Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 4

Hype
Sifting through various articles related to the NFL - from teams, games, lore, etc. A lot of hype and fandom is written into the articles. KyuuA4 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:African_American_football_players
I recently came across this category for players and released their wasn't a white/caucasian equivalant. Nor is their a white page. It seems a little biased to have a category for the major race type in the sport when the minority doesn't. I think their should be a Category:Caucasian_football_players or Category:White_football_players Thnom 12:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

There really shouldn't be either--Aviper2k7 21:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, and have nominated it for deletion. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 01:20, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Update - The category was voted for deletion, and will be removed soon. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 20:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Does that suggest that Category:African American sportspeople and all its subcategories will be similarly nominated? If so, we should be careful that all the subjects still show up under their "American" equivalents.--Mike Selinker 22:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Don't be TOO quick to eliminate ALL references to race in these categories. Certain sports personalities are notable BECAUSE of their race (though not solely, but it is still important).  Even as recently as the 1980's, there was a common perception of racial inequalities among athletes.  Even today, race IS a major conern in athletics.  (The SEC head coaching fraternity was finally integrated, what, 3 years ago?) And wishing for a state of color-blindness within society is NOT THE SAME as recognizing that we are NOT THERE YET, or that there were times in our history when it was worse.  To ignore past racism by implying that being white is as notable as being black in certain endeavours, when African Americans were kept out of those endeavours because of their race is doing an historical injustice.  Implying that white athletes are as deserving of a seperate category as african american athletes implies that an athlete's "whiteness" has presented some kind of equivalent obstacle as an athlete's "blackness" had.  Such is simply not the case.  Jackie Robinson is notable because he was a great ball player but not only because he was a great ball player He is also notable as the first African American major leaguer in modern history, a feat that requires us to acknowledge his race as itself notable.  The equivalent sort of notability does not exist because a white player is white.  Doug Williams received a LOT of press for being the first African American QB to play in (and win) a Super Bowl.  The fact that we barely notice when black QB's today like Steve McNair or Donovan McNabb play in the Super Bowl is because Doug Williams was the first, and such a fact is notable due to his race.  White quarterbacks starting a Super Bowl are not notable for their whiteness... I would agree that having a blanket category like "African American Football Players" is probably not required for ALL football players.  For example, Donovan McNabb may not be notable for being an African American, but Sylvester Croom (as the first African American head coach of an SEC team) surely is.  Perhaps a category such as "African American Sports Pioneers" (or some other better named but equivalent category, you get the idea) is more appropriate. In conclusion, I would agree that in this specific case, the category should be deleted, but we should also not be flippant about race in all cases.  An athlete's status as an African American may be notable, where an equivalent athletes status as Caucasian would not be. --Jayron32 03:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I would be thrilled to see a category of African American sports pioneers. Maybe something like category:Sportspeople who broke color barriers if we want to include non-Americans like Andrew Watson.--Mike Selinker 04:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)


 * However, a section for racial pioneers may be sppropriate for they have breached the artificial barriers which made race a consideration. If it weren't for these pioneers, then the race of the person in the sport would have still been in question.  Now, for the fact that Tony Dungy and Lovie Smith happened to be the first African-American coaches in the Super Bowl - no one cares about that.  Instead, we see them as coaches in the Super Bowl, with Tony Dungy as the eventual winner. KyuuA4 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It has been proven time and time again - that race is not relevance to athletic performance; aside from a white 100 meter gold metalist. Hehe. As far as the NFL goes, we no longer make that distinction between a White, Black, or Asian player. Instead, we give greater attention to individual and team performances in the game. However... (see above) KyuuA4 18:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Career Stats
I recently updated Bobby Wade's article the other day and I was adding his career stats. I am English but I am used to stats progressing vertically so their rookie year would be at the bottom, so this is how I've done it. HOWEVER looking at NFL.com, this does it the other way, as does ESPN. TSN.ca (I know its Canadian) does it my way, so are we aiming this at the general public (where it would seem to get added vertically) or American audience of adding stuff at the bottom? Is there a standard and his this been discussed before? Thnom 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)


 * On a further note, is there any particular format, looking at Terry Bradshaw it uses a simple Grey for heading, etc. where as Vince Young's has the Texan orange. I think there should really be a standard, etc because thats what makes all the articles come together, the cosmetic stuff.  Thnom 01:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Football cards in player articles
This was briefly discussed above, but I've asked asked about the fair use of card images at Wikipedia talk:Fair use. I have fairly strong sense that we should not be using them, but you can read my thoughts there. I'll also ask for comments from the baseball project, since, for one reason or another, they haven't been using cards as images either. ×Meegs 10:34, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't remember where I saw it, but there is definitely a mention about cards and fair use. Basically, the rule is that football cards are only fair use if discussing the actual card (not the player on the card).  I did notice, however, that one enterprising user actually got permission from Topps to use baseball card scans.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Roster templates
I was looking at the various roster templates for NFL teams, and I am noticing a lack of uniformity between the rosters. Some teams are very specific, distinguishing halfbacks & running backs, and even offensive line members split up (center/guard/tackle). Others are much more vague and broad (offensive backs, receivers, offensive line, etc.). I was curious if there were any attempts to create a uniform standard for all NFL roster templates to use so that all rosters look alike. Also to be discussed is whether to include injured reserve, NFL Europe, et al. Anthony Hit me up... 16:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

We've got the following possibilities:
 * Offensive backs (potentially split into)
 * Quarterbacks
 * Running backs (potentially further split into)
 * Halfbacks
 * Fullbacks
 * Receivers (potentially split into)
 * Wide receivers
 * Tight ends
 * Offensive line (potentially split into)
 * Center
 * Guard
 * Tackle
 * Defensive line (potentially split into)
 * Defensive ends
 * Defensive tackles
 * Secondary (potentially split into)
 * Cornerbacks
 * Safeties
 * Linebackers (probably no need to be split into outside/inside)
 * Special teams (probably no need to be split further)
 * Injured reserve
 * NFL Europe
 * Training squad

Any WP:NFL members, voice your opinions. I'm suggesting about 2 weeks before we change all rosters to fit whatever the consensus is. Good idea? Anthony Hit me up... 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Normalizing the format is a good idea. I oppose too much subdivision, and don't want too many sections. In general, I like how most of the templates are now, basically only Anthony's top-level categories. That is, I like a single section for OL, DL, LBs, DBs, Special Teams, etc., with the members alphabetized and with their exact post following their names. I might favor splitting offensive backs in two, and separating TEs from WRs, but that's about it. ×Meegs 18:36, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * While we're at it -- where do Long Snappers go -- offensive line, or special teams? --Arcadian 20:18, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Special teams. --Cholmes75 20:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

List of current National Football League players
Related to the previous topic, do we need the List of current National Football League players? It's always out of date, extremely difficult to bring up-to-date, and doesn't add much to the 32 templates (which are included on List of current NFL team rosters). ×Meegs 17:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm in favor of removing the list of current players, since as Meegs pointed out, it's already covered by the rosters (provided those are kept up-to-date, an admittedly easier task than one master list). I suggest we wait for a bigger consensus before an AfD listing.  Anthony Hit me up... 18:03, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to, just redirect it to List of current NFL team rosters so we do not have to bother with AFD. By the way, if anyone does not already know, List of current NFL team rosters exists in the first place so all of the roster templates are on one page – and keeps users from posting them on WP:TFD for "this template is not needed because it is only used on one article". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 20:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * I support Zzyzx11's proposal (redirection.) --Arcadian 20:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too, though I certainly wasn't the person who put all that work into making the list. Maybe a couple of exploratory emails to those folks (if we can figure out who they are) might not hurt.--Mike Selinker 20:24, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. Forgive me if my initial post was insensitive, I know a lot of work has gone into the list. The goal is simply to coordinate the maintenance into a single effort, so we can be as current as possible. ×Meegs 21:55, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

There's also its complement, List of retired American football players. A lot of people (particularly User:Phbasketball6 with 965 edits in the last 2 months) have put a lot of effort into it, but it obviously contains just a sampling of all of the players that have played professional football. I'm not sure we'd want a list of all the players, either. Large sets that require their members to have articles (Kappa suggests that is part of the criteria on the talk page, but it doesn't seem to be the rule) are usually represented as categories. I'm not sure what to suggest, but what we have is not maintainable. ×Meegs 20:44, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * A category would be much preferrable here. Wikipedia is not a repository for random lists, and this certainly is one of those.   --Cholmes75 20:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Patriots
The New England Patriots article will be on the front page tomorrow. If you guys see any issues with wording or references, feel free to take a look before it's up :) &mdash; Deckill e r 14:51, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * It looks great, but how horrifying must it be to see "K - vacant" on the roster? :^) --Mike Selinker 16:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Wow. It's hard to imagine back then that Gostkowski would be near Vinatieri's level. Just H 05:19, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Now it says Martin Gramatica at the K spot...not all that reassuring.--Alhutch 18:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * How long, do you think, before someone changes his nickname to "Semi-Automatica?"--Mike Selinker 21:15, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Articles for deletion question
When perusing the Falcons site, I clicked on the Leeman Bennett bio and noticed that it has a "potential deletion" tag on it. I read the article and nothing about it makes me think it should be deleted--not with a lot of other abysmal articles still up there. Anyone have an idea?
 * If it's a proposed deletion tag, you're free to remove it. I would say that an NFL player's bio automatically passes notability standards and shouldn't be deleted. i'll check it out myself right now.--Alhutch 18:47, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
 * just looked at it, it's a malformed AfD nomination by an IP editor. I'm gonna go ahead and remove it, since the subject of the article is clearly notable and the AfD nomination was probably never properly listed.--Alhutch 18:50, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of AfD, List of NFL Draft busts is currently listed there. That's ok with me, but others may feel different. ×Meegs 13:48, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Mark Henderson
Mark Henderson is up for deletion. Suggest anyone knowledgeable about this (alleged?) incident go and vote here -. exolon 18:30, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears
I've been working hard on this article, but I need some help. What are some of the improvements that need to be made to this article. I believe that it is really close to becoming a Featured Article Candidate. It is already a Good Article. --Happyman22 21:04, 13 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Have you tried a peer review? Aplomado  talk 21:14, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, the article has been placed on peer review. --Happyman22 02:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, sorry, stupid question. :) Aplomado  talk 04:28, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl images
I think the Super Bowl articles could be improved through the judicious use of images. I would be happy to get some screenshots from my Super Bowl highlight DVDs, but want to gather some input as to whether they would constitute fair use. I would say they do, and would limit the number of images added to each article to one or two. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 02:02, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
 * You might want to study the film and TV articles listed on WP:FA to see how they use screenshots to illustrate the plot summaries. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 02:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl XL nominated as good article
User:Grandmasterka has nominated Super Bowl XL as a good article. Here's hoping it passes. Aplomado talk 07:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Didn't make it, but I don't think we're far off from it being a good article. I hope to make the improvements myself eventually. Aplomado  talk 00:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

2004 NFL Draft nominated as featured list
I nominated the draft as a featured list. If anyoen wants to vote on it or make some minor edits on it, then that would be helpful. --Wizardman 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Will do. Just H 05:16, 28 December 2006 (UTC)q

WikiProject College Football?
Would there be any interest in a college football Wikiproject? I've been messing around with some of the college football articles here and there ... would there be any interest in starting a formal project for it? BigDT 17:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Sound like a good idea. I wouldn't mind joining it. --Wizardman 14:15, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I have created it at WikiProject College football ... I am giving it content now ... for anyone here who would like to help, come on out! BigDT 00:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Season template proposal
Pl = playoffs, Ch = Championship, SB = Super Bowl  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.19.144.93 (talk • contribs) 2006 June 26.
 * This seems to be a proposed template for navigation among season articles. It'll be quite large with the final four rows. ×Meegs 16:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * A nice idea, but would be too unwieldy in practice. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 17:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * It'd be somewhat smaller as '65, '66, etc.--Mike Selinker 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fairly indifferent, but if we were to have something like this take the place of the succession box, I'd prefer to leave-out the postseason links and have it simple and compact like Academy Awards Chron. ×Meegs 19:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * If someone creates it, it should use Zzyzx11 (Talk) 19:16, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * How about something like this as the season template using the dynamic navigation box template --Happyman22 19:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe just have one thing afterwards for the playoffs. Also, I don't get the eras. Just H 05:14, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

 National Football League seasons  Early Era (1920-1969) 1920 • 1921 • 1922 • 1923 • 1924 • 1925 • 1926 • 1927 • 1928 • 1929

1930 • 1931 • 1932 • 1933 • 1934 • 1935 • 1936 • 1937 • 1938  • 1939

1940 • 1941 • 1942 • 1943  • 1944  • 1945  • 1946  • 1947  • 1948  • 1949

1950 • 1951 • 1952 • 1953 • 1954  • 1955  • 1956  • 1957  • 1958  • 1959

1960 • 1961  • 1962  • 1963  • 1964  • 1965  • 1966  • 1967 • 1968 • 1969  Modern Era (1970-present)


 * See above, although this one looks better. Might as well include all the years. Just H 05:15, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Super Bowl XL now a good article
Add another one to the list. Aplomado talk 03:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

AFL linkspam
Well, it seems that User:RemembertheAFL is once again inserting linkspam for his AFL website into a ton of articles. I will try to roll back what I can. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 13:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

NFL Playerbox
I have added the CollegeHOF to the Infobox gridiron football person. You just need to add the 5-digit (at least I think they're all 5 digits) number from the College HOF website of the players id to the box under the CollegeHOF= title and it will showup. -- MECU ≈ talk 15:40, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

all time regular season record against NFL teams
I am working on this for the Vikings and wondering if people would think this is good thing for all the teams. if so please feel free to use the template. Also for the teams that had been in the league for a long time please feel free to include records against defucnt teams as well Smith03 22:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

ps I have not finished the Vikings as i want to double check against the 06 media guide

Vikings

Career stats tables
There still doesn't seem to be too much uniformity in the styles of these, I personally prefer this, as shown with Matt Cassel's stats:

The style in the archive isn't bad, but I prefer this style and have already put it in a few articles, I'll wait for people's comments before I do any more Cryomaniac 15:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
 * You should also center the merged cells. Just H 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Like so. :-) Just H 05:05, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

CFL and Other Leagues?
I know I'm probably out of line here, and apologize in advance. But I was wondering whether the project might be able to slightly expand its scope to include such entities as the Canadian Football League, which currently has no group working on its articles, the defunct World Football League, and the other similar "orphan" football leagues. Badbilltucker 18:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
 * We've certainly paid attention to those leagues in our categorization, making sure all CFL and WFL players have colleges and positions and so on. I'm not sure what else you have in mind, though. Perhaps change the name of the project to "WikiProject Pro football" or somesuch?--Mike Selinker 00:44, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Just H 05:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the effort invoved so far, then. What I was thinking about was simply maybe changing the "Scope" section of the project page to indicate that the project does deal with those other leagues, thus letting the noob like myself to know that this would be the place to contact with concerns regarding wikipedia pages or the like dealing with those other leagues.  Thanks again on the work on all of these leagues, though, and good luck keeping up with all the players put into wikipedia.  Badbilltucker 16:40, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Colors?
Commenting for below: The color scheme in the table below gives the best readability. If y'use standard red and blue colors to represent NFC and AFC - it will be difficult to read the blue links or even black text. It would be a major eyesore. Color representation is one thing - but readability is another. KyuuA4 03:46, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It would be like me forcing black and crimson on the easter-egg hunt page or the little girls birthday party page. Do any of these pastel pinks, oceans, and peach reflect one color scheme of one NFL related product, logo or team? Is it just me or do the colors really need to be changed into something more representative of the NFL, if not maybe we could change the official looking Wiki logo into something more like a screaming purple, nickname this place the grape. . . don't mean to be condescending here but I know the knee-jerk response to this may very well be "colors don't really matter". . . they do kinda, screaming grape and all ;), interested in other opinions on this. Hholt01 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, which page's colors are you complaining about? ×Meegs 11:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps we are all supposed to magically know what Hholt01 was looking at when he had his own kneejerk reaction. --Kainaw (talk) 13:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * This is the most obvious, though I have seen this color scheme used on other tables (NFL Championships, MVPs etc.)

or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:NFLHholt01


 * I'm in favor of black and red, they are the colors of many teams in the NFL, but then again, it may just be my bias towards those colors. --Soxrock (talk) 11:12, 3 January 2007
 * I would say red, white, and blue those are the colors on the offical NFL logo. Quadzilla99 19:31, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting "game-by-game commentary"
As you recall during the past 2005 season, there was a large problem in that many users padded the history sections of each NFL team article with game-by-game commentary of the 2005 season. Since the 2006 season is a few weeks away, I am thinking about creating 32  articles.

Of course, similar season team pages have already been created by members of WikiProject Cricket, such as Derbyshire County Cricket Club in 2005 and Essex County Cricket Club in 2005. And it looks like WikiProject College football is starting to do it too, like 2006 Michigan Wolverines football team and 2006 Oklahoma Sooners football team. Also, the inclusion of articles about the reporting of non-championship games was the subject of a debate at Centralized discussion/Sports results last December, but the result was no consensus. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:48, 21 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that now the time has come for that. Without getting too crazy, I think the  pages should be created as well. This way we will have the form for a completed season, rather than being pieced together as the 2006 season progresses. This sets the stage for the arduous task of completing the previous season articles for each team. Seeing as the NFL season articles look good now, this is the next logical step. Plus, it keeps the team articles from being mid-2000s POV.


 * And, as long as we are looking for consistency, we should have a team season infobox, which, I think, should have that season's helmet/logo (subject to the WP:FU debate), win-loss, division rank, coach, home stadium, #1 draft choice, and maybe even starting quarterback(s). A capsule rundown of the game scores &mdash; such as:

at WASHINGTON | L | 14-20 (OT)
 * can either be incorporated into the infobox, or float in the article. Thoughts? &mdash;Twigboy 13:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been working on the 2006 St. Louis Rams season article and have been trying to mirror the notes of the game similar to the game descriptions found on the NFL Playoff game articles. I noticed that other teams are not doing this. Am I going overboard with it? Do we have a certain template we want to use to keep all the articles the same? --Pinkkeith 18:45, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks very good. One note though - by the time you get through 16+ games on that article, it is going to be HUGE.  You may want to forget the detailed box scores and save those for playoff games.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 18:53, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That's what I am concerned about, the article getting very large. I'm also worried about burn out. It takes me about an hour and a half to put together. I noticed that 2006 Dallas Cowboys season has a modified verision of the scoring summary. Yet, many of the 2006 team season articles are only descriptions of the game. I'm also worried about POV in these things. I try to keep the article specific to the team that it is about, but don't want to be bias when writing it. --Pinkkeith 21:09, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the '06 Michigan article linked above looks good, in terms or a game-by-game recap. Just the simple line score and perhaps a paragraph per game.  That will help keep the article to a manageable length.  I like the table showing all the year's opponents.  I'm not sure the full team roster is necessary, nor is a depth chart.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 21:44, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I trimmed back on it. I think it looks a little neater too. --Pinkkeith 14:02, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Would appreciate review of some of the commentary added to various 2006 article's by. I'm concerned with lack of POV, and a un-encyclopedic tone. In general, I think the very existence of these articles are problematic, as Wikipedia is WP:NOT Wikinews. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 19:47, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I am not a total big fan of these articles either, but as I wrote above, I would prefer to at least have them exist, like the similar cricket and college football articles, rather than have everybody pad all of the NFL team articles with details of the current season (just like Alakazam and a number of other users did last year). The POV can be eventually cleaned up. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 04:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't see these articles as being news, just current events. You will see game summaries in any sports encycloedia very similiar to these. (For example, Total Football II, and all of the NFL Yearbooks.) As far as POV is concerned, I think it should lack POV, if by POV you mean a bias. Yet, since they are broken down by team you are going to see a description that centers around the team that the article is written for. For example the description of the six sacks by the 49ers in week 2 vs the Rams will read differently in each article. In the Rams it will keep the Rams as the main subject ("Marc Bulgar was sacked six times"), while in the 49ers article it will keep the 49ers as the main subjected ("The 49ers defense sacked Bulgar six times"). It is not really a WP:POV issue, it is just writing style. In regards to your third concern (un-encyclopedic tone) I think you will need to excite examples, because I'm not sure what you mean. I'm guessing you saw something on a specific article. --Pinkkeith 13:35, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * One last comment about these being news. Even if they are news (which I don't think they are), WP:NOT mentions nothing about journalism, yet it could fall under original research. Also, on the Main Page there is a section for news. --Pinkkeith 13:40, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Consider this edit to 2006 Green Bay Packers season: . Statements like "The Packers, try as they might, couldn't get any scoring drive going in any quarter of the game" or "Last year, the Packers crushed the Saints 52-3. This year, it would be a very close game." are unencyclopedic in tone. They sound like journalistic reporting, with a definite bias. This is an encyclopedia. If these articles are to simply "report current events" then they should simply provide the score, and note anything remarkable (ie, a record was set/broken, a historical event occurred, etc). These should not be a place for a narrative description of how the game progressed. WP:NOT states "Wikipedia should not offer first-hand news reports on breaking stories" which is what many of these are sounding like. And while I sympathize with Zzyzx11 that's its better than having the team's articles filled up with current events, displacing such filler to other articles isn't good either. --ZimZalaBim (talk) 12:32, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I agree with you. Journalism is first-hand accounts of current events. If someone were to go to the game and then write up an article based on what they saw then it would be considered journalism. An encyclopedia provides information based on research that is done. In these type of articles it is information collected from journalist research, second-hand news reports if you will. You stated that it should only be remarkable information, yet I think that what is remarkable or unremarkable is an opinon and leads down the path of biasness. As long as the facts are verifiable and accurate I don't see a problem with it. The problems I see in the sentences you mentioned are some of the unverifiable and opinionated. It ought to be rewritten: "The Packers couldn't get any scoring drive going in any quarter of the game" (this is verifiable, just another way to say that the Packers couldn't score offensivly during the entire game) and "Last year, the Packers defeated the Saints 52-3, but this year the score would be closer" (crushed is an opinon, and it is factual that 34-27 is closer then 52-3). The problem I see with many of the articles is the lack of references. --Pinkkeith 13:56, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * That is my point. These commentaries tend to be uncited original research, not sourced from journalist reports. If a game summary is to be provided, it should be sourced.--ZimZalaBim (talk) 18:04, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:NFL seasons
Is there any way to widen the box so that the last year of the decade doesn't break off into a new line? --Tocapa 17:52, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Category for American football strategy?
Hi,

I don't do too much editing on football/sports topics, but I thought there are quite a few articles on American football strategy, including the article itself, so that it might make sense to have a Category:American football strategy. Also, that might encourage a better division of the strategy article to incorporate only the main ideas in a number of areas, and link to more detailed articles in the category. Thoughts? --Daniel11 15:24, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

How can I help
Just wondering? SoxrockProjects 23:03, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that one of the major things one could do is get the team pages to be eligible as a feature article. The Chicago Bears and the New England Patriots are the only two that are right now. You could look at them as examples. I'm currently working on the St. Louis Rams article to make it eligible as a feature page. --Pinkkeith 15:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

St. Louis Rams
I have been working off and on with this article, but I need some help. I've been trying to add references when needed, but I haven't gotten very far. I also added a Teams Award section for awards that are specific to Rams players (for example, Rams MVP). I am missing some information. --Pinkkeith 14:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I added the Rams as a subproject this date. I have been working on many of the pages off and on. --Pinkkeith 16:29, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Category: National Football League templates
Why are there so many players listed in Category:National Football League templates? --Pinkkeith 19:05, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Does not look that way anymore. It may have been caused by someone accidently removing a "noinclude" tag from one of the templates. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

New wikiproject for American football strategy
It would appear that this project is focussed on NFL history primarily. There are NUMEROUS articles on football in general that need to be cleaned up quite a bit. The NFL stuff is GREAT, but the general football articles are lacking. I am starting a new WikiProject in an attempt to push for a clean-up of these sections. If you would like to join, do so at:

WikiProject American football

I started this as a result of a brief discussion at the talk page of Talk:American football plays. The football articles are in need of some organization and TLC. I figured people here would have an interest in this project AS WELL as the one on the NFL. --Jayron32 14:26, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Category:National Football League owners
I noticed we have a category for coaches, commisioners and players, but none for owners. Does anyone see a use for Category:National Football League owners? --Pinkkeith 16:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Seems fine to me. How many owners have articles, by the way?  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:03, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I know all of the St. Louis Rams owners have their own pages, but I haven't looked at any other teams. --Pinkkeith 19:07, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It would make a good subcategory of Category:American football executives, which currently mixes NFL owners with front office people as well as executives from other leagues. I bet we have a bunch of owners' articles that are not currently members there, too. One issue is that many teams are not owned entirely by one person, so membership would either need to be all-inclusive or reserved for principal owners. ×Meegs 04:58, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * At least a dozen owners have articles. Seems like a great idea to me.--Mike Selinker 15:22, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Seeing no objection, I created teh category, placed it under Category:American football executives, and added the Rams owners to the category. --Pinkkeith 11:16, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Does this mean I can add myself to the page because I am part owner of the Packers? (joking) -- aviper2k7 00:21, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was adding some of these owners to the category and noticed that this template is a complete mess. Can someone fix that please? It's beyond my skill.--Mike Selinker 15:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

INDIVIDUAL TEAM SEASONS?
Since each NFL team's 2006 season appears to be getting their own specific page, are there plans to go back in time to cover each year (i.e. Green Bay Packers 1965 season)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.213.13.50 (talk • contribs)
 * I don't think there are formal plans, but I don't see why it can't be done. I think it would be helpful to agree on some standards, lest the whole thing spin out of control.  --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:02, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I think that the only team that have pages for seasons prior to 2006 is the Denver Broncos. It will be a lot of work for some teams that have a long history, such as the Packers. --Pinkkeith 19:09, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
 * After reading this and looking at the Broncos page, I thought it would be a good idea to start doing the same thing. I started and finished all the game scores and brief summaries for the 2005 Green Bay Packers season. I added it to the Green Bay Packers seasons page just like on the Broncos page (although I think the broncos need a template like and split off the main article). It's impractical for me to do every single season (or anyone even working together for that matter) to complete every season with scores and  summaries of games, although it would be great if that'd happen. But a summery of the season would work, along with the teams they beat and key players that year, and their top draft pick. Please help out your teams pages and add a summery of the season!!!--Aviper2k7 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay after working some more I came up with a more practical season result page: 2004 Green Bay Packers season that is a lot easier to produce. The ideal season page should have a brief summary, offseason, draft picks, results of each game, and final stats. I'm going to try and average a page every day or so until I get to 1992 (Favre wasn't around before then). Any suggestions on a standard page? There are differences between 2005 Denver Broncos season, 2004 New York Jets season, and 2005 Seattle Seahawks season. --Aviper2k7 21:47, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

I just made this template for the Oakland Raiders. Ill be working on other teams, and start some articles since it does seem like theres going to articles for each season

--Coasttocoast 04:08, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

That's a good idea. Refer to the Denver Broncos article, they have seasons like 97 when they won the superbowl. Right now there's 3 different Packer seasons, I should probably do more.-- aviper2k7 15:58, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I have been working hard on the 2005 Indianapolis Colts season article, and I have created the 2004 Indianapolis Colts season article and I will be creating the 2003 Indianapolis Colts article, but I have not got to work on those yet as I am trying to finish up 2005. I honestly think that this 2005 Indianapolis Colts season article will be one of the best out there, so after it is complete, does anyone think we could talk about making it the "template" on how to do these season articles? Thanks! Manningmbd 16:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * In reading the 2005 Colts article I notice that it is very long. It is over the suggested limit (55kb should be round 30kb) and some of the wording is point of view favoring the Colts. You don't necessarily have to summarize every single game. See the 1989 Green Bay Packers season where I just made a schedule and summarized the season in a paragraph. Then I made a section for the instant replay game. Articles should include a draft summary and some sort of regular season results, and probably season statistic leaders.++ aviper2k7 ++ 21:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the comments. I noticed a text box up on top of the page when I was editing, and noticed that it was 55kb. I figured that I should reduce the game summaries to at least a paragraph and include scoring summaries in there for each game. But, I am planning on leaving the Colts/Steelers playoff game the way it is considering how exciting and controversial that game was. Thanks again. Manningmbd 22:00, 18 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Should we be doing more information per Game on the team season pages? Most of the 2006 team seasons pages have only a short summary and a score box. I think we should do more. For example, a more complete stats box, including score, yardage, time of possession, etc. I also think we should include a bit more information. Not a lot, but maybe 2-3 paragraphs per game rather 2-3 sentences. What does everyone else think? --Matt72986 09:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and made a prototype box and started a new section at the bottom of the talk page. Everyone's input please. Thanks.--Matt72986 12:06, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Good job, matt! Just H 04:57, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I like the idea of having more information, but check out the 2005 Indianapolis Colts season article. I started this article from scratch, and I only have a few games left to complete on the page. But, the page is over 50KB long, which is usually too long for an article. That article has more information than most, and I think that once the article is completed and critiqued, it can be set as a template or something. Manningmbd 22:52, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Copyright question about individual seasons
Doesn't the NFL message about "pictures, films or descriptions of the game are prohibited for use without permission" mean that the individual team seasons are breaking copyright laws? If so do these pages all need to be deleted? T REX speak 02:40, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * First, remember to avoid copyright paranoia. Secondly, a copyright cannot protect an idea itself. I do not know how many users are actually using firsthand accounts of the game after attending them, then correcting the stats later (or even taking their laptop to the stadium and editing the pages right there). Or, writing down a brief short second account summary of each game into a simple paragraph. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Now, if it was an actual play-by-play transcription, that would be different. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 15:05, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clearing it up for me. T REX speak 03:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Project Logo
Since the NFL shield itself can't be used outside of article namespace (due to fair-use concerns), I've created a small logo that can be used for this project on project pages and in templates:



See how it looks here: Template:NFLproject

Thoughts/comments? Ixnay 08:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks nice enough to me. Just H 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Individual Player articles
Is there a standard for including individual player articles in this project? I wrote one about my father Hap Moran and wondered if it fits the guidelines?


 * please sign you comments with ~ . Indeed, simply look at some of the featured articles that have been part of this project.  They can be found at the main project page.  The major criteria for good or featured article status is clear, neutral writing style and well referenced facts.  --Jayron32 06:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, I wrote the article so I'm looking for an unbiased opinion. I notice none of the players featured on the Good Articles list are from before World War II - would the Jim Thorpe article qualify as a good article? Revmoran 01:43, 25 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Jim Thorpe is a featured article, it would be great to mirror that. Just remember to include sources, and cite when necessary. The article seems pretty good already, but I noticed some external links to Wikipedia articles. You can link to a different page than what the link says by simply putting a | sign in between what you want to link to the actual text. Like linked text So if I wanted to link a page that says 2006 to 2006 NFL season, I would go 2006 and the link would look like this: 2006 Keep up the good work. Edit, I just realized that it was an anonymous IP that made that edit, but keep the wiki-linking in mind-- aviper2k7 04:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Started cleanup of NFL article
Started cleanup of the main National Football League article. For the main article of this project, it is in a sorry state. For more info, please see the talk page of that article. Everyone please feel free to help out there where you can. I would suggest at this point that our focus should be on returning the article to Good or even Featured status. Therefore, we should focus on reorgainizing, expanding and improving the writing for sections we already have there rather than simply adding new sections, especially with loads of unsourced information or NPOV problems (see the race section). The most important thing we can do right now is REFERENCE the article with appropriate inline references. --Jayron32 06:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Regular-season scores
Is there any particular reason there aren't regular season scores on the season pages? That's what I came here looking for, before I decided to start contributing. I'll start adding them if there's no good reason not to; I think they should be there.Adam613 04:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Stablepedia
Beginning cross-post.
 * See Wikipedia talk:Version 1.0 Editorial Team. If you wish to comment, please comment there. ★ MESSED  ROCKER ★  02:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

''End cross-post. Please do not comment more in this section.''

Team season pages
I made an infobox for the team season pages. If you have anything you think should be added, please do so now. I think it would be better to edit it now before it's applied to season pages. I don't think it should be applied to a current season page, just past page. See Template:Infobox NFL season for more examples of the template. Thank you for all your support.

On the right is an example of the 2005 Green Bay Packers season. It's currently the only page which it's being used, because I would like more input on it.

Oh and there's two errors that could be fixed structurally that I don't know how to fix. The playoff results should not be in the center, and the image should be auto-sized to 100px. If not the image, it can be sized manually. ++ aviper2k7 ++ 23:18, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good, but I would make a few changes: "Coach" should be changed to "Head Coach" as there are many coaches on the team.  You may want to add optional fields for offensive coordinator, defensive coordinator, and assistant head coach.  Season progression on the bottom of the box may look better going from left to right instead of up/down, that's the way the college football season articles have it and that's the way I have seen progression on other similar types of infoboxes. Another optional field might be people on the team who made it to the pro bowl that season. VegaDark 23:28, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I like this infobox, however, if I may suggest an idea, I would think that the "Place" line should be bolded only if the team won their respective Division's championship. Manningmbd 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)


 * It could use some expansion for detail. I think it would be more informative if it looked like the NCAAF Season Infoboxes, ei 2001 Miami Hurricanes football team. instead of coaching and AP rankings, perhaps it could include the overall rank of the offense and defense (PA/PF) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  08:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've updated it a bit to make it easier to add to a page. Took a while to replace every page. I actually used some code from the college one. The rankings of the offense and defense would be a good idea if the information was available. Do you know where to find that information for x years?++ aviper2k7 ++ 18:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe ProFoorballReference has the stats for every season. Additionally, newer Madden games have the offensive/defensive schemes for most championship teams. --   ShadowJester07  ►Talk  21:33, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Alright, I'll implement that as soon as I can.++ aviper2k7 ++ 21:45, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Good Luck :) --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  22:59, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know how to do this, I give up for now.++ aviper2k7 ++ 03:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Julius Jones
Hi, NFL project team. It looks like the Julius Jones article desperately needs some work; would anyone here happen to be interested in taking it on as a pet project? I wish I knew more about American football so that I could take care of it myself. :( --Takeel 13:32, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Player Infoboxes
I am somewhat new to this project, but I was wondering if there was some sort of team to put an infobox on every article about an NFL player. I have made a list of articles that I have come across that are missing the infoboxes if that might help. Please let me know, thanks! Manningmbd 17:48, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
 * You can just look through your favorite team's roster and add a template (Template:Infobox NFL player) to it. The easiest way to find them is clicking players in List of current NFL team rosters.++ aviper2k7 ++ 20:56, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Season-by-Season Records
Can anyone tell me why the Bears, Browns, Packers, and Rams do not have the "Season-by-Season Records" table on their main article? I see that the Bears and the Packers have their own article for that table, and the table looks more attractive with colors, footnotes, summaries, etc. I prefer that the tables have their own articles, but does anyone know why only 4 are separated from the other 28 current teams? What happened to the need for consistency? Please let me know as I am pushing towards putting the Colts table on its own article if I have enough people to agree. Thanks! Manningmbd 01:44, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The Packers (1921), Bears (1920), and Rams (1936) have the distinction of being some of the oldest teams in the NFL. Their season lists are quite long and it takes up a lot of space in their main article. The size would be very large with the seasons in the article, so it was split off at one point. The Browns, on the other hand is a bad article. Don't think there are a lot of Browns fans on Wikipedia.


 * The Colts article is exceeding the Wikipedia's recommended size limit. Looking at the Colts article I notice the history sections are too far weighted toward current events. The history should be split up and summarized in the main article. Then the history article would be more in depth and the main article would be cleaner, shorter, and more weighted. I think putting the seasons in a seperate article would work fine. You could make a template such as Template:Green Bay Packers or Template:Chicago Bears to link to articles that split the page up.++ aviper2k7 ++ 02:00, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I removed the Season-by-Season records table on the Indianapolis Colts article, and created a new table, on the Indianapolis Colts seasons article. Please let me know if there is anything not to anyone's liking. Manningmbd 02:46, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Complete Stats for Individual Games
--Matt72986 12:11, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Given the rather short amount of information provided on the 2006 Team Season pages, I created another table for extended stats that we might want to consider using in addition to the current scoreboard. I also would like to recommend that we create longer per game summaries. Not an entire page, but at least 2-3 paragraphs. I'll wait to implement it until after I recieve some feedback. Here is the page Template:Linestats_Amfootball. Here is also a sample of what it looks like -->>


 * It looks quite nice, my only concern is if and how it will fit in the article every time. And some season pages have a lot of writing, some season pages only have a couple of sentences. It really depends on the team and who's writing the summaries. I do most of the Packers, and I keep it to two paragraphs so by the time the season's done, it's at an adequate length. I'm wondering if including a hide button thing found on a lot of templates would make it be cleaner and neater. That way they're all not expanded and you could expand to see the full stats. Just a suggestion.++ aviper2k7 ++ 17:59, 26 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, the image police will scream bloody murder at the logos being in there. Just H 04:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Which is unfortunate since it looks really nice. Just H 04:50, 28 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I guess team initials or abbreviations would work also. Not sure if logos could be used though. I'll try to put a "hide" in the template.++ aviper2k7 ++ 05:12, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind, don't know how to add a hide feature in a template.++ aviper2k7 ++ 05:32, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * The logos appearing on the table will not work regardless, especially to those who strictly follow rule #8 of WP:FUC. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:48, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have posted on your User Talk (User talk:Zzyzx11) more information concerning this. I think that the usage of the image is allowed as per my explanation. Please take a look as soon as you have the opportunity, thanks.--Matt72986 12:49, 28 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Please read Wikipedia talk:Logos because it is the basically the same issue. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 01:54, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems the issue discussed on that page was never resolved. There is still a large grey area between "decorative" and "illustrative". It may be prudent to relocate the discussion to that page. --Matt72986 03:13, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Chicago Bears Project Page
Hey, I would like to announce that I have created a Chicago Bears workpage portal on my subpage. I believe that this page is a meeting point where all related Chicago Bears articles and lists can be discussed and worked on. I based the page loosely off the WikiProject_National_Football_League page. I am hoping that this will help expand the number of Bears articles created and worked on because personally I believe that is too many articles for me to handle alone but that more of us can tackle. Remember since one of our goals is to get as many articles/lists featured on Wikipedia, I believe a page like this can help us improve articles per each individual franchise and increase in the number of featured articles. --Happyman22 04:11, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a good idea, you can probably make a template and stick it on the talk pages for bears articles. I'm not really sure of how well things get accomplished with Wikiprojects, but nonetheless it's a great page to keep track of things.++ aviper2k7 ++ 04:36, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think this is a fantastic idea and subproject pages like this can probably be set up as part of the NFL project along the lines of WikiProject National Football League/Chicago Bears subproject. I support using these to focus on team-specific improvements and I'll probably set up something similar for the Packers later today. -ixnay 21:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Here, I set one up, not sure what all needs to be populated, I'll look at some pages and categorize them.++ aviper2k7 ++ 04:45, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * TO ALL INTERESTED: I would like some of my fellow Bears fans and NFL fans to help me on the Chicago Bears project.  Visit the project page to sign up and see some of the to do list projects.  Thanks. --Happyman22 19:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

2006 Draft eligible players
I think that List of players eligible for the 2006 NFL Draft is unnecessary now (though a similar one for 2007 might be good soon) and should either be deleted or redirect to 2006 NFL Draft. I can't put it up for deletion, so I'm putting it here where I think it would be most relevant. --24.19.144.93 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

CHICAGO BEARS SEASON FEATURED LIST NOMINATION
I have nominated the Chicago Bears seasons page for featured list status. I have worked real hard on this list and I would like for my fellow NFL wikipedians to check this article out and critic it because the article needs 4 support votes to be promoted and as of now it has only 3 so please check it out and give me feed back on what you think is could and what should be improved on the nomination page. --Happyman22 04:26, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Today's Featured Article
This is currently a candidate for today's featured article. Show support here. So Hopefully it can join our other two featured articles. --Happyman22 04:40, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I have found my forte
I am best at uploading images. I even now am trying to put them in png format. If there are any complaints, just go to my talk page Crazy Canadian 02:50, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Peyton Manning
Can I get this article re-evaluated on the quality scale? Wikiproject College Football gave it a B, but that was some time ago, and it looks like WikiProject NFL never gave it any rating. Dlong 18:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I think it's still a B, the citation needed tags should be addressed fully if nothing else. Article is better than it was, but contains little on his NFL career before 2003, the criticism section (which admittedly is very hard to do) still needs some work. I watch this article and have worked on it a bit, so I want it to improve too. --W.marsh 19:30, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd have to agree, I don't think it's close to a GA yet, the citations are just urls (please give auther/site, date, and title). The article has many point-of-view statements that need cleaning. The POV statements are written in original research.++ aviper2k7 ++ 19:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Entry says Peyton Manning wore black shoes and defied the NFL to honor Johnny Unitas BUT the article referenced said he asked if he could wear them, was rebuffed and then did NOT wear black shoes. Which is it?
 * I remember him wearing the black shoes. The television announcer made a point of mentioning that he was told he would be fined for doing it before the game, but he decided it was worth the fine anyway. -or- I may be confusing that with Cardinals players wearing something for Tillman that they were told they would be fined for wearing. --Kainaw (talk) 02:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * He didn't wear them . Baltimore Ravens QB Chris Redman did, though, which might be what you're thinking of.--Mike Selinker 05:22, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Passer rating template
I have created a template that calculates the passer rating if the base stats are known. I intended this to be used for all of football until I saw that CFB uses a different passer rating formula. But I figured you folks may find a use for this. See Template:Passer rating. It's fairly simple and straightforward in use, but if you have problems or questions, let me know. -- MECU ≈ talk 17:19, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Merging 2006 team season pages with Team History articles
Obviously we are going to start doing this right? I just wanted to make sure before I started the process and put it on the to-do list. Example: 2006 New York Giants season goes into and redirects to History of the New York Giants. Quadzilla99 19:28, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Umm, that's not how we are doing it as far as I have seen. Take a look at Chicago Bears seasons. Every single season has its own page. VegaDark 19:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Really? Wow, this country really is football crazy (I'm a B-Ball lover myself, still like football though), what's next? Lists of the grammar school records of every NFL player? I'm kidding obviously, don't bother to respond. Quadzilla99 07:40, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Many teams have multiple seasons. I've done a handful of Packers seasons and even made a template to add to each article.++ aviper2k7 ++ 23:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced
Hello, I commend the work that has gone into both Tennessee Titans and 2006 Tennessee Titans season. However, these article are completely unreferenced and I have tagged them as such. Articles on Wikipedia need to compley with WP:V and WP:RS. Please add some sources to these article so they do not get deleted. I have not checked other articles but of course the same thing would apply to them as well. Thanks and keep up the good work. Johntex\talk 16:19, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Revisiting a tricky subject (AFL–NFL)
I have revisited this idea and on the History of NFL Championships franchise page, and I reworked the table. After the subject was brought up to me by an AFL advocate, it came to me that the first four Super Bowl champions were not league but indeed world champions. That means that the 12-time Green Bay Packer world champion motto is only in effect because they won the first two super bowls, had they lost one or both of them, their motto would have to be 12-time NFL Champion, which it also states on their website. What I am asking for is if someone who is an expert at the Template:NFL team infobox to create an optional option for a world championship list above the league, conference, and division championship section of the Championships section on the team box to be applied to the three (GB, NYJ, KC) world championship teams. --Happyman22 04:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Since I am the user with the most edits to that infobox, it would help me if you could mock up a basic look for all of the teams that played during that era (including any changes to the losers): GB, KC, OAK, NYJ, IND, MIN. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 05:11, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, this is an example of something similar to what I would like to see be used. Since the first four super bowls are called essentially a world championship, they should be their own column.  This means all 11 of GB's NFL titles will be placed in the league championship list.  If you can create this optional option since it will only be used on GB, KC, and NYJ pages since they won the first four super bowls, I will add the necessary numbers, thanks. --Happyman22 19:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Player Disambiguation (redux)
I've been doing some major tagging of NFLproject with my bot, User:Thadius856AWB. While going through the some 6,000 articles, I have noticed that there are many different methods of disambiguating player names. For the sake of simplicity, let us start my talking about players who have always played NFL (or AFL), played in college, and have not become a coach, announcer, etc. I checked the archives for this talk page, though I don't see a clear, defined consensus.


 * Positions are obviously out of the question as they don't allow for players who have played multiple positions and are going to be unfamiliar to those in countries where American football doesn't exist and isn't televised.
 * The term "footballer" is not used in America, so that's out as well.
 * "NFL player" is overly-specific and does not include arena league players, for example.
 * Just plain "football" doesn't work at all, since we're talking about biography stubs here, not football terms.
 * Using "football player" alone may still allow for confusion with "footballer" for those who are unfamiliar.
 * "American football player" is probably not necessary and is ambiguous: is the player American, or does he play American-style football?

Still, I think "American football player" is a bit long. I'm having a bit of a toss-up between it and "football player". If everybody can reach consensus, I could start on moving articles and fixing double-redirects fairly soon. thadius856talk 06:08, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd make them all "American football" (no "player"). That can only be misinterpreted as "this person is a football," which I think is a small level of confusion.--Mike Selinker 05:15, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Also note we should include the middle initial of players in cases where there are two players with the same first and last name (See Sam Baker). VegaDark 20:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Clearly "football player" is simply unacceptable, "football" is another far far more influential game for the rest of the world, so you must say either "American football" or "American football player". And the only really important reason to avoid "American football" for the players is if there is a lot of terminology both warrenting individual articles and needing disambiguation from other games. A middle initial is nice for disambiguation. JeffBurdges 23:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

FYI, cfd for Category:Super Bowl champions
Just as a heads up, there is currently a cfd for Category:Super Bowl champions at. My recommendation was to delete the category as possibly premature and vaguely defined and discuss here before implementing everything, since you guys have the most experience with football related articles. Of course, if you like the idea of the category, post those thoughts at the cfd as well. Either way, I'd suggest posting any feedback at that cfd thread so editors outside your project can read them. Thanks! Dugwiki 23:07, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Miami Dolphins
I am not part of this project, but just FYI, the Dolpins entry, especially the history is both POV and unreferenced. It has the makings of a great article, but needs some TLC from somebody who cares.Butnotthehippo 23:52, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Packers
Delete image GreenBayPackers 100.png. I have uploaded a version that has now been compressed to 300x197, so it complies here. And it is fine when put in season boxes, look at Packer season pages. If there is any debate, let it be here. Soxrock 02:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Split of NFL Playoffs page
NFL Playoffs failed a GA review but only needed minor adjustments. In meeting the requirements for GA, the reviewer suggested forking the article to remove the tables to a list article. I have created a new article named NFL Playoff Results where those lists were moved. Perhaps a merge is in order also with the History of the NFL Championship article above. Also, the new NFL Playoff Results article is primed for expansion; it needs results for Wildcard and Divisional games. --Jayron 32 02:25, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

profession script
Does nayone have a script for fixing profession names? An aweful lot of American football players have really really common names so it'd be wise to move most to [NAME] (American football player). JeffBurdges 15:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't, but please note that ambiguity in the debate above before doing this.--Mike Selinker 23:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism on CHICAGO BEARS article
The Chicago Bears featured article is experiencing vandalsim by users who are registered users so I would like someone to help out by finding out if there can be a complete block of editing this article. --Happyman22 21:12, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
 * Already protected.++ aviper2k7 ++ 21:43, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Colors for NFL player infoboxes
What should we do with the retired players leave it default or have it one of the team colors (Or leave it blank like Lynn Swann). I think we should leave it default because what if there is someone like Reggie White who mainly played with the Eagles and the Packers. For the Eagles he had by far more sacks with them then Green Bay, but with Green Bay he won a Super Bowl. Thanks --Phbasketball6 01:47, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I would probably leave the players with multiple teams (Rod Woodson or Reggie White) the default color, and would put the players with single teams or one dominant team the team color. Like Joe Montana played for the Chiefs, but there's no question he was remembered as a 49er. It's difficult to think of Reggie White as either a Packer or and Eagle, so I would leave it default.++ aviper2k7 ++ 03:52, 12 February 2007 (UTC)


 * No, retired players should always have LightSteelBlue and Black. --Bender235 10:40, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Manning face
I've put this article up for deletion as I don't feel it is notable enough to warrant inclusion. Dlong 22:51, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Is there a template for the NFL HOF?
Like these for the B-Ball HOF and Baseball HOF? If so I'd like to add it to L.T.. Quadzilla99 09:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Bb HoF MLB HoF


 * Note: they say the article name is in the Hall of Fame, in case you're confused. Quadzilla99 09:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I created this template in my sandbox, feel free to comment on it and tell me what you think. Quadzilla99 11:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
 * This is what it would look like: Quadzilla99 18:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello? Anybody? Quadzilla99 10:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds good to me. &mdash;Wrathchild (talk) 14:46, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Chicago Bears season articles
Is it really necessary to have a 2008 Chicago Bears season article and a 2009 Chicago Bears season article? I believe Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and not a crystal ball. The 2008 Indianapolis Colts season article was deleted for the reason that it was too far in the future. Why do these articles exist? Manningmbd 19:16, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. --Happyman22 20:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
 * The Seahawks also went up to 2009 or 2008. I do not know why the articles were made, but the content is sourced and verifiable. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  17:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
 * It's borderline WP:CRYSTAL and there isn't much you can say about it.++ aviper2k7 ++ 17:44, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Kyle Williams
There are currently two articles for people named Kyle Williams, and they both play football. I would like to add a different Kyle Williams, but I don't know enough about football to set up good disambiguation. Can someone here please do that? Thanks! &hArr; ChristTrekker 15:49, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

GA passed for NFL Playoffs
The article NFL Playoffs has been passed as a Good Article. Thanks to everyone that helped out with that article. --Jayron 32 17:24, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Oakland Raiders FAC
Just a heads up - Oakland Raiders is currently a Featured Article candidate. --cholmes75 (chit chat) 19:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

NFL Draft
Forgive me for opening this up for discussion elsewhere please Note the text below is Mirrored Content from WikiProject American football discussion

I've noticed the NFL Draft pages are often inconsistent. While most years had 12 (or even 17) Rounds of the Draft and now I believe it's Seven, many of the draft pages are 1st round only, or all 12 (or even 17) rounds poorly formatted. I've been working on several off line and have recently joined this project so I've started to work on a more detailed version at User:Slysplace/nfl draft template. Please remember it's a work in progress and for the sake of Consistency all input is appreciated at User talk:Slysplace/nfl draft template. Please note I've also included a sandbox area where I am working on 1 draft at a time, but what you see may not necessarily be what I have off line. Slysplace 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've successfully updated all NFL Draft Pages (1938 - 1999) to the same style as the featured articles of the NFL Draft (2003,2004,2005 etc...) Personally I like the 2002 style thats very similar but Sortable and if no objections I will update all of the existing wikitables to be sortable. I'm leary of touching those feature articles without a general concensus of approval. Also I propose a replacement of the succession box with the Template. Iv'e opened discussion here as well as my own draft talk page. Slysplace 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_football"

I will not be so bold as to link this project page to my draft sub page someone else can if it goes anywhere I've had very little opposition to the edits I've done so far (that is none have been reverted thus far) but equally I've had minimal input and I feel many of the draft pages are Bad Articles. I dont mind the editing and I've begun work on many of the draft's (specifically 70's era) Rounds 2,3 and 4 off line. Many pages need opening paragraphs and That's something a more experienced editor should untertake. Slysplace 00:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject American football
 * User talk:Slysplace/nfl draft template

Depth Charts
I noticed that a user has created NFL Depth Charts, which has links to 32 depth chart articles he created for each team. I personally would like to merge them into the existing roster templates instead of having a mere link to the depth chart listings on the official team web sites. Any comments would be appreciated. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it should merit its own article. Depth charts are hard to keep up with, but one could simply arrange the sections in the template in the form of a depth chart. I've noticed many teams still have an injured reserve list, when the season has been long done. Not sure it should be mandatory that all teams list depth, but with teams with users that would frequently change the charts, it could work. But until the end of most training camps, there is no depth chart.++ aviper2k7 ++ 04:01, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about other Roster Templates, but the Chicago Bears' one has a link to the team's official depth chart page. Isn't that enough? It's already hard to keep the roster updated with all the random players teams are signing, cutting, trading ect. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  04:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I created the NFL Depth Charts article and I've since added text to legitimize it as an article. However, something needs to be done with each individual team depth chart.  I've noticed that when a player signs with a team he is added to the Wikipedia roster template within hours of the signing.  If there are Wiki users dedicated to this effort to keep rosters up-to-date then I think there should be emphasis on updating depth charts to show how players are projected to fit into their new team.  For example, the Vikings signed three players at the outset of free agency.  Through my reading of several articles published by local Minneapolis newspapers it was obvious that TE Visanthe Shiancoe was brought in as a projected starter because they signed him to such a large deal (Minneapolis Star Tribune article), LB Vinny Ciurciu was brought in as a Special Teams ace or projected back-up (see article), and WR Bobby Wade was specifically brought in to play in the slot(see article).  I updated the Minnesota Vikings Depth Chart to reflect what was written in those articles and based the other positions on what has been written in other articles and how the depth chart looked at the end of the 2006 season.  I will begin the process of converting the team depth charts from articles into templates and I am open to discuss why this information is valuable.  Justvikings 17:54, 15 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if they can simply be moved to template space, though probably not. However, there is nothing to stop you simply copying and pasting the content to a template. For example, Buffalo Bills Depth Chart could be moved to Template:Buffalo Bills depth chart and then inserted into the Buffalo Bills article (or any other article) by typing in the appropriate place. Help:Template provides some advice on how to make good templates. If you do choose to do this, remember to tag the old articles thatare redundant with , or else drop me an note and I can delete them all for you. Oh, and thanks for expanding the NFL Depth Charts article, its much better now.  Rockpock  e  t  17:57, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I just completed the task of converting the NFL team depth chart articles into templates. There are still over 20 teams with incomplete depth chart templates. Please help complete them and add them to each respective team page. Go to: Template:NFL depth charts Thanks! Justvikings 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Article assessment
I'm sorry if this has been discussed before but I didn't see anything in the archives. Is there any reason this WikiProject doesn't assess its articles? Just curious as I'd be more than happy to configure the template and get it working if there was an interest. But I also understand that not every WikiProject takes part in the assessment process.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 13:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a good idea. I would help in the assessing if a template is set up.++ aviper2k7 ++ 19:51, 22 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I think it would be a good idea, I think the only reason it hasn't been done already is that nobody wanted to bother setting up the tempate to do so. VegaDark 07:06, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Great. I'm on it. I'll let you all know when its good-to-go.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 13:16, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ok, its up. Version 1.0 Editorial Team/National Football League articles by quality. Now start assessing! I've also made a request to Outriggr to add this project to his assessment script. Its a very useful script for those that plan on assessing many articles.↔NMajdan &bull;talk 14:11, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It's been added now. – Outriggr § 23:33, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

2009 season articles
Is this a form of crystal balling? Category:2009 National Football League season by team. It's only 2007! Why is there such a need for listing this season now? There isn't much to talk about, and it will just sit at the same status (with the exception of vandals of course) until late 2008 at least. RobJ1981 22:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There's no need for pages past 2007 and these articles have no sources and nothing to say. It is crystal balling.++ aviper2k7 ++ 01:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * That's what I thought, but a speedy was removed. I guess I will just have to AFD one of them, and if there is enough against it: the rest can get tacked on the AFD. RobJ1981 19:14, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm all for the complete deletion of all the team season pages from 2008 and 2009 and the categories "2007 National Football League seasons by team" and "2008 National Football League seasons by team". I have no idea why they even exist, but it's rediculous to put something that far ahead on Wikipedia.Manningmbd 20:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can think of that could have been a source for these articles is a section in the official 2006 NFL Record and Fact Book where it explains in detail the league's scheduling formula, and then lists every single opponent for all 32 teams from now until the 2009 season. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 14:41, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It is pages 17-24 of the 2006 NFL Record and Fact Book that lists the incomplete schedules for all of the teams up to 2009. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Some team websites have an available, but incomplete schedule up to 2009. That schedule is not set in stone, given the creation or fallout of a new franchise past 2007 would alter the scheduling formula. There's no point to keep the articles, especially since they do not have enough substantial information. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  23:05, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

NHL draft - notability
I came across the Aundrae Allison article which was tagged for notability concerns by someone which was removed not long after. (The original tagger didn't explain his/her concerns in the article but it was pretty obvious IMHO & he or she did explain the reasons when asked.) Anyway I just wanted to check that being a prospect (which I now understand to mean anyone who is eligble for the draft) is unlikely to be sufficient criteria in itself for notability? I know next to nothing about American football but it sounds to me like it's not (being drafted probably and of course, other issues could mean a draft prospect is notable). Nil Einne 13:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Newark Bears?
Who are the "Newark Bears" here: DatabaseFootball: 1926 Newark Bears? They appear to be an American football team, rather than a baseball team. —Disavian (talk/contribs) 04:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
 * They named teams after baseball teams. It isn't even the NFL it's a different league. Don't worry about it, I doubt any of the teams in that league have articles.++ aviper2k7 ++ 19:10, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Roster templates part deux
How incredibly ironic that I find myself browsing various roster templates, noting a lack of uniformity among them, and I go to the talk page, only to find not only has this topic been discussed previously, but I brought it up almost exactly one year ago. We need to establish a standard, and enforce it among all the teams. I point again to the standards I proposed above, and suggest that upon determining this standard, we go through all the templates and adjust them accordingly. I also note some things that are on some templates and not others that might be a good thing. Here's what we need to look at:
 * 1. How are the positions broken up? See above as to one possibility.
 * 2. Do we include notes for rookies (like the Green Bay Packers roster template)?
 * 3. Do we order them by depth chart or alphabetically by last name? I suggest last name, as depth charts tend to be more fluid and could create problems later on down the line.

That's my thoughts. I'd like to see this done quickly, as it is not difficult, and would make it easier to deal with problems if we have a set template (no pun intended). Anthony Hit me up... 23:48, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I started to put bulbs on the Template:Green Bay Packers roster to denote first year players, free agents, and down the line injured players. I was also thinking about using an orange bulb to denote NFL Europe players because they should be listed on the roster and at the position. They really shouldn't be listed in a separate category. Just something I was keeping up with, I'm not sure if every team would have someone to do that. Does it look alright? I thought it was a good idea, but I'd take them down if you think it looks odd.++ aviper2k7 ++ 01:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * And the names should all be listed in alphabetical order. A depth chart is way too hard to manage.++ aviper2k7 ++ 01:34, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Minnesota Vikings seasons
I have created a Minnesota Vikings seasons list using Chicago Bears seasons as an example. It is also up for FA nomination, so please feel free to review it and leave comments, especially if improvements are necessary. It would be nice to have something like this for all 32 teams to have some consistency. RyguyMN 02:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

As of 03:22, 29 March 2007 (UTC), There are two support votes. I need two more to achieve FL status. Thanks to all who have left comments.

assessment template parameters?
What parameters does take? I can't find docs for it here. Are they the same as the other assesment templates I've used? The NFL WikiProject has taken over one of the articles I like to edit, and I'd like to fill-in the template that was placed on its talk page. -- Mikeblas 13:18, 29 March 2007 (UTC)
 * It only takes the "class" parameter. Valid entries are FA, A, GA, B, Start, Stub and NA. So . Hope that helps. I'll try to remember to add some simple documentation to the template page this week.↔NMajdan &bull;talk  20:44, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * "Importance" is also a common parameter for Wikiprojects that we could add in the future, but I don't think adding that right away is that high of a priority. VegaDark 23:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. And, personally, I am not a fan of the "importance" parameter. By its definition, its a very POV rating. Many WikiProjects are switching to the more neutral "priority" parameter. So, if in the future, this project wants to add that parameter, I would recommend going with priority.↔<span style="font-size:11px; font-weight:bold; font-family:verdana, sans-serif;">NMajdan &bull;<span style="font-size:9px; font-family:verdana, sans-serif; color:#000000;">talk 19:18, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Color for players talk
Please discuss at Template talk:Infobox NFL player.++ aviper2k7 ++ 20:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

NFL Europe
Shouldn't NFL Europe be part of this project too?

Z Doc 21:59, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Or Maybe even better... Would it be possible to create a sub-project for NFL Europe?

Z Doc 18:29, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is this user doing?
Should I revert all these changes? Discussion is at the College Football WikiProject. Thanks! Johntex\talk 01:25, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I would recommend getting in contact with the user first, and then trying to work it out. If the problems still persist, report the incident to WP:ANI. Hope that helps. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  07:06, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Help with copyright problems
I have noticed that many of the articles of NFL Hall of Famers have text that is taken verbatim from the player bios at the HOF website. I've found this on pages for Doug Atkins, Sonny Jurgensen, George Clark (coach), Mel Hein, Cliff Battles, Dan Fortmann, and Jimmy Conzelman. I'm sure there are many others. The problem does not seem to have been the work of one poster, but I can't say for sure. Anyway, there are two steps that we need to take. The first is to simply identify these pages and remove the violating text. That's easy... the hard part is writing new text to take it's place. Could we use this talk page as a place to list the bios that have copyvio problems and need to be reworked? Anson2995 21:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Found copyright violations in another plyer bio, Jerrel Wilson‎. Anson2995 20:29, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The problem gets even more complicated. One of the external links from Jim Otto was to a page that had exactly the same content.  At first it looks like another example of plagarim / copyright violation.  After looking through the article's history, however, I suspect that the external page is the one that duplicated the wikipedia content and not the other way around.  Anson2995 15:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Since nobody's responded to this subject after two weeks, I'll presume I'm on my own. I'll continue to post names of articles that need to be re-written on my talk page.  If anybody is intereted in helping out, please let me know. Anson2995 17:46, 2 April 2007 (UTC)