This was archived, but I'm bringing it back for now
Since Hey man im josh asked to see a list of NFL players needing articles by games played, I'll be going through and listing here each NFL player with more than 10 games without an article (italics=20+;bold=30+;bold-italics=40+) - Through "Gus Fetz":
Earl Elsey (1946 Los Angeles Dons, 13 gm) Elsey and Elser would make a good combined DYK hook: ... that Earl Elsey, a 13-game professional football player, is not to be confused with Earl Elser, a 13-game professional football player?
I know, but Josh requested a list for ones with the most games – the "Articles to create" list includes people with low numbers of games – it also misses some players with large amounts of games. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for this @BeanieFan11! Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Articles to create is very useful, but it doesn't tell us a lot beyond that a player's article is needed (unless you go the associated PFR links). I wanted to help out creating some articles but I also wanted to focus on ones that were most likely to survive if sent to AfD. While participation is not an indicator of notability it can be a useful place to start when trying to pick articles to create. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Roger Anderson is interesting to me, as he transitioned from being a tackle in his rookie year to being a defensive tackle for his final 3 years. I'm going to work on his article. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the offer @BeanieFan11, but I think I'll have enough in this case. Anderson is very easily notable given what I'm finding, including his participating in the CFL, induction into his college's HoF, and All-American status. I just need to put the work in =) Hey man im josh (talk) 15:13, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Speed Braney already exists on Wikipedia as Joe Braney, needs some more sources though. This messageboard states he was an All-American offensive lineman at Syracuse but I haven't yet found a contemporary that backs that part up. Alvaldi (talk) 18:11, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Wow, I'm... really surprised that a player with such accomplishments as Davis is missing an article. If no one else will, I'll try taking on his biography later this month or maybe next month. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello WikiProject NFL. The article Football America is listed under your WikiProject and is also one of the oldest unreferenced articles on the site. If anyone would be willing to take a look and add sources to the article it would be much appreciated. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Over the last couple of weeks I've seen local stations being added to the game boxes and schedule tables for games that are streamed on Peacock or Prime Video. Previously we've only listed local stations for preseason games that don't have national coverage, and I've seen these changes reverted and have reverted some myself, but they keep getting re-added.
Since this is a relatively new thing I wanted someone else's opinions on this before removing local stations again. I think it's unnecessary clutter, even if all stations are removed after the season is over. KristofferAG (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)
Somewhat related to this, I have done quite a bit of work in historical articles and some editors (or IPs) are adding networks to these tables. I agree that it is uneccesary clutter.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Frankly, even listing the national network is TVGUIDE-ish. I'd remove them for all but broadcast-specific pages (e.g. List of Los Angeles Rams broadcasters) or special dedicated game pages like a Super Bowl, where the broadcast is significantly related. It's trivial info to place in a season schedule table or game summary. But at a minimum, we certainly don't need local channels in most tables. —Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I think it's worth removing network info from schedule tables per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, as you mentioned. If the info is sourced, I don't see a problem with adding it to game summary templates (i.e. {{Americanfootballbox}}), but not the schedule summary tables. – PeeJay17:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't personally think they're worth having in the game boxes either, but at least it's less distracting there than in the tables. KristofferAG (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Is there a way to template the header of the schedule tables to discourage the creation of such information in tables? I don't necessarily mean go full template like college football for the whole table just something that could have team/team color for the season, Week, Date, Opponent, Result, Venue, (attendance is in many historical articles) in the header to standardize the tables both currently and historically? I would argue that putting the color of the weeks as the jersey combo can even violate WP:COLOR. I have been working on and off trying to standardize/modernize the formatting of historical season articles schedule tables, that is why I am asking these questions.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
ProFootballArchives.com was shut down. That was probably my favorite football research tool. I used it for almost EVERYTHING relating to historical football. Now we've got 4,000 deadlinks to somehow fix and an enormous amount of lost info that exists nowhere else... ugh! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Also this: "Thanks for the all kinds words about the Archives. I hope to make an announcement in the near future about what will happen to my data. It does NOT involve reviving the Archives web site." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
I don't know either. I sent the website maintainer an email about it and he responded simply, "Yes, the website has been shut down. Apologies for the inocnvenience this has caused." ...sigh... I had used it on a near-daily basis for years, even going back before I edited Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Was ProFootballArchives.com ever actually a WP:RS? I'm not seeing anything which would indicate that this was ever a source which should have been used on wikipedia in the first place, let alone "for almost EVERYTHING relating to historical football." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
There is no such determination in the link just a conjecture (and that conjecture is one of mixed reliability, the final comment is a listing of errors which was never rebutted so if you want to say that there was a consensus it was not towards reliability...) and that is a self published book so demonstrated neither that one of the authors is highly respected or a subject matter expert for wikipedia's purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
If being considered reliable by numerous high-quality publications and being given numerous honors for being one of the top football historians - including the highest lifetime achievement award for football research by the Professional Football Researchers Association (the top organization for football history) - does not make one reliable, then I don't know what the heck does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
We require independent publication in reliable sources. You could win a Nobel and it wouldn't matter on wiki unless you've been independently published. I appreciate how proudly ignorant you are of that though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
(EC) It would be, but does the Professional Football Researches Association publish a peer reviewed academic journal? They publish the The Coffin Corner but I don't believe that its either academic or peer reviewed. It appears to be a hobbyist/enthusiast organization, as far as I can tell the "Professional" in the name doesn't refer to the researchers but to football (as in pro not amateur). There is after all a world of difference between a Professional Football Researchers Association and an Association of Professional Football Researchers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I am uncertain of all the aspects that make a source more or less "academic" but they do have a staff for The Coffin Corner and don't just let anyone publish anything in it. If that does not qualify, then I will have to ask, are there any sources in the football area that would meet that criteria? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Which seems to have had in its last two volumes (they published three per year before being discontinued?) a grand total of one article focusing on football history (about Walter Camp) - applying that standard to the rest of its editions, we get a total of 68 people who were ever reliable in the field of football history. (I know, there's more academic publications that have talked about football than just that one - but looking at this reference talking about top academic football coverage, nearly the entirety are regarding concussions and none seem to be about the sport's history - I myself am unaware of an academic journal that focuses exclusively on football, or a journal that even has a good amount of non-concussion football coverage, if The Coffin Corner is not considered). Considering how well-covered the sport is, it doesn't sound right that that would be all the people who could be used as references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
TBH 68 almost seems high for such an incredibly niche topic, I would expect that you will find multiple articles from the same people. The sport of American football does not seem well covered outside of the American popular press (even the Canadians can't be said to really cover it).Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
OK, if you think multiple articles are published by the same people, then let's call it 50. 50 people in the whole world who are reliable for a sport that receives viewership up to ~113 million and has existed for over 150 years. That small a number...is utterly ridiculous... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
50 SME is in the ballpark considering how incredibly niche the topic is, sports history in its entirety is a niche topic... American sports history an even smaller niche... and American football history an even smaller one still. What do number or viewers or age of topic have to do with anything? Note that there haven't even been fifty major books on the topic published in the last 20 years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Thats primetime viewership only, most viewers aren't primetime anymore they're on non-live streaming. You also appear to be completely ignoring the point because you can't refute it... Viewership =/= coverage and viewership is 100% irrelevant when it comes to determining notability or how much coverage exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Still shows they have a large viewership. As for whether I am "completely ignoring the point because [I] can't refute it" – I would say that it seems (in my opinion) you've made some off-topic points to get us here and I couldn't help but respond to these points – of course, you probably think the same applies to me. Let's just leave it to someone else, shall we? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
Viewership is not part of how we determine anything on wikipedia as far as I am aware, we actually place the emphasis on secondary and academic sources over primary and popular press ones (which almost by definition get orders of magnitude more viewership, billions of people might watch live news coverage of a war but only thousands might read an academic article about the war... And yet we almost infinity prefer the article to the live coverage). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
My point about viewership was that it shows there are people who are interested in sports – you were saying that it was "incredibly niche" – the viewership statistics show that is not correct – but we're getting very off topic here... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
And where are you getting this stat that there have not been "50 books published on football in 20 years"? I have an edition of The Coffin Corner which has a five-page long list of football books published just last year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
And I believe the exact same thing in the opposite sense – of course, neither of us will get each other to change our minds which is why I am dropping out of this argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The difference is that you being right requires policy and guideline to be wrong... Whereas nothing has to change for me to be right. That is unless there is something about the source which we have both managed to overlook (always a possibility). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
It should be noted that members of the PFRA are regularly quoted in articles covering football history, including in the New York Times[13][14] (also bunch of articles on Newspapers.com from various publications), which would seem to indicate that they are considered to be experts on the matter. Alvaldi (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
But being an expert isn't enough... The wiki standard is expert+independently published in RS, not either alone. Why would we make an exception for this topic area? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
And that last comment about the "errors" also lists the same "errors" in other reliable sources (PFR), so it's not like it's an error solely by PFA, but rather poor record keeping at the time by all sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Broncos-Dolphins
Should an article be made for that game? It was historical and saw the dolphins have the most points in a game in over a half century. 108.58.27.76 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
@Hey man im josh: Actually, the Dolphins set 13 records in their win against the Broncos. CBS News has significant coverage of the event on November 17, nearly two months after the event. This source describes how the loss contributed to the Broncos failing to make the NFL postseason. But if that can’t have an article there are other games that might be worthy. But I think an article should be considered.108.58.27.76 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:RECENT is a nice essay that I think covers this a bit. Coverage needs to be significant and lasting. Note that most (all?) of those records were team records. Definitely justifies being included in Miami Dolphins records and 2023 Miami Dolphins season, but unless ongoing coverage from independent, reliable sources continues discussing it, it likely will fall short of the bar needed to meet WP:GNG. That said, the best case for an article is one that is already written. You are welcome to draft one and bring it here for an initial review. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking for a citation on the treatment of ties in the AFL
Hi,
The GA reviewer for 1966 San Diego Chargers is asking for a citation for the following line...
Note: Tie games were not officially counted in the standings in the AFL.
This line appears on the standings template for all AFL seasons, so it's certainly worth getting a good citation. The second citation on List of NFL tied games specifies that ties didn't count in the NFL until 1972, but doesn't mention the AFL directly. I've also found a newspaper quote specifying that those were the AFL rules in 1965.[15]
Still, a single citation saying that the AFL disregarded ties would be best. Does anyone know of one?
Thanks, the reviewer accepted the standings table of that season (with winnings percentages indirectly showing that ties weren't counted) as enough evidence. If you know of a more direct source then that's a bonus, but it should be okay as is. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's just you @WikiOriginal-9. Myself, I would remove one or two things at a time if they meet this removal format: WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT. Also, there are a couple of editors that do cut the list of career stats down. That I believe is a personal thing and what they see as important. I don't ask. If it's regarding the high school city and state being removed when it's the same as the place birth ... that's me, guilty as charged, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Another editor at New England Patriots is insisting that Tom Brady's number was retired during the season opener this year, using dubious sources. I have pointed out on my talk page, as well as the team's talk page, that more reliable sources like NFL.com [16] and the team itself [17] make no reference to the number being retired. Ditto ESPN [18] CBS [19] Boston.com [20] NBC Sports Boston [21] Yahoo [22]. Thanks. Jessintime (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
People magazine is a glorified tabloid and Men's Health isn't much better. The other two others are simply lists of retired numbers and are wrong. It's ridiculous I'm being asked to prove a negative here because a couple sources got something wrong. Why would the team, the league, or the team's actual beat writers omit any reference to the number being retired? If you don't believe me, watch the ceremony online [23] and tell me where Robert Kraft, Brady or anyone says the number has been retired. Jessintime (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
Because the number hasn't been retired? And you still haven't explained why it is that, if the number were retired, the Patriots etc. made no mention of it. (And to address to a point that I'm sure will be brought up, while I expect the number 12 will be retired in the future, we cannot say it is until that happens. For now it's enough to say the number has been taken out of circulation.) Jessintime (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jessintime: "Because the number hasn't been retired?" – Then help us with SOMETHING that verifies this. I've explained that multiple sources (which we consider reliable) state that his number is retired, why would we not consider those to be accurate? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
@Jessintime: To be clear, unless sources can be found that go against what the reliable sources listed above say, then there's no policy based reason for removal of the information from relevant articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)
That's not appropriate. No one is trying to "win" arguments here. If that's what you're doing, I suggest you stop. We're just trying to come to a consensus on what to do. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
So 12 is either extremely discouraged to be used/retired in all but name, or officially retired. This is a pretty weird situation (Surprisingly not the only gripe I've had with retired numbers this week, I spent some time a few days ago scouring the internet for the date of number retirement for another Pats player, the NFL really needs to keep better records about this stuff.) I of course personally defer to PFR and the Hall of Fame, which is why I added 12 to the related retirement articles. Perhaps we should send an email to them asking how they came about this info? If it turns out that they jumped the gun as Jessintime put it, it should definitely be removed. ULPS(talk • contribs)01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
I agree, it's entirely possible the number isn't retired, but going by the overall weight of the sources we're comparing, I'm inclined to lean towards PFR and the PFHOF. I wish teams had better history on their sites, including a list of retired numbers and members of their respective rings of honor. Pretty much every team's site is lacking in historical information. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
...there are three main editorial approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material: inline attribution, footnotes, and exclusion due to insignificance.
I can understand presenting a balanced view of the conflicting viewpoints, or just excluding mention of the supposed retirement altogether, due to its uncertainty. However, I don't see a justification for mentioning the retirement without any mention that some reliablesources say it hasn't happened yet. —Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
Can we circle back to this where it's been a week already? Or should I just go and remove Brady from the list of retired numbers? Jessintime (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jessintime: I still oppose removal of the number retirement until better/more sources can be found. The weight of the sources provided for Brady's number retirement are more than that of the ones that mention they did not at that event. For all we know, they retired it a couple months afterwards without a ceremony. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
How come team announcements are required for free agent signings, trades, etc. but here we can ignore the fact that the team has said nothing on the matter? Jessintime (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
@Jessintime: Those are false equivalencies. Free agency is riddled with speculation, false reports (clickbait) about players having signed, and contracts agreed to in principal that simply don't pan out. We don't accept free agent signings from most of the Twitter reporters because they have been wrong on a number of occasions. We have reason to be skeptical of them and to not take those articles, which usually always say "x player is reported to have signed with...", whereas in this case, we have two sources which are typically reliable (Pro-football-reference.com and the Pro Football Hall of Fame) which state that the number is retired. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Pro-football-reference.com and the Pro Football Hall of Fame are "typically" reliable, but everyone makes errors too. Those should be judged on a per-case basis, when sources conflict. And those are mere listings, with no background given, unlike in a full report. For the number retirement, I'd generally apply more weight to domain experts, like reliable NFL-related writeups of the event, over non-sports sources like People or Men's Journal. It seems plausible that his general retirement ceremony got misreported as a number retirement. Is there reason to suspect that the Patriots would be covert about the number retirement but so explicit about his upcoming team HOF induction? —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
You're right, neither PFR or the PFHOF are infallible. It's certainly possible they're wrong. But I wanted more of a discussion than "look what these two news sites said!"
Based on the arguments presented in this discussion, I am willing to yield. I've emailed both PFR and the PFHOF before and I think I'll do so again. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Do the Patriots have retired numbers on display at Gillette Stadium? Number 12 should not be “retired” until/unless it goes up with the existing other retired numbers. (via Template:Cite sign) I strangely can’t find retired numbers in pictures of the stadium, as almost all other NFL stadiums have on prominent display. But maybe there’s one on the interior concourse or somewhere. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm very strongly of the opinion that the number has not been retired.
The Men's Journal article is basically a rewrite of an article that it links to at "The Source", which does not appear to be a reliable source. Both state that that the number retirement occurred at the Brady return celebration at halftime on September 10, 2023.
However WBZ-TV CBS News Boston's coverage of the same event directly states that his number retirement did not occur: "we'd have to imagine a No. 12 will be retired soon enough". This is a far more reliable source than any of the tabloid/magazine news articles stating the number was retired at the event.
Both PFR and the Pro Football HOF are self-published sources and the accuracy and original source of their jersey retirement data is not clear. It appears to be incorrect.
Back to fist principles, a retired jersey is a public honor a team bestows upon a player. This is typically a display of the jersey in the rafters of the stadium, but at the very least a display on their website, or a press release, or Robert Kraft mentioning the honor during his speech honoring Brady. We have no cited or recorded evidence from the Patriots themselves indicating the number has been retired. Based on the lack of in-house jersey retirement announcement and the CBS News article stating it has not been retired, this is an easy decision to keep the number off of Wikipedia until (presumably) 6/12/2024.
I agree with PK-WIKI. Also, a sentence like "Multiple sources noted Tom Brady's uniform #12 would be retired during a ceremony honoring his contributions to the Patriots over his career in September 2023. However, the team has made no announcements regarding the number retirement since and thus it is unclear whether the Patriots have formally retired the number." Then add the conflicting sources and leave it at that until a more definitive source comes out. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
That seems reasonable. I'm doubtful that the number actually is retired. Sometimes sports journalists just say clickbaity stuff like that, even reputable ones. I mean, this is Tom Brady we're talking about. If the number really was retired, there would be tons of sources and commentary about it. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @WikiOriginal-9. That was truly something I could agree with. After seeing the length of this talk page regarding this subject, I swore I crawled out from under my rock too late and missed the big news. Just remember, we do things officially here at Wikipedia. Example: When a player breaks his leg on Sunday and is out for the year, we cannot amended his page to 'Injured reserve' until it becomes official. And Tom Brady's number retirement trumps any injury in the NFL. @@ Bringingthewood (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I dont think it is likely, in this day and age, that an arguable GOAT like Brady had his number retired without it being explicit from the team. The NFL domain experts that provided writeups of the event either did not mention a number retirement, or criticized the Patriots for not retiring it yet. Pro-football-reference and the Pro Football Hall of Fame has 12 in their retired number listings, but do not provide other context. I hate to write them off here, but I'll give more weight to the expert full writeups. It seems most likely that some reports confused his general retirement ceremony for an actual number retirement. My preference is to exclude any mention, as it is extremely unreliable. Only if there is no consensus for that should a mention of conflicting sources be included. —Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Now that I think about it a little more, I agree and lean towards Bagumba's take, or a note if some want that. This whole thing is a little silly, you'd think one of the biggest sports franchises in the world would take some care about keeping proper records, at least a spot on their website for retired numbers so we wouldn't need a whole discussion about this lol. ULPS(talk • contribs)20:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Another great response. Right on the money! @ULPS!! Funny, with all this talk page comedy and a place to enjoy ourselves like Wikipedia ... maybe all of us, at least in America will put this much thought into the next election. November will be here before we know it. I think Tom Brady would do a good job as President ... but only if his number is truly retired. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't call the Pro Football Hall of Fame a self-published source as understood in Wikipedia terms. But this is a case where there is no clear confirmation that the number is actually and officially retired. So we need to leave it off. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
While this may seem trivial to address, there are usually discrepancies with the statweek in active player infoboxes once the regular season is over. Some articles have it as "Career NFL statistics as of Week 18, XXXX" and some have "Career NFL statistics as of XXXX". Is there any consensus on this? HappyBoi3892 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
@HappyBoi3892 Not sure about a consensus, but I do know of an editor who keeps the week 18 there at the end. At the beginning I wasn't sure, but it does show that the stats were finalized for the season, which is a good thing. In the past I saw just the statseason there and the stats were not updated for the last three weeks. But it looks like an editor is removing the week as we speak. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Like with this edit C. J. Gardner-Johnson, the stats were updated and the week was removed for the following season. If it's a credible editor who does this, that's great, but I always check to see if the numbers are right when week 18 was removed. It's another chore, but with no consensus I cannot confront each party and point fingers (like or dislike). Bringingthewood (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this was my original thinking. @Hey man im josh brought this up to me in 2022 when I removed it from JPP. Another editor liked it there. Again, if it shows certainty it's great. But you have people now that actually add a sack when the game is still going on. As long as the numbers are correct, so be it. Maybe a consensus will come around one day. It's like putting games played/started in bold. I really think that's way too trivial, but that's me. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Which is an opinion survey and not an WP:RM. Dicklyon, what do you plan to do with the results of the survey? If you plan to do an RM please do it again at National Football League Draft, where the most readers and editors will be made aware of the process (because of the tag put at the top of the page) and not at a related but less obscure page. Or is it way too soon after the last one in April, which was a not-even-close no consensus. Please let us know, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Franchise Tag
Can someone take a look at the article Franchise tag? There seems to have been an edit war there that has left a weird stub. I personally think some of the information that was lost in the edit war was relevant, but even if you disagree, it's stubby and needs to be re-written IMO. 69.162.253.10 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
If I'm reading it correctly, a large amount was moved out in 2021. It was done by an experienced editor who cited his reasoning why. Looks like everyone moved forward from that point on. Maybe you should try to re-write the parts you believe should be re-written. Don't worry about a mistake being made, if someone doesn't like it, they will revert it. I have no doubt about that. :) Bringingthewood (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes Mr. IP user, I do agree with @Bagumba 100%, no joke, you should establish consensus. And there's no rush to do so, because at this time we're actually trying to figure out if we should use a capital letter. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
That certainly is not the place for a WP:RM discussion. Seems a tangential location and almost picked at random (and note that no notices have been placed atop the articles listed for change, which are only partial because if the NFL Draft page is lowercased then the scores of related pages will join it within minutes, so readers of the articles have no clue that an attempt at a drastic title change has been rolling). Since requested moves have been handled on Wikipedia by WP:RM, and if the result is contested they move to the RM review page, and since no notices appear atop the articles being targeted, is there an administrator here who can step in and close the fake RM? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
I'll strike asking for an admin here, but placing an RfC at Village Pump (policy) for a name change is so irregular I would think a comment here is not canvassing as much as opining. The RfC also seems incorrect in stating that prior RM's were all closed as "no consensus". I don't think this is accurate but can't find a list of RM's on the topic, does someone have such a list, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
There was a highly irregular RM at Talk:2016 NFL Draft (a new unwatched article) that closed with a consensus to capitalize. It was a tiny discussion, inappropriately extended to everywhere without notification. Also note that nom has said "Search results are about evenly split... Given no clear 'winner' using search results, we should default to the name given to this event by the organization holding it." and since there was nobody who knew anything about capitalization and title P&G there, nobody corrected that wrong idea. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
That discussion seems fine, and brought the page back to uppercasing after an apparently undiscussed move to lowercase. Is that the only time an "NFL Draft" page has been nominated for RM? It seemed to have just fixed an improper controversial bold move. As for this new RfC at what seems a tangential location, it is not an WP:RM and so wouldn't even count towards a title change, it would just provide a survey opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
...note that no notices have been placed atop the articles listed for change, which are only partial because if the NFL Draft page is lowercased then the scores of related pages will join it within minutes, so readers of the articles have no clue that an attempt at a drastic title change has been rolling...: That's more or less the same thing that happened at Talk:2016 NFL Draft § Requested move 30 April 2016—the move request was only for 2016 NFL draft, with no notifications left on the main NFL draft or the other annual NFL draft pages. "WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY", someone wrote. And nobody seemed to care much about that oversight at the move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 July § 2016 NFL Draft. Two "wrongs" don't make a right, but one should show the same energy in both cases if you truly want to be sincere about "proper notification". This whole "NFL draft" vs. "NFL Draft" has been a general shitshow. —Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a tale as old as time. I remember it used to be at "D', then it was "d" for a while, now it's "D" again. I've lost track of how many times it's been changed. Looking at National Football League Draft, looks like there were even more moves back-and-forth earlier on. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the comprehensive history Bagumba. It shows only two Requested Move discussions, the latest not too long ago. Where we're at now is Dicklyon taking a survey in the form of a request for editors to comment and to join the survey. The survey question is "Regarding the capitalization in "NFL Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc., should it be capitalized "Draft", or lowercase "draft", in article text and titles? With what exceptions, if any?" I don't know what anyone is going to do with the results of that survey, or what analysis is planned for it. In any case, it's a very limited survey, in one of Wikipedia's backrooms. So far many of the usual lowercasers have come by to say "lowercase", and uppercasers say "uppercase", all the regulars thinking they have it right. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
At least waiting until after the 2024 Draft is over and possibly after the Super Bowl (or is it "super bowl"?). My concern was that Dicklyon hasn't said (at least I haven't seen) that this RfC is just an opinion poll, so wondering if he intends to use it to actually move pages. The pages already moved in the midst of that RfC indicate that he should at least address that concern, and if the intention is to move pages because of the RfC it should be ended now due to it being the wrong venue (my interests in this are that NFL Draft is by far the way Americans view the topic, so it should be kept as a proper name, as well as to help assure the integrity of WP:RM as the venue to request such changes). Randy Kryn (talk) 23:23, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Then let me be clear to him @Randy Kryn. @Dicklyon is quite the experienced user and should know when to drop the stick (they clearly do not), but to be crystal clear to them, I will personally revert the moves if they take place based off this RfC without an additional move discussion. The moves are obviously not non-controversial, so they should not be moved without a proper RM discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
IMHO the page moves concerning the USFL Draft page & it's Year Draft pages, should be undone. Unilateral page moves, only create tension & shouldn't be happening, while this RFC is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Agree that they should be undone and taken to an RM solely because of the timing. As for being correctly moved, maybe they were, but I'm not at all familiar with the USFL (busy doing other things between 1983 and 1985 and likely missed the league entirely except for superficial attention). In contrast, the NFL Draft is so familiar to American football fans in its uppercased form that it has become a proper name (and could be called a second NFL cultural holiday along with the Super Bowl). The USFL event, unlike the pageantry and attention focused on the NFL Draft, maybe not so much a proper name as a process. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Earl Putnam is actually Earl Putman
There is an entry for Earl Putnam (1932-2006), who played for the Cardinals in 1954. Besides the incorrect Subject title, his name is misspelled throughout. It's PUTMAN. Pro Football Reference got it right: Earl Putman Stats, Height, Weight, Position, Draft, College | Pro-Football-Reference.com
As did his obituary: Earl Putman Obituary (2006) - Phoenix, AZ - The Arizona Republic (legacy.com) Hawthorne61 (talk) 13:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts on the above-titled newly created article? I'm doubtful of its relevance to Wikipedia because the list lacks conclusive inclusion criteria (i.e. what constitutes a bust?). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I suppose if they added multiple citations for each player being a bust, that would do the trick. There aren't any citations currently. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
GoodDay, yes, Dicklyon moved the title for some reason. Since it is a draft no reason to make a fuss about it, although if it ever gets mainspaced it would be mainspaced under the standard uppercase 'Draft'. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
There's nothing standard about capping "draft busts". It was already lowercase in the article, and was clearly not part of any proper name. Dicklyon (talk) 16:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Please stop pushing that narrative until the main article is lowercased. Until then, the capitalization of "Draft" was appropriate. If you continue to do so without consensus then it's clearly disruptive behaviour. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I do think most of us are in agreement that what the definition of a bust needs work. It's far too subjective and, without serious work and a defined inclusion criteria, I'd personally vote for deletion if it were sent to AfD. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:36, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Definitely agree. But I was just talking about the lowercase styling of "draft bust". It's not a bust of the NFL draft itself. Dicklyon (talk) 05:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Two thoughts, one conceptual and one practical. Conceptually, an article like that can exist, but probably with a somewhat more weaselly title like List of NFL players considered draft busts. This is similar to List of films considered the worst. There are plenty of NFL draft bust articles, though they're often listicles from quasi-reliable sources. The concept is probably notable. From a practical standpoint, having that much text in a table is a total non-starter. It's unreadable. Mackensen(talk)17:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, it would be better served as an article, not a list. The article could cover what major source consider is a bust and then provide some clearly notable examples. Trey Lance and Henry Ruggs are two examples that make me think the current iteration as a list doesn't make sense. Lance has only been in the league 3 seasons (Jordan Love just became the starter in his fourth season) and Ruggs wasn't so much a "bust" in the likely definition of the term (i.e. he was talented, he just went to jail). « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:46, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
What is the intent, scope or purpose of these "broadcasters" lists. Browsing the other teams, I can't seem to nail down what the actual content is supposed to be. Is it a historical list of radio and TV broadcast channels/companies, a list of announcers, a combination? Honestly, this category of NFL team lists is in really bad shape, with a bunch looking like the Packers one (one or no source stubs), redirecting to a simple table in the team page or a huge amalgamation of anything related to broadcasting. Just trying to understand how I would even go about improving this article. Thanks for any help. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 23:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
I've noticed recently, that USFL Draft was moved to USFL draft & likewise the year draft pages were moved (example 1983 USFL Draft to 1983 USFL draft) causing inconsistencies among those pages, without RMs being held. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know enough about the league to know if this is a correct move sequence or not, but maybe Dicklyon thinks or hopes that these new mass moves are a prelude to using the fake RM at an RfC to change NFL Draft pages. That fake RM is nothing more than a poorly attended opinion survey since it is not being done at the proper location for page moves, WP:RM (or at the National Football League Draft page, to be precise, which is the ultimate trophy for both college players and for Dicklyon). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
If I may put a response in here, please note that Dicklyon says that if someone wants to revert his undiscussed moves they will have to "go through an RM process". Dicklyon is correct, WP:RM is the only place where moves such as these can actually be acted upon. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:57, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted the move, as it very clearly has no consensus and @Dicklyon knows this. As such, it's clearly disruptive editing and a controversial move that should not have been carried out. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dicklyon: Playing coy is not helpful. It's obvious to you, myself, and others, that you should not have downcased "Draft" to "draft". Especially considering you recently started a discussion about down casing "Draft" and had multiple inappropriate moves reverted recently. You are experienced enough to not have done this by accident and if it was an accident, then perhaps you should not be moving pages at all. It's behaviour like this that has led to you being brought to ANI in the past. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Those page moves should be undone. It only creates tension, making such unilateral moves, while a possible related RFC is in progress. GoodDay (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Did anyone anywhere ever claim that USFL Draft, or United States Football League Draft, was a proper name? So far not. These terms have never (as far as I can tell) even been used in the USFL draft article. I don't see how what I did could be construed as controversial, but if you disagree with it, undo it and we will discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 05:50, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Anyone good at template coding? I really like {{nfly}}, especially the ability to do ranges. But working with a lot of players from the 1940s, I end up having a lot of broken ranges due to players leaving the NFL for the military during WWII. Tony Canadeo is a good example. When he is added to a table, let's say List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, I have to do the following:
{{nfly|1941|44}}, {{nfly|1946|52}} which produces "1941–44, 1946–52" (as far as I can tell, there is no way to get rid of the "19" in "1946")
what would be really nice would be a new parameter that allows two ranges, something like:
{{nfly|1941|44|46|52|multiple=y}} which would then (hopefully) produce something "1941–44, 46–52"
Obviously there would be a few caveats to iron out, like when the range covers a change from 1999 to 2000, etc. Thoughts? Anyone able to code this? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:00, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Remove the parentheses from all "19xx Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) season" articles?
I get how it's good to disambiguate them from the baseball team, but the baseball team never had an "NFL season" in any year, so that's clear enough without the sudden and unnatural stop (unless I'm mistaken). InedibleHulk (talk) 23:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Removing the parentheses implies the better known baseball team also played football seasons since it changes the structure of the sentence and would no longer matches the primary article. I'd oppose pretty firmly. SportingFlyerT·C00:47, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
"NFL" implies baseball just as much or little as "(NFL)". You have a point about it not matching Brooklyn Dodgers (NFL) and there certainly never was a Brooklyn Dodgers NFL; that title is out of necessity, not because it's the team's common name or the way English works. Good to hear from you, regardless. InedibleHulk (talk) 20:36, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, disambiguation probably shouldn't go in the middle of the title. It should be "19xx Brooklyn Dodgers season (NFL)". Or if no parentheticals, then it should be "19xx Brooklyn Dodgers NFL season". See WP:NCDAB. There is nothing in policy about the naming needs to match a parent article. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 00:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
NFL & AFL infobox headings
I brought this up about two or three years ago, but mixed up with other items & the result kinda went no where. This time around, it'll be less messy. Would anybody object if I shortened American Football League to AFL & National Football League to NFL in the infobox heading of their season pages? GoodDay (talk) 18:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me, since these are the common names, and putting the long-form versions in there isn't helping anyone. From MOS:INFOBOX: It should be named the common name of the article's subject but may contain the full (official) name; this does not need to match the article's Wikipedia title. I understand why various AFL article titles are naturally disambiguated with the full league name (due to Australian Football League sharing the same acronym), but someone already at an American Football League article knows they're at it, and doesn't need the infobox to browbeat them with it. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 03:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't object, but note that MOS:INFOBOX only explicitly mentions the the full (longer) name as an exception to using the page title. Though I guess we can say "AFL" is the common name, but it wasnt used for disambiguation purposes. (Just trying to avoid any potential wikilawyering disputes). —Bagumba (talk) 03:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Well that lasted long. In order to change the infobox titles, I have to change the whole infobox itself. Has to be changed over to 'Infobox sports season', which is too much for me :( GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@GoodDay: That was an easy fix [26] just by tweaking the infobox (assuming it's the same one used at all the season articles). Didn't have to convert it to the {{Infobox sports season}} meta-template, though there might be a good argument for doing that eventually; not sure. PS: This doesn't do anything with NFL ones; if there are some that need cleanup, point me at them. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Following your lead, I changed the NFL's Template infobox too. Now (after checking'em) all the AFL & NFL season pages have their infobox headings abbreviated. Next step will be the intros to the AFL season pages. But, perhaps I'll wait & tackle that at a later time. Wait & see if the infobox headings changes, will be accepted first. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, such trivial changes sometimes arouse surprising negative reactions (especially in sports for whatever reason). "There is no deadline", and all that. — SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 20:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Missing Postseason stat tables
I just added a Postseason stat table for Randy Moss and I was a little surprised that he didn't have one already lol. If you guys know/come across any other NOTABLE players that don't have a playoff stat table let me know so I can add those. HappyBoi3892 (talk) 20:15, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I was looking over T.O.'s page and noticed his records section had a possible original research warning from 2011. Then i noticed not one record has a citation (besides the one i added after correcting a record that was tied this year). So, two things: First, the first 2 records claim T.O. is the only player to score both 1 touchdown against all 32 teams and also the only player to score 2 touchdowns against all 32 teams. I researched extensively and all i came across were tweets, some stuff on reddit, and 1 article from bleacher report that said he did accomplish the 1 TD record, but said he only accomplished the 2 TD record against 31 teams. Is bleacher report considered a reliable source and how should we go about this? The second thing, it has about 10+ records saying "only player to score 3 td's in 15 seasons, only player to score 3 receiving td's in 15 seasons" and so on. Is there a consensus on adding both records? I just feel like he's too prominent a player to have such a messy page. Thanks. FreshTec843 (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
yeah, I'm going to need some reinforcements here. His page, atleast the records part, is a mess. I've already started on some of it. FreshTec843 (talk) 04:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
10+ years notice is ample notice to source text. If you don't feel an item is verifiable, be bold and delete it. Nobody should restore it without citing a reliable source. Personally, I treat Bleacher Report as generally unreliable, and opt for other more traditional sources, thinking it can't be that important if its just in B/R, SBNation, FanNation, or other similiar bloggy sites. I do make exceptions for certain widely-recognized industry experts on those sites on a per case basis. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I deleted the whole mess. Team records are rarely notable enough to list out (they can be added to the prose easily enough) and the rest were all records with qualifiers (i.e. most of something by a certain age or an arbitrary baseline number). If these are notable, they can be added inline to the prose section of the article. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 14:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It's probably better that way. I considered doing it myself, but wasn't sure. The article probably deserves to have a section highlighting records/achievements, but having nothing is better than what it was. FreshTec843 (talk) 14:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I see, thank you for linking me to that @Gonzo fan2007. While I do think that the proposed title would satisfy WP:LISTN, I won't go against the consensus to delete similar lists at that AfD. I felt hopeful based on List of career achievements by Kobe Bryant and the prospect of getting a Brady list up to FL. With that said, if any American football list of career achievements would survive, I do think Brady's would make the most sense and would satisfy the WP:LISTN based on the significant amount of coverage around his various records. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Consensus changes, just giving you the history. Maybe you are right about Brady. I think recentism is a big challenge though, as may of the things that feel relevant today end up not being as much down the road. When Don Hutson retired, he owned every receiving record imaginable, firsts, totals, etc. But the enduring part, the legacy, is usually pretty easily summed up with a short paragraph. I felt the same way about Brett Favre when he retired, but most of his records either fell to the wayside or lacked relevance a few years down the road.
When I look at Tom Brady, I see a lot of superfluous stuff. Like the team records could be easily merged into the respective "list of records" articles with a few sentences in his biography summarizing the main ones. Some of them should just be removed as not "real records", such as ones with qualifiers (like "Most consecutive completions in a single Super Bowl:", the "oldest QB" records and the "most with one team" records). I don't know, I think a lot of the stats we put on Wikipedia runs afoul of WP:NOTSTATS, but I acknowledge I am in the minority on that point. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:27, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
And I appreciate the you doing so! Yeah, there's definitely some cherry picked records in there. I'm not going to make the push for this myself, but if any player's achievements will hold up over time, it's him. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:13, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
That's interesting. That one isn't particularly long but I think it reinforces the idea that the list, if someone does choose to risk it (which I'm increasingly thinking is not worth it), would need to focus pretty hard on the legitimate records that are frequently discussed. A lot of these get flooded with fan cruft and cherry picked stats. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:29, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Those "Articles to be split" on our project's main page
They're taking up space in the Article Alerts section. Can we do anything to resolve them? The Monday Night football one's been inactive for over three years. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:02, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
History of the Tampa Bay Buccaneers seems to have lost a quarter of its content recently. I don't know anything about it, except that the edit summaries refer to removing "opinions", and this sometimes means that the editor is unaware that NPOV requires us to WP:ASSERT facts, including facts about opinions. OTOH, sometimes this sort of edit really improves an article. Someone who knows something about the team might want to take a look. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
At a glance, it looks to be trimming detail that is better suited for respective articles at Category:Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons. These "history" pages really should be looking to franchise overviews from reliable sources for a more expert view of what is important and WP:DUE. Otherwise, it could end up being more subjective on what ends up being highlighted (or ommitted). —Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Copying from the American Football Project talk page, as its more likely to be seen / responded to here BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:44, 5 February 2024 (UTC):
Hi, an editor, Bogens, has contacted me about the Bill Ellenbogen article. He says he is the subject of the article and would like it to be updated using information from a book, Where Have All Our Giants Gone. I don't get a sense that he is doing this for self-promotion reasons. He says he doesn't have the technical skills to add references; he has a CoI in any case. It's not something I can help with, but I thought someone involved in this project might like to have a look. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Career highs in stat boxes
We visited this in the past but for if highs or lows should be marked for negative stats (interceptions, fumbles, etc.). Now, I'd like to discuss the removal of career highs altogether. Pro Football Reference used to recognize career highs, now, no major stat website provides a career high, examples using Patrick Mahomes ESPNNFL.comPro Football Reference. It seems like be borderline original research as well, specifically WP:SYNTH: "...do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source." Not to mention it will eliminate editors unaware we said it was ok to mark lows for negative stats. I understand enforcement will be difficult but we can't avoid doing something on here just because it's difficult (I think there might even be a policy or essay that specifically states that but I could be wrong.) And to be honest, figuring out what is a career high is not a difficult conclusion for someone to make on their own.--Rockchalk71702:28, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Identifying the career high in a table listing each year's stats is not "original research". It's second-grade math in identifying which is the larger number in a set of numbers. See WP:CALC ("Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is almost always permissible.") Cbl62 (talk) 18:23, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
That's why I said "borderline". But the point is we're identifying something no stat website identifies anymore and it can cause confusion with negative stats like interceptions that are bad to have a high number of, but then we turnaround and look at Patrick Mahomes rookie year (for example) he only threw one interception, which would technically be his career low (or best). Not to mention stats that have a maximum like games played/started and quarterback rating. If a quarterback has a perfect quarterback rating in week 1 and gets a season ending injury during that game, that's technically their career high. And I hinted at this in my original post but honestly identifying a career high is just flat unnecessary and I don't see the purpose. A case could be made calling career highs WP:FANCRUFT, but at the same you could make that case for the stat box in general. How many people honestly get their stats for any pro athlete from this website? I'm not pushing for the elimination of them altogether but these things are getting a little ridiculous.--Rockchalk71721:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd support ditching it. Especially when there are mistakes and you think you're looking at the correct career high, when it was never updated. Whatever happens here, I do hope we could at least remove career highs for games played/started. Totally unnecessary. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I do find it useful for players with long careers (e.g., Jerry Rice, Brett Favre, Walter Payton) to highlight career highs in major categories, e.g., rushing yards, passing yards, receptions, receiving yards, touchdowns, etc. Rather than eliminating these helpful forms of highlighting, perhaps we could just adopt a guideline that we don't highlight statistical categories where there's consensus that the highlighting isn't helpful (e.g., games played/started, pass interceptions thrown, etc.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbl62 (talk • contribs) 10:45, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
The problem with only doing specific stats is it makes it that much harder to have something to point to when these IPs and inexperienced editors decide every stat for every player needs the career high identified. If eliminated we can say "hey we decided to stop doing this", they're more likely to stop if we can say it was eliminated. Regardless of if they played 2 seasons or 20 seasons I don't see any purpose to identifying it.--Rockchalk71705:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Stub Clean-up Success
Just wanted to note how successful Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Football biography cleanup has been. Of the maybe couple hundred articles improved under this project, only one has been deleted. Just goes to show you how much the old "played at least one game in the NFL" criterion was actually on point. Kudos again for Cbl62 for getting this going and I encourage every member of this project to grab a random stub every once in a while from the list and expand it. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 19:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
NFL [D][d]raft Edit
Just as a note, noticed this edit to Green Bay Packers draft history from back in May 2023 by Dicklyon changing all of the section headings from "NFL Draft" to "NFL draft", while also making some helpful changes to position names. Notwithstanding the larger issue with capitalization, the custom TOC is not broken because that was not updated during the edit. The headers also don't match the hatnotes under each section. I haven't reverted yet, because there are good edits (the changes to the position capitalization) that will take a lot of work to undo. That said, just want to contribute this to the overall discussion, regardless of where consensus ends up on the capitalization of "draft". « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:58, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Suggestion Repeating d/Draft in every header seems redundant, and the context is obvious given the article subject. Simplify it to just the year.—Bagumba (talk) 02:05, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Really, even in "participated in every National Football League Draft since its inception"? And "NFL supplemental Draft"? How can those caps be justified? Also, you broke that custom TOC again. Dicklyon (talk) 05:20, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
{{NFL lists}}
This template always confused me. Its purpose is clearly a navigation aid (i.e. a navbox), yet its design and placement are wildly different from any other navbox. It's closest companion template is timeline or "This article is part of a series..." templates like {{WWII timelines}}. Yet none of those timeline or topic boxes hide all of their links like this one does, and none of them link so many articles (84 to be exact) like this one. Wouldn't this be better served as a typical navbox at the end of the article? That way all the links can be visually seen and grouped, and it frees up the space at the beginning of articles for more typical starts to articles (infobox, image, etc). Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. I associate those "part of a series" templates with one narrative that's been broken into sections due to size, such as {{Giants history}}. This is quite a wide-ranging collection of articles. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
I've added the navbox to show editors what is being discussed as a throw-away navbox at its deletion page. Since this is being talked about here as well I would like to urge keeping this valuable compact navigational tool. I've used it scores of times, and found it extremely useful, well ordered, and a quick way to move around the records after a Sunday's worth of games. Thanks. I've also trimmed the least applicable and tangential entries, those of "starting quarterbacks by team" which was undue for this compact quick-nav look at NFL records and brings the total down to 52 from 81. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:54, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Three Rivers Stadium has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 18:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I've just run into this edit where an editor changed the name of the team this player played for from "Redskins" to "Commanders". I reverted it because this player never played for the Commanders (as they are now known), but played for the Redskins. Trying to change the team name to its current name is trying to change the history. What do others think? --Hammersoft (talk) 16:05, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
You did the right thing Hammersoft. We don't re-write history and label players as having played for orgs / team names that didn't exist at the time. I understand the editor's intention, but it doesn't make sense to change the name of the team they played for. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Jweiss11, I'll take the bait. Like sexual orientation, transgender people typically come out, alerting the general public to their gender and/or sexual identity (which presumably and based on most recent research they have always been). As such, the assumption is that past identities were incorrect and thus we utilize the correct identity/pronouns/orientation. If the new gender identity includes a name change, then we generally switch to that name as most reliable sources will also reflect that change. Since this is an encyclopedia, we utilize a number of tools to clarify this for our readers, including footnotes and hidden messages. A great example is Elliot Page. I assume you were mostly trolling with your comment, but to wrap up the point, obviously since teams don't retroactively change their names, and thus reliable sources don't do that, then we don't do that here. Thus, Mark Murphy played for the Redskins, who are now known as the Commanders. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't "trolling". I was making related gripe about political motivations that have compromised the integrity of Wikipedia. Elliot Page is precisely the example I had in mind. Compare to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, which refers to the subject as "Lew Alcindor" prior to his name change or Muhammad Ali and "Cassius Clay". Jweiss11 (talk) 17:51, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Was only musing, and worded to (hopefully) not take a position. Still, no desire for this to springboard destructively. Stick to...teams.—Bagumba (talk) 02:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps this is a place where you would be best served by not starting tangential discussions to make some sort of gripe that is of questionable motive. oknazevad (talk) 01:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
If you think the pages should respect Abdul-Jabbar and Ali's names you should probably start a discussion at the relevant venue rather than kickstart an argument on the NFL project talk page lol ULPS(talk • contribs)02:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Oknazevad. The page won't be long enough if we don't stick to the teams. Coming from an ultra-conservative, I'm proud of myself for not chiming in. But you guys do make for some juicy reading lately. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:17, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
There have been many historic mascot names that involve racial or other caricatures. "Redskins" is just one example. Others include "Redmen", "Savages", "Red Devils", "Brown Squaws", "Ethiopian Clowns", "Chinks", "Midgets" and "Coons". These terms were offensive, but that's our history. We should not whitewash our history. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
This place is intended to be as accurate as possible. The name of the team when the player played for them should be listed, regardless of circumstance. John Riggins played for the Washington Redskins, not the Washington Commanders. Warren Moon played for the Houston Oilers, not the Tennessee Titans. Saying Riggins played for the Commanders is no different than saying someone like Johnny Unitas played for the Indianapolis Colts as far as I'm concerned, it's an inaccurate statement. Same concept. If they played under both team names, like Len Dawson (Dallas Texans and Kansas City Chiefs) or Steve McNair (Houston Oilers and Tennessee Titans) both should be listed.--Rockchalk71706:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The press often makes a reference to the modern day team name in similar cases, something like "Washington Redskins (now Commanders)". For WP, this practice would mesh with MOS:NOFORCELINK:
Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence. The text needs to make sense to readers who cannot follow links.
I fundamentally can't stress enough how much I don't care about whether draft is capitalized or not. Nor do I strongly care about whether an RFC can serve as a vehicle for a contentious move. What I do care about is how much that discussion dissuaded people (including me) from participating, or the belief (one that I held) that it was going to be closed as no consensus with a recommendation to do a formal RM. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Looks like you have a lot of work to do, Dick. This salmon will not touch one of them. Maybe we can get a consensus for smiley faces to be put next to major awards in the infobox. Have fun! Bringingthewood (talk) 23:13, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
No, "those who were parroting" the league preferences didn't create this workload. Dick did. It's also unbecoming of an administrator to denigrate a whole slew of thoughtful editors here as stooges or homers for the NFL. That move is usually reserved for editors who think the Neanderthalic American football "matches" are played on a "pitch". Jweiss11 (talk) 00:01, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
It's also unbecoming of an administrator to denigrate a whole slew of thoughtful editors here as stooges or homers for the NFL.: And it never happened. WP:STRAWMAN. —Bagumba (talk) 03:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Bagumba, that never happened, huh? I'm pretty sure I wasn't hallucinating when above you described those in favor of capitalizing the D in "draft" as those who were parroting the league's preferences. What you wrote is still there. If I'm strawmanning you, what did you mean instead? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I was referring to the MOS relying on usage by independent sources, but some !votes still citing what the NFL itself does. So those arguments seemed mechanical to me; I was not psychoanalyzing anyone's intent or capacities. —Bagumba (talk) 07:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
See where this is bringing us? That's why you don't fix what's not broken. By the way, nobody offered me a cracker. How rude! Sincerely, Polly. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:48, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll leave others to decide on whether that page should be moved or not. Concerning American football, the last time I proposed anything at WP:NFL, the proposal was 'figuratively' shot down. GoodDay (talk) 18:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
No. In all fairness, being bold is a guideline, and WP:BOLDMOVEs are allowed. Moreover, the 2013 move to downcase was vetted by an admin at WP:RM/TR, who executed the move as "uncontroversial".[27] The lowercase title stood for three years, and no longer qualified to be reverted by a mere "undiscussed move" per WP:RMUM, as the new title has not been in place for a long time no longer applied. —Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Back to the question: If anyone wants to review the list, or help in any way, that will be appreciated. In any case, I'll be on it, not in any rush though. I acknowledge that there will be a few editors unhappy with the result. Dicklyon (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I was almost done the list of draftees from colleges when you posted this, but they were all completed. I believe there was just a touch over 300 lists in that category. I'll work on the draft templates tomorrow.
To be clear to others, I'm definitely one of the ones unhappy with the outcome. With that said, I don't like inconsistencies, so I've started on the giant amount of work that needs to be done. I'm not going to carry the entire burden myself, but I'm trying to make some progress.
To those unhappy, there's no real point arguing about it after the fact, despite how many of us feel. Consider either challenging the close or starting an RfC or RM. Otherwise we're just being unproductive. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Josh, thanks so much for jumping in to help. I'll re-run my query tomorrow and update the list; all those you fixed will disappear and we'll see what's left. If it's not too many, I'll jump in with manual moves instead of waiting for the bot approval and execution. Dicklyon (talk) 00:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks but that's unnecessary. I wasn't using your list but I have css to see which links are redirects, so I can use it to double check later on. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it should be a Move Review instead, as moves such as these are prohibited by WP:RFCNOT. Since this RfC claims to override the recent RM at 2024 NFL Draft, I've left a personal summary there about its expected undiscussed move. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
All of the pages, and more, have been moved. All of the relevant categories I could find have been CFD/S tagged for renaming. Will continue will cleanup tomorrow. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Please read WP:RFCNOT and, per WP:RM and WP:RFCNOT, please consider reverting your moves. Thanks. [EDIT: Have just read your comments at the NFL draft talk page, so will not ask you to revert. But someone probably should. You stuck to your viewpoints throughout, even if they've shifted, which is all Wikipedian's should be expected to do. I do wish Taylor Swift had weighed in. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:55, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, my view is still the same, in that I believe NFL Draft is a proper name. With that said, someone has to carry out the results of the closure, and I'm working at begrudgingly doing so. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:12, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Kudos to User:Hey man im josh for respecting the process. After having fought vigorously against the lower caps position, he is willing to abide by the close (and actually help with executing the close). Refreshing! Cbl62 (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
From the continuous involvement with Brady and the media, especially with Fox Sports, he looks to be staying within the NFL world for at least 5 more years.
Not sure if something has to be designated, but I've seen players who have a Post-career title on their page. It's usually just added when something notable I would say is happening in their life at that time. Being that it's Tom Brady, I would say that this would have been added by default by someone sooner or later. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
This long-time navigational sidebar was relisted on February 11, please have a look at the sidebar and the discussion, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
As a courtesy notification (note, the previous green bolded text was added 13 days after my original comment to avoid any aspersions being cast upon my character and reputation as a Wikipedia editor), I have nominated {{NFL lists}} for deletion. Thanks (note, the green bolded "s" after "thank" was added 13 days after my original comment to avoid any concerns regarding my grammar, spelling or diction) « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 02:31, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
This deletion attempt of the long-time major navbox has been commented on by so few editors that I don't know how any informed decision can be made. You are probably right, yet the wording of this notification doesn't seem designed to notify but to celebrate. Randy Kryn (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Sourcing request / offer
(More Canadian football-related, but close enough :)) I will give one barnstar to anyone who can source and improve Ken Ploen in time to get him to appear at WP:ITN (four days left), and will give one further barnstar to anyone who can do the same to Gerry James (also four days left). Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:24, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
No. I was in the process of locating a policy for this when you posted this. WP:EXISTING is the policy that says they should be avoided. If you want to create the articles for the players missing go for it but I would create the articles first before adding back.--Rockchalk71723:07, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
EXISTING does have more details that could be used to support inclusion: Red links should normally be avoided unless they are very likely to be developed into articles. Red links can be retained in navigation templates that represent a well-defined and complete set of data (geographic divisions, annual events, filmographies, etc.), where deleting red links would leave an incomplete and misleading result. Note that every other Super Bowl navbox has a complete listing of the Super Bowl roster. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
You omitted the very last sentence of that "Even then, editors are encouraged to write the article first." As I said in my edit summary, just because other articles/templates do something, does not make it right.--Rockchalk71723:32, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that there is no requirement that an article exist before a subject can be added in a navbox, as long as they are likely to become articles. That is our policy. I don't necessarily think everything needs to be consistent, but we should not be removing redlinks in navboxes to notable subjects unless there is good reason to think that they won't eventually be developed into articles. Rlendog (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Redlinks are totally ok in navboxes as long as the subjects are notable (and we are presumably just waiting for someone to come around and write the article). My recent creation of {{NFL team Pro Bowl selections}} comes to mind as an example. There's no rush and red links encourage article creation, especially for articles that we can presume are notable. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:50, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
As someone who has patrolled tens of thousands of redirects, no, it's not correct. There was not consensus that down casing is correct, the outcome was that Wikipedia policy states it should be down cased, not that it's not a proper name. The NFL consistently capitalizes it, so calling them wrong for the titling they use of their own events would be wrong. Alternative capitalization is the proper tag for these redirects. Tagging @Dicklyon. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The point of tagging such redirects is to get them to show up in the report at Wikipedia:Database reports/Linked miscapitalizations, which a few editors patrol to look for things that be improved toward better correctness or compliance with guidelines. This is not a judgement that the capitalization would be wrong outside WP, just that it's not how it should be done in WP. My practice is to add more things there as I come on them. You can look at n-gram stats to verify that caps are in the minority for the AFL drafts (both American and Australian), whether spelled out or abbreviated, and therefore there's a longstanding consensus that such things should be lowercase in WP, similar to what we confirmed yet again in the recent NFL and AFL discussions. By the way, AFL Draft and AFL draft redirect to Australian Football League draft, even though in sources those refer more often to the American one; a bunch of links would need to be fixed if we made it a disambig page or changed the primarytopic. Dicklyon (talk) 22:36, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I think it was over a year ago, when I attempted to wrestle those re-directs from the Australian Football League, for the American Football League. I wasn't successful, as the other side wouldn't budge. GoodDay (talk) 02:01, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I have always wondered this but never asked. Has there been some past discussion or consensus regarding the placement of "TEAM" player categories to players who never actually played a game for the team. There are two examples that come to mind:
Drafted by a team but never signed/played for them: as an example, Randy Duncan was the Packers first-round draft pick in 1959 but went to the CFL and does not currently have Category:Green Bay Packers players
My understanding, or at least what I've noticed over time, is that anybody who has signed for a team or been on their practice squad ends up in these categories, whether right or wrong and whether they've played or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Worse yet, I see players included in team cats who have done nothing more than have a brief tryout with a team during the preseason. I'd favor narrowing the rules for who gets put in these cats. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Gonzo, I agree and am totally on board with trying to further refine who gets added to these categories. In particular, I think that a draft pick category structure would be helpful for players who were drafted by a team, but never wound up actually playing in games for that team. FWIW, both the NBA and the NHL use category structures for draft picks (i.e. Category:Golden State Warriors draft picks, Category:Edmonton Oilers draft picks, etc.). Practice squad players present a trickier problem, particularly so with the modern rules that allow practice squad players to be temporarily elevated and actually play in games without being added to the 53-man roster. In general, though, I would generally support restricting player categories (i.e. Category:Green Bay Packers players) to players who actually appeared in games for the Green Bay Packers. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, there's the technicality of "just" being a practice squad player. But if they played in a game, it's not like stats sites flag it with an asterisk, and I don't foresee "but they were only a practice squad player" being mentioned in an obit when they say they "played" in the league. —Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
If this was a formal proposal, I would have to oppose it. People can look at Category:Lists of players by National Football League team if they want to see who actually "played". If this change was actually implemented, it would create tons of additional busywork with people adding cats whenever someone is signed and others having to remove them until they actually play. However, no one is actually going to go through and add the player cats systematically as the lists of NFL players by team are always outdated. If readers want to know the playing status of someone, they can look at the infobox or read the article. That's what the asterisk is for.
This change would also trickle over to CFL and other leagues but in this case, the cats would just never be added. Our NFL articles are poorly tended to as it is, other leagues wouldn't stand a chance.
MLB and NBA only include people who played but those leagues don't really have offseason or practice squad members. Their rosters are also far smaller, so there's less upkeep. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
But NFL proj seem to be only one that packs training camp invites into its ibx. Not even clear if mere OTAs are included. —Bagumba (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
IMO, it should be consistent with the team info in the infobox, but I've never been a fan of the practice squad and tryout minutiae we put there. Most of it tends to be unsourced, and not readily verifiable. And it overloads the infobox with non-key info, defeating its purpose. But infoboxes are too often just a dumping ground for trivia for prose-averse editors. —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Some people like backup QBs can be on the active roster all season but not play. D. J. Shockley was on the Falcons roster for four seasons but never played in a game. I used to use him as my backup QB on Madden. It would be near impossible for an MLB or NBA player to be on the roster all year and not play in a game. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
But that's not a justification for including training camp, and active players are in a different class than practice squad players. —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
If we include preseason games we'd have to consider veterans who only played preseason in their final year. E.g.Kellen Winslow featured in one 1988 preseason game and then retired, but sources always list his career as 1979-87. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Okays, so as it's been made clear by @WikiOriginal-9: (lol) that I'm hardly on this talk page, I may have missed this, but, was there anything agreed to about infoboxes of
Former team names: Separate "history" article or redirect to current team name?
I just noticed something that is strange to me. Why are former team names (Baltimore Colts, Oakland Raiders, Houston Oilers) completely separate articles? This doesn't make any sense. These should redirect to the current team name. There's no reason for these to be separate articles. It makes it seem like these franchises folded when all they did was move and/or change names.--Rockchalk71706:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
I've never been a big fan of this for the same reason. Every team has a history of article and I'm of the belief that the articles for old names should be merged to those articles then retargeted to the current team's names. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. Anyone reading the history of the Chargers starts on History of the Los Angeles Chargers, gets diverted to San Diego Chargers after only one season, then returns to the original article in 2017. The two articles duplicate a fair amount of material detailing the venue switches. Then the San Diego Chargers article has lists of seasons, hall of famers and retired numbers that exclude Los Angeles seasons, and a list of records that chops off Rivers' numbers after 2016.
There's a lot of other problems with the articles (a lack of citations and numerous errors). If I get around to reworking them, I'd like to make them one history article, split in the middle for length if necessary. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. I'll just bluntly propose it: I propose we redirect all these pages to the current team name and add information on these articles that aren't in the current team name articles.--Rockchalk71715:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Same thing in MLB where there's the standalone Philadelphia Athletics article & the re-direct Kansas City Athletics, which goes to History of the Oakland Athletics. A few years ago, there was a big RFC over how to handle re-located teams, in North America's major sports leagues. I can't remember where that discussion took place. Suffice it to say, there's inconsistencies in how these re-located franchises are handled. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Support proposal. I'm not sure whether it has to be proposed individually at the pages in question, though - it is quite a big move. Assuming that we're taking the Browns and Ravens as an exception, it looks like seven franchises would be affected.
But to be clear, I would also support this. I think it may be easier if someone (@Rockchalk717?) writes it up as a neutral proposal and starts it in the section under here. We can then add notices to the relevant pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
My only concern, and it is minor, is that someone typing out Chicago Cardinals, let's say in an infobox, is likely trying to point the reader to that specific team, not its related "History" article. As a counterproposal, what would be the thoughts on pointing the redirects to specific sections in the team article. As an example, Chicago Cardinals would redirect to Arizona Cardinals#Chicago Cardinals (1920–1959). That way the reader ends up in the article they were expecting (the team itself) while still providing the necessary insight on the difference in team name. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
That works for me and it makes sense generally. I think we should however consider how long a team has been named something different. For instance, I think St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers should redirect to the current team names but anybody searching Chicago Cardinals is not looking for a team that they've known during their lifetime (usually). But I understand that complicates the merge proposal, so I'm not super dead set on that. I just think we need a proper proposal to list at the articles if we're going to merge them. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose The Seattle Pilots were a baseball team playing in Seattle, sadly only for the 1969 MLB season. Information about that team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Seattle Pilots". It would be nonsensical to redirect Seattle Pilots to Milwaukee Brewers. People searching for that term obviously want to read about the history of the team in Seattle and likely don't even care about the team in Milwaukee. Links at the beginning or end of each article are enough to make the connection.
It really doesn't matter that they were "the same team"; the franchise's history in each city is the demarcation line for what people want to read about in the articles. This can surely be cited with reliable sources that they are treated as "different teams" by the media and fanbases despite being the "same franchise" and sharing history/records.
There might be counterexamples where a single article makes the most sense; those should be handled on a one-off basis. This has surely been discussed in this wikiproject before, or elsewhere in sports wikipedia, resulting in the current consensus. Strongly opposed to changing it. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@PK-WIKI: Based on the Seattle Pilots article you've shared that's a different situation than what's happened with these NFL teams. In all of the above examples the team moved elsewhere and changed their name, whereas the Seattle Pilots situation is a bit more unique given the bankruptcy stuff that forced the team to be sold just before the season started. Never the less, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to have a significant section in a History of the Milwaukee Brewers article (if it existed) instead of having this as a standalone article.
A key difference between your MLB scenario and the one on NFL teams is that each NFL team has a "History of the..." article that exists, meaning we have a meaningful target to merge to. Additionally, much of the content at the "History of the..." articles duplicates the content at the old team name because, after all, why wouldn't it? That's still part of the team's history so it's relevant to include. Even if you wanted to argue that the redirects left behind from a merge should target the history of articles instead of the current team's names, I'm not sure it's useful or helpful to have the history of the team unnecessarily split. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
That's going to be the prevailing sentiment shown in the coverage for many of the NFL teams in this merge request and for various other moved teams across sport leagues. Stand-alone notability and fandom (as established by citations in reliable third-party sources) is highly dependent on the geographical location of the team and the team name, and not necessarily at all by the continuous franchise ownership.
There is perhaps an argument to combining the Raiders and Chargers articles due to much smaller geographic moves within California, and in the Raiders case also a very strong prevailing "franchise" brand. That's why these should be handled on a one-off basis.
@PK-WIKI: No one is trying to say that the team wasn't notable when it was there, and no one is trying to say that the Oakland Raiders were not notable. This is not a discussion based on notability. This is a discussion based on how it makes sense to organize relevant information. Also, this is NOT the baseball WikiProject, we aren't proposing (or care) about the Seattle SuperSonics article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Oppose - there may be some exceptions (such as a team moving back and forth) but generally a team move provides a natural break, and people interested in Houston sports, for example, are not necessarily interested in the Tennessee Titans. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
How's this look for a formal proposal? If Rockchalk wants to change the name of this section I'll start a proposed merge discussion under it. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
If we do this the redirect target should be to the "History of..." article since that is where the information on the former team location will be. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Not that I have a strong feeling either way, but Rlendog see my comment above about expected target from a reader's perspective. That said, Harper J. Cole some of these articles don't have appropriate sections to be redirected to. Detroit Lions literally has a blank section for its "History" section with a just hatnote... soooo *shrug*. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 16:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm open to that, but I almost feel like we should default any team name change after 2000 to the team's article instead of the history article. This would include, and please note that brackets indicate the last season they were named this, the St. Louis Rams (2015), San Diego Chargers (2017), Washington Redskins (2019), Washington Football Team (2021), and Oakland Raiders (2021). The last rename before that was the Houston Oilers (1998). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I think we could use a little more of a discussion before putting this to a vote, so I thought I'd share this table I just worked on. Went through all NFL team articles to make sure I included all of the team's past names. My personal problem with this is that it implies the current franchises are not a continuation of the old, when they clearly all. Everything that a past iteration of a franchise has in their split off history is duplicated or should be at the primary history article anyways, so we're essentially having an unnecessary split / duplication of content. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is that each one of the now defunct names should redirect to the current iteration of the team. "Old team name" should direct to "New team name". Ideally, during the merge, the redirect should be directed to a subsection in the "History" section of each current team that covers the time period when the team was called the now defunct. That way the period gets pointed to the expected article (on the team itself) but has clarity on why the name is now defunct. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree with this from Gonzo fan2007.
Will there be one poll for all affected teams, or one for each team? Based on the two oppose votes above, people may vote yes for some moves and no for others. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@GoodDay: NFL team articles have become a bit bloated, so it's ended up that each of the 32 teams have their own "History of the..." articles, which I don't think happens with other major leagues. The existence of these "History of the..." articles is what I think complicates the decision about where to target these if we do decide to merge. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm of the mindset that the former name (San Diego Chargers --> Los Angeles Chargers section on the San Diego years). Then if you want to have an article for the history of the team in those years, have it linked in the subsection so you don't have to overfill the article. But to use the Seattle Pilots as an example, I don't think we need articles for defunct teams that lasted only a few seasons. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride17:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The Seattle Pilots article is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia for professional sports in Seattle, with hundreds of sources written about the team in Seattle and nothing whatsoever to do with the team that moved to Milwaukee. Articles like that absolutely must be kept separate. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@PK-WIKI: Please stop focusing on a specific MLB article. The focus of this discussion is on the NFL articles and whether content is best managed in one place or repeated in multiple articles instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd oppose any bulk move. I think it's possible to do this on a case by case basis, but doesn't need to be standardised per the Pilots. SportingFlyerT·C21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Formulas for adding total league titles in infobox
Hello,
There has been some discussion about how to add total pre-merger AFL-NFL titles in the infobox for NFL teams. @Kj1595: notes that it does not make sense to include pre-merger titles in the total titles, as the Las Vegas Raiders page does. However, most AFL teams such as the Buffalo Bills, San Diego Chargers, New York Jets, and Houston Oilers include these wins as part of their total league titles. Similar to how NFL teams include pre-merger titles. The Kansas City Chiefs page also included this information but user Kj1595 does not think it should be included and only NFL titles should be. KC's history certainly makes it more complicated with Super Bowls won and lost, and titles won pre-Super Bowl. Is there a consensus one way or another how these are added? It should be clear about how we add these up.
I don't see a problem with their inclusion. When the AFL–NFL merger happened the NFL absorbed all their records and statistics as well. The teams won a league which was fundamentally viewed as an equal to the NFL. They're called out differently as well, so I say include if it's before the 1966 season (start of the Super Bowl era). I don't see a good reason not to. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I am not against the idea as I think it's unfair for AFL teams to not get any recognition by the league. The problem is with the root article History of the National Football League championship which lists teams by NFL championship as recognized by the league. Unless that article is modified, the title configuration will look confusingly flawed. Kj1595 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
The solution would be to include the AFL titles in the existing article. It's the only feasible way for it to work. Kj1595 (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Go by how reliable sources treat these championships in tables or inboxes. If possible, go with the common treatment. Looking at Official Encyclopedia of Football (1989), it lists the Raiders' Super Bowl and AFL titles separately [28] and the Giant's SB and NFL (pre-1970) titles separately.[29]. The 2005 Pro Football Guide lists the NFL (pre-1970) titles with the NFC, separately from the Super Bowl results.[30] The 2023 Official NFL Reord & Fact Book lists the NFL titles (pre-1970) with the NFC titles,[31] separate from the Super Bowl listings. —Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
An even better idea is to remove "League championships" altogether and list NFC team championships as simply "NFL championships (prior to the merger)". Same logic being used to list the AFL titles should apply to NFC teams prior to the merger. But, again, the "League championships" line needs to be removed from the infobox. Kj1595 (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
I dont see the header "League championships" itself as the problem. It seems that choosing to total pre-70 NFL titles with SB titles is possbily WP:UNDUE. If we're going to sum them up, I don't see a reason to not add AFL also. Otherwise, don't sum them together, unless we see sources regularly doing that too. —Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Not summing them together becomes an issue if we leave the League championships line intact. What constitutes a League championship in this case? Just a SB title? So, adding AFL titles to League championships becomes the only viable option. But the root article which lists all the league champions needs to be rewritten, to include AFL champions as well. The league doesn't recognize AFL titles so we are in a dilemma. Which is why rewritting the article is the only path forward. I am of the opinion that AFL titles should count just as the AFL division titles count. Kj1595 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Does "Total" include conference and division titles? For "League": it should be actual leagues like NFL (pre-1970 included) and AFL, or just SBs. There's no basis for excluding AFL if pre-SB NFL is in there. —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
By Total I meant only league championships. But that might not work, as confusion arises from division titles. Again, I personally think AFL titles should be included in the League championships total. But this should be done conjointly, by modifying the root article that lists all NFL championship teams. Kj1595 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
My thoughts haven't changed. It should include pre-Super Bowl AFL and NFL championships (1965 and earlier) and Super Bowl championships, while excluding AFL/NFL Championship won in 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. For the Chiefs, for example, this would be listing 5: 1962 AFL Championship, Super Bowl IV, Super Bowl LIV, Super Bowl LVII, and Super Bowl LVIII and specifically omitting the 1966 and 1969 AFL Championships.--Rockchalk71716:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Even though the Chiefs' AFL titles of 1966 and 1969 coincide with their SB era participation, they were still Championships won by the team in a tournament where they competed in. And thus, should be included. That's where the confusion comes into view. Those championships should not be excluded. Kj1595 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
They are equivalent to conference championships. The NFL did do tournament style playoffs to determine the champion beginning in 1967, but the AFL did not do a true playoff format until 1969. 1968 only had an additional postseason game because the Chiefs and Raiders tied and that's how they settled a tie.--Rockchalk71716:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
That is semantics, though. What really truly matters is if those Championships are recognized as such. Not how they were attained. All AFL titles are recognized the same, despite the formula being different from year to year. Kj1595 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't find anything on NFL.com about it. However, Pro Football reference counts AFL Championships from 1966-1969 as conference championships see here. Same thing with NFL Championships see here. In both cases, however, they just say Super Bowl and pre-1966 championships.--Rockchalk71721:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The Pro Football Hall of Fame, the official source of the NFL, lists all AFL Championship games here. Statmuse lists all AFL champions in its website. Even the AFL article here on wiki lists league champions accordingly. Kj1595 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
There is no other rationale way to put this other than to include all AFL titles for each respective team in the League titles line. It makes little to no sense for the Buffalo Bills to have 2 League championships whereas the Chiefs only have 1 added when they have clearly won 3. It's basic math that needs not to be complicated. Kj1595 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Can we just eliminate that parameter altogether so we can quit having this debate every couple of years? I'm not really sure it needs to even exist. Just have separate parameters for Super Bowl wins, conference championships, AFL Championships, and NFL Championships. What does everyone think?--Rockchalk71708:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
That's what I proposed but @Bagumba: didn't think removing the League championships line was a problem. It clearly seems to be a problem. SBs and NFL championships for the NFC teams and SBs and AFL championships for the AFC ones. No need to total them up, given the complexity of the merger. Kj1595 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
It most certainly is a problem. This entire discussion happened because it is a problem. There is seriously no reason it needs to exist. It should be "Super Bowl Championships" "Pre-Merger League Championships" or in place of AFL or NFL championships (maybe a separate for parameter for each$ and "Conference championships".--Rockchalk71705:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
The Chiefs League championship total is reverted back to 5 and this excludes the 2 AFL titles the team has own. Either all AFL titles are included for each team or the parameter be removed altogether. Chiefs have clearly won a total of 7 Championships -> 3 AFL + 4 SBs. Kj1595 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't make sense @Kj1595, it's not all or nothing. The top tier game that determined the champion in the AFL, from 1960–1960, played in the AFL Championship Game whereas from 1967 onwards they played in the Super Bowl. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
AFL titles are all recognized the same. Are they not? So, how do we cherrypick and reason which team has earned a title and which has not, based on semantics that have no bearing on the total number of the official titles? If you exclude those AFL championship teams that participated in the SB, you are in essence erasing 1/3 of AFL history. Yes, those teams did participate in the SB. But at the same time they competed in their own seperate league. How do you erase that? If the argument to be made is that not only SBs count as League championships, then it shouldn't matter if the teams that competed in the SB simultaneously competed in another league. Kj1595 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
That's what I proposed but @Bagumba: didn't think removing the League championships line was a problem: I wasn't demanding that "League championships" must stay. I was saying that the problem was inconsistently excluding AFL titles when the NFL counterparts were already there, and then summing the SB and non-SB league titles was WP:UNDUE, when no reliable sources were summing the different titles. —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Link to college football team article instead of college article
Is anyone aware of a discussion about linking a college's football team article instead of the college itself in a table on football players? As an example, in Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969), Russ Letlow's college is linked as San Francisco ([[San Francisco Dons football|San Francisco]]) and not San Francisco ([[University of San Francisco|San Francisco]]). I have always felt like this borders on an WP:EASTEREGG link. From a draft perspective, a player is drafted from the college/university, not from their football team. Any insight or reasoning on why we have it the way we do today? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
There's definitely been discussions about it in the past. If I remember correctly, I think @Bagumba and @Bluerules are users who would know more about this, but I may be misremembering, so sorry if I pinged the wrong folks! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
Personally, for me it makes sense to link the football program. I personally rarely click the page link to go read about the school, but instead the team. Heck, I personally would link to the final season they played college football (if the article exists). But, as it stands, I think the linking to program should be the way to go. (talk page stalker)CrashUnderride21:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
We've had discussions about which should be linked in the lead of a player's article, but I'm not aware of any previous discussions about which should be linked in a table. I feel either can work, but the football program is probably more appropriate because these articles are about football. Bluerules (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)
From a draft perspective, a player is drafted from the college/university...: Regarding the concept of being "drafted from", it's not like either the university or football program is actively involved in the draft process. Their permission is not needed. As far as promotion, it's typically the athletic program with press releases and what not about draftees, not the academic administration. It's not like a diploma or their major has much correlation with an athlete's pro career. A reader would be most interested in a player's college football program's stature or past stars as a possible indicator of their training, readiness and pro prospects. —Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Football program strikes me as the more relevant link in a table like this. As for the more general (philosophical?) question of from where (school or program) a player is drafted, Bagumba summed it up well. Consider also that we have lists like List of Michigan Wolverines in the NFL draft not "List of University of Michigan alumni in the NFL draft". Wait, shouldn't the D in draft be capitalized? JK :) The only caveat here would be for an NFL player who attended college, but did not play college football, yet was still drafted, if there are any such cases. Renaldo Nehemiah ran track at Maryland and did not play football there. He played with the 49ers for three seasons, but was not drafted. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I gathered that, but I don't see how in the world the Boston Patriots have Denver Broncos colors. I cannot edit the page. I wonder what (if any) reliable source has that info?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@UCO2009bluejay: The reason why I used those HTML color codes is because of this YouTube video titled "Evolution of EVERY Team's Logo and Helmet | NFL Explained!" (found here). I know it looks like it's orange, but it's not. It's red. However, I'll change it. What would you like me to change it to? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
It isn't about what I would like. What should be shown is what is factual. The Patriots never wore orange. Whatever shade of red and blue they wore in those years should be used.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Is there a desire to maintain the "separate table for each draft" layout? In my mind, it would be better to have one large sortable table, similar to Portland Trail Blazers draft history. That way the sort function can be better utilized, and we can limit the size of the pages by not having to repeat linking of positions/colleges. We could even use {{Anchor}} to still be able to have a TOC to go to a specific year.
I've had that problem too with regards to the 1967 vs 1970 start point. I'm leaning towards a combined table personally. I think it gives more utility to be able to sort by round, pick, position, etc. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh, I took a look at how many people were drafted by the Packers and maybe understand why the tables are split out by draft:
1930s: 50 players drafted
1940s: 262
1950s: 311
1960s: 215
1970s: 148
1980s: 122
1990s: 104
2000s: 91
2010s: 90
2020s: 42
Seeing this, what are your thoughts? Based on the current break-up (1969/1970), the first article would have a table of 838 players, and the second article would have a table of 597 players. Are those both too massive to actually benefit from sortability, or do you think it still is worth it? « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, there were a ton of notifications over the weekend for me and I seem to have missed a couple times. I'm just wrapping up for the day but I'll get back to this. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Please see these discussions for an update and needed clarifications on the decision to uphold the close of the RfC, although I still don't know if the close ordained page moves or not. The closers of the discussions seem to think so. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, Wordsmith did say that their expectation for the close was to result in relevant page moves. There's really no way we can determine that "Draft" should be downcased and then not apply it to titles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm having a bit of a disagreement with @Ringerfan23 on whether the Atlanta Falcons retire numbers or not. I'd appreciate some input on the subject from uninvolved editors.
Sources from Hey man im josh (to oppose the notion that the Falcons retire number)
Atlanta Falcons: Ring of Honor ("The Atlanta Falcons organization doesn't officially retire jersey numbers, but considers certain player's jerseys worthy of being honored. The Falcons Ring of Honor honors individual players and not jerseys.")
Recently there was a discussion about the status of Brady's jersey and whether it was retired or not. That discussion can be found here and the consensus was that the Pro Football Hall of Fame was incorrect in listing Brady's number as retired, meaning they may have issues with other numbers listed as retired.
I believe, similar to the Brady situation, some sources misinterpret the ceremony and the act of honoring player jerseys (which the Falcons do) as retiring a player's number. A factor that some might use to support the notion of the numbers being retired is that these numbers have not been re-issued. A number of teams (such as the Steelers) do not re-issue specific jersey numbers but have not retired them and these should not be treated as the same thing. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
I would not consider SI's Fan Nation to be a reliable source. Pretty amateurish work. (The same might be said of SI of late also).—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
Comment The Atlanta Falcons website source is pretty clear than the organization does not retire numbers. The Falcons, like many other organizations, have moved to this model where numbers are "honored" but not fully 100% "retired". Perhaps they are honored and some are never reissued, but not officially retired.
The highest honors an organization grants to players should be recognized. If teams have stopped retiring numbers, and secondary sources are treating "honoring" and "retiring" numbers in the same manor and/or confusing them, we should update our articles.
@PK-WIKI: Can you provide a source of some kind that states that other teams, aside from the Falcons, honor jerseys now and don't retire them? If teams have stopped retiring numbers, and secondary sources are treating "honoring" and "retiring" numbers in the same manor and/or confusing them, we should update our articles. – I do not support updating Wikipedia to reflect the mistakes that are being made by sources when those who determine whether a jersey is retired (Atlanta Falcons) state that it's not. I'd be against a move to include honored jerseys, as the scope of the article is clear at its current location. It does not and should not take into account "unofficial" retired numbers that are no longer issued, such as those by the Pittsburgh Steelers, as this can change at any point.
The main examples I'm aware of are in college football. Have not fully researched the NFL. But across football it does seem like expanded rosters are causing teams to bump up against the 100 available 2-digit jersey numbers. Teams are responding to this jersey barrier by un-retiring numbers, switching to mainly using a Ring of Honor rather than retiring numbers, and/or increasing the jersey retirement requirements to make new ones in the future more rare.
That change from "retired" to "honored" got the Huskies numbers taken off the list at List of NCAA football retired numbers, which seems wrong to me, but I haven't had the time to propose re-adding (with a note to indicate the distinction). The Colorado numbers are still included in the "retired" list.
Albert Breer of the NFL Network is quoted as saying "Plenty of teams don't retire numbers and some have even un-retired numbers. Just not practical in football. Sometimes, numbers even get passed down like #88 with the Dallas Cowboys -- Drew Pearson, Michael Irvin, and now Dez Bryant. Perhaps a Ring of Honor or Hall of Fame is the solution."
There may have also been NFL-wide guidance against retiring numbers: "the league adopted a rule prohibiting teams from retiring numbers, the ostensible reason for which was that teams could ‘run out of numbers.’ That rule was in place through the time I left the league (in 2013). I do not know whether it still is and whether exceptions are granted or whether teams simply ignore the rule."
The broad groupings here seem to be Retired Numbers (Tier 1), in-stadium Ring of Honor (Tier 2), and Hall of Fame (Tier 3). Not all teams have all three tiers. It would be nice if there was some kind of list on Wikipedia that displayed all tiers of honor for each team.
The league definitely allows number retirements, as some have happened since 2013. I don't think this is a problem that the NFL is facing as they don't have the roster sizes that college teams too. As for off-season, it happens all the time where players wear the same number until rosters are cut down. Do you have any examples of NFL numbers being unretired except to allow an exception player the chance to wear their number? A couple examples are JJ Watt and Peyton Manning who used retired numbers, but those numbers were put back into retirements afterwards. In regards to the Cowboys, they just straight up don't retire numbers.
As for the tiers, they don't exist and I don't think it's fair for us to try to assign values to how teams choose to honor their players. Just because some teams choose not to have a ring of honor doesn't mean their hall of whatever is a tier lower in terms of value. I don't think the Packers or Steelers, who both don't have rings of honor, should have their halls viewed as less prestigious. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes but by the same token the Falcons, who don't retire numbers, shouldn't have their Ring of Honor viewed as less prestigious than other teams' Retired Numbers. That was kind of my point to begin with, that List of National Football League retired numbers is a de facto "top tier honor" list that doesn't include the Falcons' top honors.
"Retired Numbers" are a specific thing and natural grouping so that list's inclusion criteria makes sense, but the article is a less informative view of the honor system(s) in Football than the equivalent List of Major League Baseball retired numbers where all teams retire numbers in a very similar manner.
Per source above, NFL teams are definitely recognizing the roster problem of retiring too many numbers. Would expect the pace to slow down and for the Ring of Honor system to spread.
It's not a tier or prestige system of any kind, it's just a collection of related and relevant information that is clear and relevant. To expand it to jerseys that are simply "honored" is changing the scope entirely and honestly shouldn't be the focus of this discussion.
As for why the 49ers aren't retiring Owens' number, it's because they have 12 numbers retired already. They also took 9 years to retire Steve Young's number after he retired, so for all we know it could still be coming. It's just a matter of number management for teams. Based on List of National Football League retired numbers, 9 numbers have been retired since 2020 and 22 have been since 2013. If the teams wanted to they could start re-issuing numbers. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
There hasn't been a compelling reason why we should ignore the Falcons if they say that they don't retire numbers. They are the ones doing the retiring, which appears to makes them the most reliable authority on the topic, short of them having made contradicting statements on the record. The quality of journalism has declined over the years, and reporters now often carelessly use the term retired when a player is merely honored in some way. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this. I really do think there was a bunch of people who misinterpreted the honoring of the players/jerseys and then others said the same thing based on those sources, just like the Brady number situation. I'll probably remove the mention of numbers being retired from former Falcons players info boxes. The navbox for Falcons retired numbers is at TfD and on pace for deletion as well. Just bothers me that the PFHOF is mistakenly reporting numbers as retired when they're not in multiple instances now... Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll concede to your position in the presence of the additional sources mentioning they do not retire numbers. Although to me it seems a matter of semantics "we don't retire numbers, we 'honor jerseys' and then nobody uses that number again" certainly seems the same as "we retire numbers", but we'll stick with what the sources say. RF23 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
...we 'honor jerseys' and then nobody uses that number again: No, players have worn #21 even after it was honored for Deion in 2010.[32]. —Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Was the number officially retired with an announcement and/or a jersey in the rafters? Or just never reissued? PK-WIKI (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
The Chargers equipment manager once said he tried to avoid using certain numbers, even though they weren't retired. ("In the absence of specific orders from his superiors, equipment manager Bob Wick has taken the initiative, 'to keep that number safe for now.'"[33]) For example, they did not re-issue Charlie Joiner's #18 after he stopped playing in 1986,[34] but it wasn't retired until 2023.[35] —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Do we know if Mike Martz has any notable offspring? The life chronology of Jennifer Martz would match up with his as an offspring. She was born when he was 26. She was an All-metro performer as a junior when he was a coach in St. Louis for a year. Then she went to his alma mater for college. Also, at 6'1", she is the size of a football player offspring. Just guessing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
