on every bio on Wikipedia, I'm here to help. I just wish that someone got the memo when they created all of these pages. I'm definitely not the only one who notices it. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:30, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bringingthewood: I sympathize, but consensus can change too. NFL bios have always been an outlier, most written for American readers and basically assuming all NFL players are American, which is slowly changing in the league. —Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba I hear you and it can definitely change. The players born out of the U.S. is a no-brainer, but I always hoped that American football would lead someone to believe that a player was not born in The Bronx, New Zealand. You know what I mean? We need one big button that plants the U.S. on every page. And U.S. not US. Even that isn't uniformed. There's an editor doing that now, I'm correcting them. Please let me know if that changes so I can stop, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:51, 15 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I just put a few back that I initially removed using the same format as Squared.Circle.Boxing. Some editors have US and some even have the United States link added. Seems fine the way SCB did it. He was nice enough to tackle the Buffalo Bills and maybe we can keep it that way, not to make a three edit mess in the future. I swear, like a salmon swimming upstream. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:13, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

, this same issue has come up in the past for Template:Infobox basketball biography, correct? What was decided there? Do you have thoughts here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 22:09, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * is specified in the documentation for birth_place, and there's a link to the discussion there too. —Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba, Hey man im josh:  Wondering if I'll be tarred and feathered if I continue to put U.S. by the NFL players. I'm bored.
 * What do ya think?
 * Btw, Merry Christmas!! Bringingthewood (talk) 23:26, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bringingthewood: Why are you concerned? —Bagumba (talk) 23:38, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm not concerned about anything. I almost added U.S. to a player the other day, I stopped. Just wanted to know if I could do something in the meantime.
 * If the vote goes the other way, I'll delete them, not a problem. There are many players to do if this gets passed. Not sure with the formality is here.
 * I don't mean to annoy anyone. I could help out a lot now. You know what I mean? Bringingthewood (talk) 23:52, 24 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Ha, you keep catching me here, I was only concerned because I didn't want to cause anyone any extra work. If you say I can add U.S. now ... I'll delete them if the vote goes the other way. I just wanted to do something helpful, I have the time. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:06, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Nobody WP:OWNs Wikipedia, so no one person should be giving you "permission". Still, we are all told to be bold. Since I !voted, I could be biased, but I think the consensus is clear. You don't sound like the type who minds, but realize that consensus can change too. Just follow WP:5P5: —Bagumba (talk) 02:29, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba: I get it. Funny, it's not so much permission, it's the slick removals I get from the so-called non-owners. It is what it is. I'm not going to go nuts with it, just not in the mood to wait a month then do something and when someone awakes from their slumber I'll have to send the link to this discussion. I'll act accordingly.
 * The extent of me being bold will be adding -- U.S., nothing will change in the article. Seems simple enough.
 * Merry Christmas/Happy Holiday to all those who drop by. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:54, 25 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The joys of crowd-sourced editing. Best. —Bagumba (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Voting
Conversation has stalled and I see instances in my watchlist where the country is being added to infoboxes. I'd like to see if there's consensus so that we can update the appropriate documentation and, if need be, some of can start working on updating the appropriate pages.

Proposal: Standardize the practice of adding "U.S." after the birth_place for NFL player infoboxes (example).

Please cast a support or oppose vote. Including the rational behind your vote is appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:32, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment: Courtesy ping to those who were involved in the above discussion.Hey man im josh (talk) 13:37, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support adding "United States" - I see an argument was made above that "U.S." can be used if space is at a premium. I don’t think space is too limited in the infobox, so writing "United States" should be fine. We should spell out the name of the country anyway; you wouldn’t write “U.K.” instead of “United Kingdom”, so the same should apply here. – PeeJay 14:01, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support: Every reader won't know the names of every US state and there's also the issue with confusing Georgia with Georgia; it will be consistent with BLPs from other topics; and it will comply with WP:INFONAT, as one can't be expected to infer nationality from country of birth when country of birth isn't listed. My preference would be "U.S.", per Bagumba's reasoning above and for consistency with BLPs from other topics. – 2 . O . Boxing  14:26, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose adding "U.S." or "United States". Since 95% plus are from US, it's an unnecessary addition of bulk. Cbl62 (talk) 14:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that's a remarkably US-centric viewpoint. Wikipedia is for everyone, not just people in the United States. – PeeJay 15:45, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * My opposition to adding US doesn't reflect a US-centric point of view. It reflects the fact that the added language in the context of articles about American football is surplusage and adds no value. It's a matter of good writing -- less is often better. Cbl62 (talk) 16:38, 20 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Support This is insane. I originally started to remove U.S., assuming that few players had the distinction and it would look uniformed without it. And yes, (U.S., like the edits that myself, SCB and Bagumba have been doing, not US or United States .. can we agree on a uniformed system for something - anything??
 * But now we need a vote. Squared.Circle.Boxing broke his *** doing the Buffalo Bills and editors are reverting it already. I gave my word that I'd help him with putting U.S. on all pages so it would be like the rest of Wikipedia. I do see we need opinions to get things done, our edits should have stopped before this vote came along. Not sure why other editors are not involved, it looks like Rockchalk roots for the Chiefs and Dissident for the Commanders .... why change things now if they will remove what we do in the future? Not saying they would do that, but I said it when this all started not to fix what wasn't broken. Now we did hundreds of players and there's a vote. I'm not getting it. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:49, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * The God's honest truth, I was coming here tonight to ask Bagumba if there might be an answer soon. This way I can start to put U.S. on big name players with no retaliation. This vote thing really got me. Someone should send a check to Squared.Circle.Boxing. I'll be the first to apologize. Josh Allen was removed last night and I had one removed yesterday also, with the editor saying well it's not on any other page. You see what I'm saying? Also, I don't mean anything I say to be taken personally towards any editor here. Just expressing what I feel. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * courtesy pings to both since I mentioned you guys. Didn't want to assume anything.


 * Oppose adding U.S./United States. Seems unnecessary to me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:53, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
 * courtesy ping as you've been mentioned. – 2 . O . Boxing  00:52, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per Squared.Circle and WP:AUDIENCE. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support Per MOS:INFONAT: It's consistent with most other WP bios to list the country of birth.  It's presumptuous to assume non-American recognize all the U.S. states.  By nature, infoboxes summarize info already in the body. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: —Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 21 December 2022‎
 * Support Therapyisgood (talk) 07:14, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support for consistency with other sports. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 17:22, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per above. We should be writing for a global audience, even if the sport is mainly followed by Americans. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:29, 21 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Oppose A little late to the party because I traveled for Christmas and have been busy. The NFL is about the only professional American team sport that doesn't have a large portion of its players being born outside of the US. Non-US English speakers are likely to realize an NFL player that has a place that says Middle of Nowhere, Missouri is in the US.-- Rockchalk 717 20:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Comment. I'm seeing some here say that we should add the country "because all of the other sports are doing it" – well, I chose a random other sport, Australian rules football, and their infoboxes don't list country of birth. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Also, another reason I find it unnecessary: if someone doesn't know that Wilmington, Delaware, is in the US, they can just click on the link and quickly find out. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Per MOS:LINK: The two letters U.S. fit the bill.—Bagumba (talk) 01:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Support HappyBoi3892 (talk) 01:25, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Format
If we're adding "U.S." to place of birth/death in infoboxes, can we agree on a format? "U.S." appears to be most common across Wikipedia, but User:Nikkimaria, who voted above, loves to add just "US". Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:44, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * As per MOS:US both formats are acceptable as long as it's consistent within the article, and also consistent with any other country abbreviations used within the article (ie. if "UK" is present "US" should be used). I'd be interested in seeing a citation for the claim that "U.S." is most common. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:49, 8 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Should be U.S. for consistency. Thats by far the most common formatting I've seen with athletes/actors/politicians etc.-- Yankees10 00:52, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, a citation? I haven't conducted a peer-reviewed study on the matter, but aside from your edits, I've observed that "U.S." is dominant in my perusal of Wikipedia. Let's pick ten random dead Americans (first ones that pop into my head) and see what it looks like. Hank Aaron, Franklin D. Roosevelt, Betty White, Neil Armstrong, Lee Harvey Oswald, Martin Luther King Jr., Walter Payton, Elvis Presley, Robert Moses, Michael Jackson. How'd that score? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:17, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * A peer-reviewed study would be fascinating but not necessary - if you're trying to base a MOS change on it, you'd just need something beyond anecdata. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:21, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Nikkimaria, what the was score on those 10? Do you want to pick another random 10? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:24, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm going to pick the first dead American each of those ten dead Americans reminds me of. Babe Ruth, Harry Truman, Bea Arthur, Gus Grissom, John Wilkes Booth, Lyndon Johnson, Red Grange, Johnny Cash, Ed Koch, Prince. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:27, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What's the score now? Look who edited Red Grange's infobox! Jweiss11 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba, Nikkimaria, Squared.Circle.Boxing, Hey man im josh, HappyBoi3892, PeeJay: I've edited over 500 NFL players so far and I'll go to next season doing it. I use U.S., Bagumba uses U.S., Squared.Circle.Boxing and HappyBoi3892 also do it that way. No offense, but Nikkimaria must have seen my edits amending US to U.S. It's just to keep it uniformed, nothing personal. Even United States was edited.
 * I'm getting my edits reverted by some, and it sucks doing things twice, but if we unite in doing this it'll get done. Just think if everyone who agrees with it did 20 players a day whenever they're here. It's not insurmountable.  Bringingthewood (talk) 02:38, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I suspect that editor preferences might be related to MOS:TIES (no studies or sources to cite). In the meantime, MOS:US is currently mostly neutral on U.S. vs US.  If there's an objective argument to be made either way, getting MOS changes would provide more long-term standing (for those inclined). —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No offense taken - not sure why this discussion needs to be so personalized. As I said, "U.S." is permitted under MOS when internally consistent within an article, so if you want to add it that way go ahead. It just shouldn't be changed back and forth. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:56, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I get it, no problem over here. When I see US ... I shall leave it alone. At least it's noted on the page, lol. I was probably just going with how this all started, the vote was for the U.S. format. If the truth is U.S., US or United States will cover the initial vote, so be it. I'm just not used to the broad explanations of things that seemed simple when first thought of.
 * Honestly, I'd just like it if we had a leg to stand on when someone comes along and removes it from the infobox. To just say 'it belongs there' isn't cutting it.      Bringingthewood (talk) 03:32, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Honestly, I'd just like it if we had a leg to stand on when someone comes along and removes it from the infobox.: You can cite this discussion as current consensus for inclusion of U.S./US. I think the full-form "United States" is not preferable for an infobox, where info should be compact. —Bagumba (talk) 04:16, 8 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Bagumba: That feels like a sturdy leg, thank you! Bringingthewood (talk) 04:31, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If we look at this 2018 RfC, we see that there was consensus at one point for the MOS to read: I'm not sure if this ever got updated in the MOS, or it was and WP:CCC later.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

Can we all agree that "U.S." is the way were are going to format football infoboxes? , hey, what was the score of those 20 random bios I picked above? Was it 50/50 or was one format dominant? Jweiss11 (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It is not meaningfully possible to decide here something inconsistent with projectwide consensus. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:11, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Of course it's meaningful. There's only one editor causing an sizable inconsistency here—you. Your editing pattern and your dismissal of the evidence I've provided on this subject is obstructive. Stop it. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:CONLEVEL. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * More lawyerly obstruction. The consensus here will would not outlaw "US" anywhere and everywhere on Wikipedia. We would just agree that "U.S." is the way we format place of birth/death in bio infoboxes for American football subjects so that we have consistency across analogous structures. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see an issue with standardizing on "U.S." for this WikiProject. Per WP:INFOBOXSTYLE:  —Bagumba (talk) 05:34, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Background colors for the Los Angeles Chargers & Miami Dolphins
Would any other editor (especially asking for Eagles247) object if I were to change the HTML background color codes for the Los Angeles Chargers & Miami Dolphins over at Module:Gridiron color/data? As it stands right now, the HTML color code the Chargers use for powder blue & the HTML color code the Dolphins use for aqua  both fail WP:CONTRAST guidelines regarding accessibility. I'm proposing using as the background color for the Chargers, and  as the background color for the Dolphins. I derived both color codes from the top headers on each team's website using the 'Inspect' button. The only reason why I'm proposing these specific color codes is to ensure WP:CONTRAST guidelines are compliant without the necessity for text in the backgrounds for both teams over at Module:Gridiron color/data. Please feel free to reply to this topic with a comment. I would like to reach WP:CONSENSUS regarding this topic. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 19:16, 16 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Can you show us how that would affect the way templates display for these two teams? Perhaps create sandbox versions of Los Angeles Chargers and Miami Dolphins? – PeeJay 19:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Certainly. Template:Los Angeles Chargers/sandbox & Template:Miami Dolphins/sandbox have now both been created. Of course, we can hard-code using the templates Template:Gridiron secondary color & other templates using color code information at Module:Gridiron color/data if changes are to be implemented. I used  &   as examples in my sandboxes to show how it would look. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd support this. The current black text versions aren't very nice to look at. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:06, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, it's ✅. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2023 (UTC)