Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Deaths section of season articles

For starters, the "others" death section of the 2021 season article seems excessively long. I feel like we need to make some sort of requirement like ___ number of seasons played, ____ number of Pro Bowls, that kind of thing. Additionally, it's confusing to me how the article is the entire season, but yet the deaths section is by calendar year. That doesn't make any sense to me. I feel like the deaths section should be people (taking the 2021 season as an example) who died between February 8, 2021 (the day after Super Bowl LV) to February 13, 2022, the day of Super Bowl LVI.--Rockchalk717 05:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The whole section seems trivial, with the deaths generally having no impact on the season unless they were still playing (moments of silence and uniform patches aside).—Bagumba (talk) 05:50, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Trivial seems a little harsh, but there might be a scoping issue here indeed. This article isn't 2021 in American football -- though evidently that page does exist, and might be significantly expanded, possibly to include things like this -- it's the NFL season per se. I don't think it'd be be workable to threshold by "importance" of the person, except as measured by the usual relevant-notability criteria. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:16, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

For the "deaths" section, I was adding anyone who either (a) played in the NFL, (b) were drafted into the NFL, did not appear in a game, but became notable in another way, or (c) had a close relation to the NFL, or an NFL team and is notable (e.g. the official Ben Dreith). BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:02, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What about: moving this entire section to 2021 in American football#Deaths (and augmenting it with any other notables from college football, other pro leagues, etc), and having a short section in the NFL article, mentioning only those whose deaths specifically received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources in connection with the NFL, with a {{main}} section hatnote linking that to the other? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 15:27, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I like that idea. Useight (talk) 15:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Second anything to move deaths from these league season pages. It happened during the season, but does not materially impact the season (WP:UNDUE).—Bagumba (talk) 09:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

A second second-thought on this: there's no CFL by year articles (at least that I can find), and movement of players between the two main leagues is not uncommon. (And the two college systems too? Iunno.) Would it be helpful to rescope this to 2021 in American and Canadian football or 2021 in gridiron football, say? It'd help flesh out what's currently a very skeletal index page, but that could be useful and rather more substantial. Compare with 2021 in association football, for example. (A very dissimilar case of course, as that's a worldwide game with no single league or competition that's the single 1,200 pound gorilla.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:37, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I actually like the idea suggested by the IP. I feel like we should leave out the "others" section and maybe just list Hall of Famers who died during the actual season (after the previous Super Bowl to the day of the that season's Super Bowl) because the Hall of Famers are typically going to be the ones with tributes, with some exceptions like the Chiefs didn't do a tribute for Curly Culp their Hall of Famer who died in November. That keeps the list small, because maybe at worst 6/7 Hall of Famers die in a given year, versus the probably 100ish of the 20,000 players to ever play the game and the thousands and thousands of coaches.--Rockchalk717 17:48, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

What I'd personally be inclined to do is to copy the existing format from the NFL season page as-is -- HoFers bullet-pointed and summarised separately, and all others listed in columns -- and have a much shorter all-prose section in the NFL season. Which will likely skew towards those for sourcing reasons, but without any predetermined format that might be seen as arbitrary for inclusion or exclusion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:00, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Infobox - USA Today High School All-American

Hello everyone! I've noticed on several NFL players pages, specifically under infobox achievements, "USA Today High School All-American." There is no guidance on the guidelines that explicitly say this should or shouldn't be included, so I wanted to start a discussion here. It seems like generally, high school achievements shouldn't be included, but thought it would be worth bringing up for consensus. Thanks everyone! Spf121188 (talk) 13:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I guess the threshold for inclusion would be, as per usual, did it get WP:SIGCOV in high-quality reliable sources? If the verification of this is just their own or their school's website, or a line in their local paper, then presumably not. If this was Big News (or featured prominently in some other suitable source), then sure. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree with you on this. My only argument against WP:SIGCOV being the threshold for inclusion, is that a Heisman runner-up, or conference specific award will receive significant coverage, but still aren't to be included in players' infoboxes per the guidance. I started this discussion to try and gain a consensus before going through to remove. You do make a good point though, I'll wait to see if other users will chime in. Thanks for responding! -ps, you should make an account. You've contributed greatly to the project. Spf121188 (talk) 15:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Right, I see your point more clearly now. Observation stands for inclusion at all, but as for the infobox, it should follow a standard format whenever it sensibly can, and should avoid creature feep that'd make it cluttered -- I think a number of articles are teetering over that line already, and not on this wikiproject alone. Unless there were some highly unusual case where someone is massively notable for this award -- somehow! -- and of little significance otherwise, sounds like a "generally not". And many thanks for the kind words! I've been deliberately refraining from getting an account (again) by way of a self-denying ordinance, but I'm not sure if that's proving a successful strategy... 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Hey man im josh, BeanieFan11, and Frank Anchor for their thoughts on this. Spf121188 (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

High school state championships are already supposed to be left off based on the players page format and I'd prefer that the rest of the high school achievements be left out completely as well (once they enter the NFL). Just about every player who makes it the NFL has a bunch of awards that could fill up their info box because they were in classic big fish small pond situations and just absolutely dominated in high school, which is how you get noticed and get scholarships or recruited. Some relatively unsuccessful players could fill their info box the same way, but that really doesn't tell us anything. I just don't see the value in having them there to clog up what's essentially a short highlight summary. Especially because there's so many different ones out there that people can win. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with User:Hey man im josh. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

In principle, I agree with Hey man im josh and BeanieFan11. Cluttering infobox achievements with a HS All-America team that is only published by USA Today, when we already aren't supposed to have HS championships seems to just add fluff. It can be included in Early life sections in the players article perhaps, which should be sufficient. Spf121188 (talk) 15:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

That's what I usually do, include HS-related items in the "Early life"/"Early life and education" section. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:59, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

If USA Today are the award-granters, then coverage there is necessarily not entirely "independent". Sorta like a primary-and-half-source, I suppose. Additional sources would really be needed to establish this as particularly notable. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:03, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This makes perfect sense. All things considered, it seems like this shouldn't be included in the infobox, but can be included in a subsection of the article. Spf121188 (talk) 18:19, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Parade AA honors were mentioned in mainstream, print newspapers before. Not sure about recently.—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Where did we land on this? It's been 2 weeks and nobody has opposed the removal of high school awards, in large part due to the clutter they create and the lack of notability. Are we okay to update the player page format to say that high school awards and championships should be excluded? Hey man im josh (talk) 14:27, 28 January 2022‎ (UTC)

My vote would be yes, remove it from the player page format. Seems like that's the general consensus. Spf121188 (talk) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I think so, yes. Use common sense if there's some weird edge-case where they're for some reason highly notable for that, relative to the rest of their career. Which would necessarily mean coverage of it in multiple sources, beyond USA Today just self-reporting it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Alright then. As there's been no opposition to the change and plenty of time to respond to it, I'll go ahead and update the the guideline for player pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel like we've been pushing this too far. Uncluttering the award section of Aaron Donald's infobox is one thing, but removing these high school awards for players whose only awards came from HS is absurd. --bender235 (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Well, I mentioned this in the other talk page, Bender235, this kind of guidance must remain consistent across the board, because it eliminates gray areas, which only causes problems and disputes. That's why I started this discussion and we came to a consensus. Spf121188 (talk) 21:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Bender235, I'll add that I understand your thought process around this. I don't want to sound like I'm being patronizing or anything like that, I'm just under the thought process that something like this needs to remain consistent, so we don't open up the opportunity for arguments and side discussions when we already have a consensus. Spf121188 (talk) 21:16, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

The problem becomes subjectivity. As in, who's infobox should the honors stay in and how do you decide that? Hey man im josh (talk) 22:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh and Spf121188: You're fixating on the letter of this guideline while losing sight of the intention. What we're aiming for is shorter infoboxes, by selecting the few outstanding awards and honors for superstar players. But for otherwise mediocre players, HS awards are worth mentioning. We can easily be consistent by saying "College and/or Pro honors receive precedence over HS honors, but if a player has no or very few collegiate honors, HS can be included". I mean, take for instance Lamont Green and Bryce Brown: those players were national celebrities as high school players, but also-ran in the NFL. If the purpose of any player's infobox is to summarize their career, and the high school awards should definitely be mentioned. Are those same awards career defining for Adrian Peterson and Jaylon Smith? Probably not. But for Green and Brown they are. --bender235 (talk) 03:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for just jumping in here, but I fully disagree with this line of thinking. We should be consistent across all infoboxes for NFL players, whether you are Aaron Donald or Lamont Green. Natg 19 (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, you can easily be consistent with a guideline such as "include no more than five of the most relevant/important awards in a player's career in the infobox". For Aaron Donald, those are All-Pro selections and Super Bowl MVPs. For Lamont Green, it's All-USA in high school. --bender235 (talk) 05:04, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with arbitrarily choosing a number of significant awards or putting some HS ones just to show them. If a player has no significant college or NFL awards / achievements, so be it. Natg 19 (talk) 05:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

It shouldn't be arbitrarily, and it shouldn't be "just to show them". It should be: a) according to independent notability, and b) due weight in the context of the person's other notability. Policies and guidelines are supposed to be our "editor-in-chief" -- trouble that people have to choose to follow that direction. If someone is wildly notable for a HS award for some idiosyncratic reason, then absolutely definitely include it. It shouldn't be excluded out of "foolish consistency" with it being -- correctly -- excluded from articles on subjects much more notable for other things, where this is some minimally sourced piece of minor trivia in the context of their overall bio. There's of course a degree of judgement required in such decisions, but a cookie-cutter project-sourced "rule" for this (include them all, exclude them all) would be a poor alternative. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 08:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

This is just for the infobox though. If they truly were an amazing enough high school athlete that it's worth discussing, well, that should be in the article itself anyways. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Sure, I get that, but imagine what that makes that article look like. We now have a long, sparklingly written article -- let's imagine! -- with a postage-stamp infobox. As opposed to our many stubs-on-steroids where you can scroll for yards of infoboxage, often to little purpose. Not ideal. So yes, in this (as far as I know wildly hypothetical and maybe even highly unlikely) case, it should go in the infobox. If you really want a hard-and-fast 'objective' criteria for infobox inclusion, personally I'd construct one in size terms. Too many "top facts" in one, and "top" becomes meaningless. Too few and they're pointless. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 14:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Natg 19: absolutely nothing is arbitrary here. The guidelines of this Wikiproject aren't laws, they are guidelines. Their purpose is to keep infoboxes concise, not to clean them out entirely. The first and foremost reason why we have those infoboxes is to give a short summary of a player's career and importance. For some players, this is mainly their prep career. Plain and simple. --bender235 (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't feel strongly whether it stays or goes, but I agree it's best to be consistent. Ideally we could be subjective and an editor-in-chief could provide oversight. However, Wikipedia is crowd sourced. It's my experience, and even moreso with NFL pages, that driveby editors will always be making edits to be "consistent", and it'll be a churn with regulars in the "know" reverting.—Bagumba (talk) 03:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that they should be included. If it is important to the player's career, then it can be included in the prose of the text. I would consider inclusion if there was some sort of official consensus team, but there are so many hs All-America teams and All-America bowl games. I also agree that whatever the outcome, this needs to be applied consistently per Bagumba. GPL93 (talk) 13:00, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hence the need for multiple pieces of significant and independent coverage of such inclusions. If it's just at the level of each website or tabloid sports pages saying "there are many HS All-American lists, and here's ours!", then that fails to meet a sensible notability threshold. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 13:23, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

How other pro-sports WikiProjects are handling this

• For NBA players, high school recognitions are listed, see Kobe Bryant, Greg Oden, O. J. Mayo, Zion Williamson, ...
• For MLB players, high school recognitions are listed, see Bryce Harper, Stephen Strasburg, ...
• NHL players ... don't list any awards in infoboxes, so doesn't apply

But in any case: why are we doing it different than these other projects again? --bender235 (talk) 19:58, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Bender235, Those other projects have nothing to do with this one. We've already come to a consensus on this, so I'm not sure why you're so passionate about this particular topic. If you want the High School AA team in a players article, put it in their article body, just not the infobox. Spf121188 (talk) 20:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: I don't see any consensus at all. NFL player biographies aren't isolated from the rest of Wikipedia. You're the only one pushing this issue, even to the point of applying NFL-player guidelines to non-NFL players. I mean, why not cite the above "discussion" and deleted Parade All-American and other HS awards from Kobe Bryant's and LeBron James' article? Clearly consistency trumps common sense at this point. To the very least, I'd ask you for a convincing explanation why WP:NFL should handle this issue different than these other projects. --bender235 (talk) 20:07, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We don't need to offer any "convincing explanation" as to why WP:NFL does something different than other projects... Spf121188 (talk) 20:32, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey man im josh, Any thoughts on this? Apparently I'm the only one who "pushes" this issue. Spf121188 (talk) 20:10, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

JFYI: two or three people don't suffice for "consensus". Not in a project with 160+ active members. --bender235 (talk) 20:12, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So should we create an RfC or something to get a more consensus? Of the 160+ members, it is not always clear who is active on the project or who is following this talk page. Natg 19 (talk) 20:20, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I would say so. Again, if the goal of this whole exercise here is to prevent entry #25 and #26 for the "Career highlights and awards" box on Peyton Manning or Emmitt Smith, I'm all for it; high school awards should be among the first entries to get the boot. But if a player's infobox is otherwise empty, I still fail to see the harm being done by keeping the All-USA honor. For quite a few players, these awards are essentially career defining (see Dan Kendra, Lamont Green, Bryce Brown, Tate Martell). --bender235 (talk) 20:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Standardization. JFYI: Five standout cases aren't really a good enough reason to create exceptions to a standard which applies to thousands of players. And, as someone else pointed out, there is NOT consensus across sports either and the MLB example is flawed. It can't be that relevant if you're the first person to bring it up in the last two weeks. You likely only noticed because I nominated an article for deletion. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Before your input, there were zero objections with plenty of time for responses, so we came to the agreement we did. Again, this is only pertaining to inclusion in players' infoboxes. It can still be included in the article body. Spf121188 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You can't get consistency within WP:BASEBALL itself & within WP:NFL itself. Doubt you'll get consistency across different Sports WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 20:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the need to include HS All-Americans for college players, either. Also, MLB does not recognize high school-specific honors and barely include college honors. Technically the Golden Spikes Award can be given to any amateur baseball player, which includes high school players, but no player has done so (Harper was playing junior college baseball at the College of Southern Nevada and Strasburg was at San Diego State). GPL93 (talk) 20:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: answer me this: what, in your mind, is the purpose of having infoboxes in the first place? Is it to give a brief overview of a player's football career? To summarize briefly a player's main accomplishments? --bender235 (talk) 20:42, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The purpose is to create a standard template that can be applied across thousand of players fairly and equally while also providing relevant information for the infobox subject. In this case, the subject is the NFL. High school awards are not relevant to that. College awards arguably are because college accolades are often relevant to where a player gets drafted and the expectations of said player. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:44, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What Hey man im josh said. Spf121188 (talk) 20:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We're not synthesizing a scouting report. We include college awards not because of their impact on NFL draft stock, but because they are an achievement in their own right. Same is true for HS awards. The latter are less impressive, of course, but as I've mentioned for quite a few players blue chip status in high school is essentially what defined their career. --bender235 (talk) 20:54, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

So thus far, you're the only one who has objected to this not being included in players infoboxes. As I mentioned before, it can still be featured in the article body. But this kind of guideline has to be kept consistent, otherwise there will be gray area, which opens the door for arguments and edit warring. If you feel this strongly about it, open up an RfC. Spf121188 (talk) 21:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

You keep mentioning these specific players who only have blue chip status in high school but didn't pan out in the NFL or college. I don't believe an infobox needs to showcase minor awards just because a player has no other awards. Either we always use minor awards, or we don't use them at all. Natg 19 (talk) 21:18, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Natg 19: well, no. Just because we list All-USA honors for Jimmy Clausen doesn't mean we have to list them for Peyton Manning. We don't have to be brainless robots about this. Some players accumulate hundreds of awards and honors over their career, others only a few. Of the former, we trim to include only the most important awards (your Heismans, MVPs, Super Bowls and so on), for the latter we can include the few (or the single one) they have. I don't understand this pseudo-mechanistic approach that is being pursued here, as if we have to necessarily define some machine-readable algorithm that either includes all high school awards for everyone, or none of them for no one. --bender235 (talk) 21:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

• I am sympathetic to bender's POV. There should be flexibility in determining what is a career highlight depending on the nature of the person's career accomplishments. HS AA is clearly not an infobox-worthy highlight for Tom Brady, but it sure is for Quinn Nordin. It was struck today from Nordin's article, and now Quinn is left with no highlights. Cbl62 (talk) 21:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, Nordin is barely even an NFL player. His primary notability was as Michigan's kicker from 2016-2020. Do his highlights suddenly not become highlights just because he played a game in the NFL? Cbl62 (talk) 21:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not unsympathetic to that PoV, I can understand it. I've always understood that these types of guidelines must be enforced in a consistent manner, so as to not add these highlights to one persons infobox just for the sake of giving them something to fill their infobox with. It just seems a little disingenuous to me. Spf121188 (talk) 21:38, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: "I've always understood that these types of guidelines must be enforced in a consistent manner" See, there's your mistake. At best, we're coming up with guidelines and rules-of-thumb here. WP:POLICY is made elsewhere. --bender235 (talk) 21:41, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cbl62: my point exactly. According to the policy advocated here, we essentially have to clean out the infobox for Ken Hall entirely, even though his high school career is defining for him as a subject in the most literal sense. That just doesn't seem right. --bender235 (talk) 21:50, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, Ken Hall would seem to be a notable exception to our guidelines. They created a high school award for him and he was honored by multiple HS HOFs. Though I would still clear out a lot of the things in that infobox, such as HS championships, and some of those records. Natg 19 (talk) 21:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The high school rushing record is actually Hall's most notable achievement. But we don't have to get hung up on his case. Lamont Green, as I've mentioned before, isn't notable because of the single NFL game he played for the Falcons in 1999, but for the fact that he was named high school DPOY by USA Today in 1993. Seantrel Henderson's most notable achievement is being named All-USA twice, and OPOY as a non-QB. I could go on. As Cbl62 said, those accomplishments aren't noteworthy for the Tom Bradys and Aaron Donalds of the world, but for many NFL journeymen they are. --bender235 (talk) 22:06, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the solution?

We're going in circles here and, honestly, I don't see anybody take a hard stance on the issue aside from Bender235. I wanted to sum things up because there's a lot of back and forth and (in my opinion) a lot of the same argument being said over and over again.

So, in summation, keeping in mind this is strictly about the NFL infobox;

• Many people have thought that high school awards are not notable enough for inclusion, and a relative consensus was reached
• 2 weeks after the player page format was updated Bender235 wants to dispute the importance of high school awards
• Bender235 believes that if infoboxes are empty or have only a few awards you should be able to include high school accomplishments
• Others believe it's acceptable for the career highlights to be empty
• There is a disagreement about consistency and how important consistency is
• Some believe this leaves too much of a grey area subjectivity wise and will lead to further disputes down the line

Points that been brought up;

• Items in the infobox are already meant to be included in the article
• Subjectivity and consistency are important to most
• Driveby editors will always be making edits to be "consistent", and it'll be a churn with regulars in the "know" reverting
• There is no single authority on high school awards, so there are many out there with varying levels of value to different people
• MLB and NHL do not include high school awards in the infobox
• NBA does include high school awards in the infobox

Questions;

• How would one choose the arbitrary cutoff for who to list high school awards for?
• How many non high school awards does a player need before their high school awards are removed?
• What type of awards would then cause high school awards to be removed (ie. academic teams in college, All-Pro)?
• Do you assign some sort of weighted value in determine if 1 All-Pro and 1 All-Pac 12 is enough to remove a high school honors section?

@Bender235:, I want to know what your proposed solution is and how you write it out in a way that can be consistently and subjectively applied to thousands of NFL players. We can argue til we're blue in the face but if there's no properly outlined solution proposed to address the issue then we make no progress. It is my opinion that we should focus on the fact that the infobox is centered around professional sports. I don't believe the guidelines that apply to thousands of pages should be tweaked for a handful of players to have a few extra lines in their infoboxes. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:50, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Well said, Hey man im josh. Spf121188 (talk) 20:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment Would it make sense to list out specific levels of HS honors and as proposals and then get feedback? For instance, I would be okay with specific national awards (like the Gatorade Player of the Year) and maybe Mr. Football Awards that are notable (the one's with articles currently appear to be), but I'd be against any HS All-America honor because there are no "major selectors" like there are in college. Best, GPL93 (talk) 03:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

It might, but even on an individual basis I'm not sure I'd vote for any of them. The Mr. Football awards are regional based and I'm only finding that there's 10 states that have them. That leads me to want to not include those because not everybody actually has a chance to win one. There doesn't seem to be many high school awards that are national based on the Category:High school football trophies and awards in the United States. For the few national awards that do exist I take issue with the notability of an award sponsored and determined by a selection committee of Gatorade's choosing. They aren't football experts, what gives this award credibility or prestige beyond it being national? Even if that one was okay there's so few national awards that I'd think it easier to leave all HS accolades out altogether instead of focusing on, let's say, 3 awards being the exception to the no HS awards in infobox rule. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:50, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's pretty important to keep in mind, that the HS All-America team is only published by USA Today. Like Hey man im josh said, the Gatorade Player of the Year doesn't (in my opinion) carry much weight/notability. For College Football All-America teams, there are multiple reputable publications that select players, which inherently provides some objectivity. Maybe I don't totally understand how it all works, but that's my $.02 for that. Spf121188 (talk) 15:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I need to amend one thing I said; I do know that Parade also has an All-America High School team, but rarely is it specified on players pages, and I think Parade is less reputable than USA Today. Again, jut my opinion. Spf121188 (talk) 16:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I feel that the fundamental disconnect among us is that you are hoping to carve out a comprehensive thirty-point list of awards that may be listed, vs. all the others that shouldn't. That's not what I'm aiming for, and quite frankly this isn't how WP guidelines are designed in general. Just to pick a random example: MOS:FURTHER doesn't tell you which sources to list and which not to, but it does tell you to only include a "reasonable number" of references, and that the section is "not intended as a repository for general references." And Wikipedia:Further reading additionally tells you to give preference "to works that cover the whole subject of the article rather than a specific aspect." Similarly, we should phrase this infobox award section guideline as to "limit the listed awards and honors to a reasonable number", and to "give preference to awards at the professional level, over collegiate and high school", because "the award section is not intended to list every award a player received." My point is that we avoid the senseless deletion that occurred over the past two weeks, where high school awards were deleted from infoboxes that are now entirely empty. Again, the one and only thing we should be aiming for here is to reduce the clutter and fancruft in infoboxes. --bender235 (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Bender235, I don't think you're being unreasonable in what you're asking. And you do bring up valid points. In order to make that work, I do think we would need to have concrete-ish answers to Hey man im josh's questions above. To me, the biggest concern is that with new guidelines across the board, it does open up the possibility for further disputes on individual players pages and what should/shouldn't be included (I know that on WP we have the capacity to discuss this on an individual basis on talk pages, but that could get cumbersome.) I'm still on the side of consistency with this, but I didn't want to dismiss your points. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 20:16, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The blanket removal of all high school accomplishments from the infobox is what I'm in favour of, not creating a detailed list of high school accomplishments that we pick and choose from. The goal of removing those accomplishments is to reduce the clutter and fancruft, as high school awards are typically only listed for individuals who lack notable achievements. I also don't see how the WP guidelines you linked would apply or relate to an NFL infobox.

It seems as though you're now advocating to limit the number of entries in an infobox as opposed to keeping high school awards for select individuals lacking notable achievements. Has your stance changed? If you want to discuss limiting the overall amount of items in the infobox you may be better off starting a new section, as that's an entirely different discussion when compared to whether or not high school accomplishments belong in the infobox and should be treated as such.

Lastly, why is it a problem if players don't have something listed under their accomplishments in the infobox? You keep calling the removal of these accomplishments senseless or harmful, but you haven't justified your stance on how it brings harm. Several of us have stated why we believe they're relatively meaningless to include. If they haven't done anything that rises to a certain level of notability we shouldn't be adding fluff for the sake of it. There's plenty of NFL players who have played for 10 years but never won an award outside of high school, or where the only thing in their infobox is a Super bowl win. That doesn't mean we should be looking for additional content to add so that their infobox is fuller. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

And if I can add to what Hey man im josh said, don't forget that this is only regarding the infobox. All this High School information can still be included in the article body. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 20:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh: "The goal of removing those accomplishments is to reduce the clutter and fancruft, as high school awards are typically only listed for individuals who lack notable achievements." I think this is the crux of the matter. In my opinion, we should list HS awards especially for those players who lack any higher-level (ie. professional) achievements. Just like we'd list minor awards for scientists who don't win the Nobel, or actors who don't win the Oscars. The purpose of the "awards" section in the infobox is, in my opinion, to point out the greatest achievements in a player's career; for some players, who peaked early and never lived up to expectations, those are high school awards. And remember, we're talking about All-USA selections, not "Texas UIL Division 3A defensive lineman of the month." --bender235 (talk) 15:23, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Suggestions for List of starting quarterbacks in the National Football League

Should we update this article during the playoffs? Currently, this article lists each team's starting QB during the regular season, which may lead to irregularities when teams rest their starters prior to the playoffs. For example, Brandon Allen and Gardner Minshew are listed as the starting QBs for the Bengals and Eagles, when the "real" starting QBs will be Joe Burrow and Jalen Hurts.

This can be easily changed by updating the note from starting quarterbacks of each team's most recently played regular season game to starting quarterbacks of each team's most recently played game.

Additionally, there had been a lot of discussion in the talk page in the past of how to deal with this list during the offseason, so if anyone has any suggestions, feel free to discuss. The status quo right now seems to be to leave it as is and protect this page until the regular season begins. Natg 19 (talk) 22:38, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It does appear to have been semi-protected the last couple of years, but even that seems questionable if it's being done more for "version freeze" reasons than to stop actual in-progress IP vandalism. Either scoping arguably leads to a more fluctuation-prone list than is needed or useful to readers. Might it be better to frame it as their usual starter? That reinstates Burrow and Hurts, albeit getting into subjective territory if a team is mid-QB-controversy. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:21, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea but would rephrase it a bit. Instead of usual starter it would be who's at the top of the depth chart. Then you could properly adjust the table based on offseason signings. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I made the change to update for the playoffs. I think it could get messy if we update throughout the offseason, and "depth chart" can be subjective as I doubt that teams release their official depth charts often. Natg 19 (talk) 03:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Whelp I was reverted. @Dissident93: who reverted my change and wanted more discussion. Natg 19 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like everything posted so far have been alternate proposals and not direct support for your change. I don't oppose your change, I'd just like to see more support from others first. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That seems too subjective to be of any benefit to the page. How would you have decided the 2020 Dolphins when they flip-flopped between Fitz and Tua all season? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

What about the pre-season games? Should they also be added? GoodDay (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

No, they are televised practices. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Please can QB ages be added to the table? I was going to do it & then realised I didn't know how & so didn't want to mess it up.Tarquin.F (talk) 10:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a piece of trivia that has no bearing on them being a starting quarterback. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

NFL Championship Game edits by GoodDay

GoodDay (talk · contribs) has made a series of edits where the editor changed the lead from The XXXX National Football League Championship Game was the to The XXXX NFL Championship Game was the (just like page titles). As far as it is a minor change, I believe the correct name was always the "XXXX National Football League Championship Game"? The same was also done to The XXXX American Football League Championship Game was the where it was changed to The XXXX AFL Championship Game was the. Can someone elaborate on the correct name in the lead? – Sabbatino (talk) 07:41, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If my changes aren't accepted? Then I give @Sabbatino: the honour of reverting those changes. Being as he's the first objector. GoodDay (talk) 07:51, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any issues with AFL / NFL vs American Football League / National Football League. Either should be fine, though I suppose the "official" name is the full name. Natg 19 (talk) 08:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I should point out. Before I made my changes, there was inconsistencies among the intro of those articles. Some said NFL, some National Football League, some linked to the latter & some didn't. GoodDay (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Typically we repeat the title bolded per MOS:BOLDTITLE. However, I'd argue that MOS:BOLDAVOID applies, and we should modify the lead sentence so it's not so repetitive e.g. repeated "AFL" and "championship game" mention: "The 1968 AFL Championship Game was the ninth annual American Football League's championship game ..." (1968 American Football League Championship Game).—Bagumba (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Here's an example of one of those changes. Generally speaking, the bolded term in the lead doesn't have to match the article title necessarily, but since we are spelling out "American Football League" only a few words later, this change seems unnecessary and may even look odd to some. Might as well swap those back around and put the full name in bold and abbreviate on second mention. --GoneIn60 (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Would a full write out "Year American Football League season", "Year American Football League Championship Game", "Year National Football League season" and "Year National Football League Championship Game", be best? GoodDay (talk) 15:46, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You have already started two discussions regarding AFL at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football#Matching AFL with NFL and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football#American Football League related articles, should be changed to AFL. Editors there told you that NFL and AFL pages have different treatment. So why do you keep repeating the same thing everywhere? Your recent behavior is annoying and it shows (at least) a case of WP:NOTHERE as you are wasting everyone's time by asking the same thing or making edits without gaining consensus first. Just stop it for once. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:01, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

The RFC is about article titles. This discussion is about article intros. BTW, you began this discussion at this WikiProject, not me. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Furthermore. I think it's best we stop communicating with each other. Allow others to chime in. GoodDay (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm with GoneIn60 on the suggestion of flipping those mentions around. Then it's style-conformant with BOLDTITLE, and it follows the general good practice of mentioning the full name first, and the abbreviation of that subsequently. The NFL pages will necessarily differ one way or the other, assuming they're stable at those names. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:04, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW, was surprised that this WikiProject existed, let alone the now inactive Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League. I thought both leagues were handled by Wikipedia:WikiProject American football. -- GoodDay (talk) 16:18, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, it's buried in the navbox at WP:AMF under "Related projects".—Bagumba (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Dang, Canadian football is there too. GoodDay (talk) 18:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Year AFL re-directs & articles inconsistencies

A side note: We've the following inconsistencies - Examples: 1965 AFL season re-directs to the American Football League's 1965 season. Where's 1995 AFL season is an article about the Australian Football League's 1995 season. GoodDay (talk) 02:14, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For the somewhat understandable reason of the non-existence of each of those at the other's being... well, in being. But the Australian Football League ones should ideally be renamed to that form. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Seems like we should get closure at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_football#American_Football_League_related_articles,_should_be_changed_to_AFL first for American Football League seasons. It might provide a basis for how to proceed with the Australian Football League.—Bagumba (talk) 04:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

So far, there's seems to be very little interest in that RFC. One would've expected quite a number of editors chiming in there, by now. GoodDay (talk) 05:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Though I get the impression that nothing will be done about it. The IP is correct, that there's inconsistency with the 1960–69 Year AFL season redirecting to the American Football League seasons & the 1990–present Year AFL season being the titles of the Australian Football League seasons. GoodDay (talk) 20:32, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If someone proposes renaming 1990 AFL season–2022 AFL season on those lines then I'd certainly support. Or at least that's my current hot take, until someone prevails on me with a good argument to the contrary. But that's another sport, hemisphere, and indeed Wikiproject entirely, so really only tangentially related to this discussion. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect there'd be a big push against conceding to the American Football League, over at the Australian Football League WikiProject, via changing the Australian league's season articles. GoodDay (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You may be right; I try to pitch my expectations of anything other than entrenched silos of local consensus low, so as to avoid excessive disappointment. But that project or WP:RM would be more appropriate venues, whether for lighting a candle, or cursing at the dark. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:38, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If somebody takes the time to bundle an WP:RM on the other AFL seasons, I'd be inclined to support expanding the name per no WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.—Bagumba (talk) 08:10, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. In line with my comments at the recent AFL RfC, I would also lend my support to having it expanded. Ping me with a link if that discussion ever happens, thanks. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:07, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I've floated it at the appropriate Wikiproject initially just on the offchance they were wildly enthusiastic. Hopefully it doesn't turn into another "local consensus" trench-warfare battle, but see above on expectation-management. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

What should be the intros of the Year AFL & NFL Championship Game articles?

Nobody (so far) has been reverting my changes at the Year AFL & Year NFL Championship Game article intros. There's been no complaints at all, over at Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League (of course, it's inactive), whose shorthand link ("WP:AFL") has been taken over by the Australian Football League's WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 00:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Isn't this the discussion we just had above? If not, by a wild coincidence my same comment just happens to apply. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

"Nobody (so far) has been reverting my changes..."

It could be that active editors who have an interest and oppose are weighing in here instead of reverting at the article. That would come as no surprise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Reverting when there is an ongoing discussion would be edit warring and disruptive. WP:SILENCE is the weakest form of consensus too.—Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Would anybody mind, if this entire discussion on the article intros, were moved over to Wikipedia:WikiProject American football? Jumping back forth between here & the somewhat related RFC over there, can be confusing. GoodDay (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This NFL project has more watchers and activity. Moving it would be counter productive. My suggestion is that the RfC has run its course. Would you consider accepting the consensus there as it is currently? If not, how much longer were you comfortable with?—Bagumba (talk) 19:15, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I'ma gonna request closure for it. At the pace & direction it's going. By the time the RFC-tag would've expired in early February, there'd likely be 15-opposes to 1 support. GoodDay (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

It's been closed. GoodDay (talk) 05:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I've WP:BOLDTITLEd the 'season' articles. Which may or may not precisely be reverts of GoodDay's edits, I didn't check in detail. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:50, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

So now they're completely out-of-sync with the NFL season & NFL Championship Game articles. Would it have hurt that much, to have left my edits stand? GoodDay (talk) 02:55, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not like we didn't mull over this at vast length before anyone did anything. BOLDTITLE is style guidance, WP:NFLANDAFLARTICLESINEXACTSYMMETRY is not, so I dunno what else to add at this point. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:59, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I reckon, there's absolutely nothing more to add. GoodDay (talk) 03:09, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Pending proposal to declare NSPORTS (and NGRIDIRON) an invalid argument at AfD

A new proposal is now pending to add language to NSPORT providing, among other things, that "meeting [NSPORTS and NGRIDIRON] would not serve as a valid keep argument in a deletion discussion." If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, please feel free to add your comments at Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)#Subproposal 1 (NSPORT). Cbl62 (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I know this is another since-sailed ship, and risks singing a song I've sung before, but wouldn't a more neutral notification just have mentioned the existence of the proposal(s) generally? As it stands there's a distinct "and here's the part you sports editors won't like!" connotation to it. (A moot distinction perhaps, as evidently sports editors don't like any part of any of them.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:01, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

IP109, I think as plainly written by Cbl62, their notification is neutral. There is nothing that requires an editor to just provide a link and it is generally appreciated to provide some context on the discussion. Note that Cbl62 specifically stated If you have views on this proposal, one way of the other. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think excerpting one part of a set of proposals is "providing context" -- it's exactly the opposite. Whether it's as neutral as required I defer to your judgement on. But it's clearly not as neutral as it could be. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 22:23, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

IP109 (I keep wanting to type PT109 which seriously dates me): I actually modified the notification to make it more neutral after extensive back-and-forth on my talk page. I believed it was neutrally-worded to begin with and certainly so as it ended up. Even the editor who complained ended up concluding, after my revisions, that the revised "message seems generally appropriate now." See User talk:Cbl62#RFC Notifications. Cbl62 (talk) 22:25, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

BTW the symphony of sailing and music metaphors are appreciated ;) Cbl62 (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Not because these edits are easy, but because they're hard! Yeah, I noticed that exchange, so I was vaguely self-conscious I was re-quibbling an existing quibble. Yet not enough to stop me, evidently! It seems I'm going to going to start type-checking my metaphors for some degree of consistency. "Metaphors: mix and match" as the caption of a cartoon accompanying a letter complaining about those once put it. (That's in theory dated me, though good luck chasing down that reference.) The nuance is probably over-worked on my part; if people get the link, unless it's blatantly one-sided, they should be able to make up their own minds when they get there. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

AFC Championship Game

Possible vandalism or more likely misunderstanding about the article AFC Championship Game. But a mobile-editor keeps changing it, to appears as though it's about the 2021-22 AFC championship game, between the Chiefs & Bengals. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I've protected it.—Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

"Importance" scale

Deebo Samuel wasn't tagged with the project banner, done now. I mention this not to get a cookie (mrm, cookies...) but because I wasn't quite sure what Importance to tag him with. Oh wait, he's on the "2021" All-Pro team -- so that makes him Mid, right? (I'd put that in the article, but it's semi-protected from the lines of me.) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm a newcomer to this project, but according to the criteria as its laid out at WP:WikiProject National Football League/Assessment#Importance scale, it would appear that he does not yet qualify for "mid" and should instead be "low" for now.

As a side note, I think that criteria is a little too detailed and should probably be more generalized (like the difference between 2 and 3 Pro Bowls isn't really clear outside of this grading scale). We should also keep in mind that importance is very subjective overall. Great to have some kind of criteria to go by, but there's no guarantee it's going to encapsulate every possible scenario. The more generalized the criteria, the better. --GoneIn60 (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You're right, I've misread that as one All-Pro or two Pro-Bowls, somehow. (BTW, why does the All-Pro Second Team only have nine players? Don't think that's gonna work out well for them in this hypothetical game! (Or is it a hypothetical depth-chart, so we don't need more than a certain number of RBs and WRs?) So by that scale he'd be Low. It does seem a little artificial, but I suppose useful to have a standard to argue for case-by-case deviation from than just wild ah-hoc guesswork. Personally I think a modest amount of recency bias is a good thing in such cases: this is the sort of subject that the Wikiproject might be punting for a DYK at this time of year, or on the front page (were the article in merely vastly better shape). Can always be demoted again. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

For AP 2nd team All-Pro, if there was a unanimous pick at a position, that means 0 votes for another player, so there is no runner-up. Other polls might have separate votes for 1st and 2nd team.—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Aaaah. Or "instant runoff" voting (first and second picks per pundit) would be the obvious fix there. Thanks for the info. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 01:45, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Separating AFL and NFL records (Part 2)

After a thorough discussion, we seem to have settled on three basic options. All of them are fairly acceptable, just need some help making a final decision. We can see the finish line!

Please weigh in at Talk:List of National Football League annual receiving yards leaders#Arbitrary break. Thank you. --GoneIn60 (talk) 07:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

One of the Wikiproject's Featured Lists, too! (Admittedly there's 75 of 'em...) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 07:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

AFL season & championship game Infobox headings

Would it be alright if I shorten the infobox headings to Year AFL season & Year AFL Championship Game - to better lineup with the corresponding NFL articles? Bringing this up here, as Wikipedia:WikiProject American Football League is dormant. GoodDay (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Matching the title (and what should be the boldtitle) might be the more important consideration. The current length doesn't seem excessive. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:10, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Do what you want then (which you already have), put the AFL season & Championship Game articles out-of-sync completely, with their NFL counterparts. GoodDay (talk) 02:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

As I didn't edit the infoboxes at all, this seems to be rather conflating two different issues (and in the correct place for the one, and not the other). If you feel strongly about the 'boxes, I have no especially strong feelings either way. Nor argument to offer based on style guidelines, beyond the above observation. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Team logos in season articles

Due to User:CitizenKang414's recent edits, I thought it would be prudent to ask here for confirmation that we should not be putting team logos in the infobox of individual season articles (e.g. 2021 Cincinnati Bengals season) unless the team is using a specific logo in that season (e.g. 2021 Cleveland Browns season). Can anyone confirm for us that that is the case? – PeeJay 17:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If it's a non-free logo, only on the main page about the team per Wikipedia:Logos#Placement.—Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@User:PeeJay – Thanks for posting this on the appropriate discussion board, I should have done this earlier. I also apologize if I sounded rude or hostile in any of my edit summaries that were directed at you. CitizenKang414 (talk) 18:50, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Bagumba-- if it's non-free, only in the main page. Therapyisgood (talk) 18:51, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Wait, just an important point of clarification –– I was careful to only be putting logos that were marked as free/fair use (i.e., "public domain"), mainly wordmark logos but also a few primary logos that were in the public domain, on these season articles. Does this rule apply to all NFL logos, or just the non-free ones? WP:LOGOS says: "Outside of these limits, neither non-free nor trademarked logos... should be used within an article", but this does not appear to address or apply to "public domain" logos, which I was adding to articles and which PeeJay kept reverting. CitizenKang414 (talk) 18:56, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that’s an important point. I was aware that the logos being added were tagged as free, but I’m still pretty sure it’s unnecessary decoration. The addition of a logo doesn’t help the reader’s understanding of the article. It would be better to add an image of the team playing that season, or something else truly representative of the team that season. – PeeJay 21:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If the image is free, it then becomes purely an editorial decision of where it should be used.—Bagumba (talk) 01:14, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Having read the MOS page you linked above, I’m not sure that’s the case. – PeeJay 01:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I should have said if free and not a trademark...—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The terminology here is a little opaque, as by any intuitive interpretation, a non-copyrighted image of a trademarked logo is still "non-free" in a general intellectual property sense. And I'd be very wary of "only-a-guidelining" this advice too, given its IP-law-adjacent status. Thus, what Bagumba said in the first instance. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry, I was contributing from my phone so I wasn't able to be fully clear. What I'm saying is that WP:LOGOS#Placement doesn't distinguish between free and non-free logos when it says "A logo may appear in the infobox of the main article on the subject the logo represents." That seems pretty clear to me that we shouldn't use logos anywhere other than the infobox in the team's main article (unless there is a truly encyclopaedic reason to do so, e.g. in articles like Logos and uniforms of the Chicago Bears). I could stretch to the logo being included in the season article for the season in which it was introduced, but even then it's a bit tenuous based on WP:LOGOS. – PeeJay 13:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

To try to be a little more clear about my own 'clarity' comment -- turtles all the way down, isn't it? -- I wasn't criticising yours, I was saying that the wording of the guideline is unclear. In fact, it's tortuous and illogical. Logos aren't "free", so by talking about "free images" of non-free logos, it's muddying the issue quite a lot. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I should also add, this would mean that wordmarks (even though they're all free) shouldn't be used on other articles such as the rivalry pages, and they definitely shouldn't be used in userboxes such as User:UBX/NFL-Browns. – PeeJay 14:43, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Proposed change at List of Super Bowl champions

An editor proposed a change at List of Super Bowl champions. Relevant discussion can be found at Talk:List of Super Bowl champions#Deletion of 17:19, 23 January 2022‎ by Sabbatino ‎→‎Super Bowl wins by conference. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Julio Jones GA Review

I don't really know if this is the best place to do it but my nomination for Julio Jones for GA has been up for a little over a week. I'm just trying to get the message out there so I can get through with it and move on to another article. If anybody is up to reviewing it then go ahead and check it out. NSNW (talk) 22:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

NSNW nothing wrong with posting at relevant pages asking for reviews, but please remember that WP:GA noms can sometimes be up there for months. There is nothing stopping you from having multiple nominations active at the same time at WP:GA, so you might as well move on to your next article and just wait for someone to start the review of Julio Jones. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Alright, thanks for the feedback. I was following some advice that I contact the wikiprojects of a particular article to gain awareness of the nom. I guess I'll start working on another article now. Thank you. NSNW (talk) 19:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Photos of (recently) retired players

I was under the impression that for retired players their main infobox photo should be with the team they are most associated with, all other things being equal. However, there is no guidance on this page for that, so I figured I'd raise the issue here. Calidum 18:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Don't think that was ever the case. I think that it's always been the most recent and quality photo of the subject. I think that, just as with the vast majority of WP:BLP articles, that the lead image should always be the most recently taken quality photo of the subject. --Righanred (talk) 01:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

At WP:NBA, the most recent picture is generally used per WP:NBAIMAGE. The thinking is readers want to know what the player currently looks like. For football, having a shot w/o a helmet should be a factor too.—Bagumba (talk) 02:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you that the most recent picture should be perferred, but I think that helmetless pictures shouldn't be prioritized over good-quality recent images. I think that a "WP:NFLIMAGE" should be created soon to put ends to edit wars on Tom Brady, Jared Goff and other pages. On a semi-related note, I also think that there should be consistancy in the caption of the lead image. I like: "(lastname) with the (team name) in (year image was taken)".--Righanred (talk) 20:02, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking back at this, I think that a caption requirement isn't nessesary--Righanred (talk) 18:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

There is already general guidance at MOS:CAPLENGTH, which seems in line with your suggestion of "(lastname) with the (team name) in (year image was taken)".—Bagumba (talk) 00:46, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't use this on photos it doesn't really work on just to enforce consistency. If a player has an image where they clearly aren't in uniform or team gear, don't use it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 10:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd say a helmetless pic is a factor in selection, but certainly not the sole factor.—Bagumba (talk) 00:39, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I always thought we simply used the highest-quality image of an athlete. Usually it would be the newer picture. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:50, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Sam Mason & Orin Mason -- What up?

NFL history mystery of the day: We have an article on Sam Mason (American football) who per Pro Football Reference (here) played fullback for the 1922 Minneapolis Marines. Pro Football Archives does not show Sam Mason as being on the 1922 Minneapolis roster but does show an Orin Mason as a fullback on the team. See here. Different dates of birth, etc., but it seems likely that either PFR or PFA has an error as to which Mason played at the fullback position for the 1922 Marines. A standing ovation for whoever is able to resolve this mystery. Cbl62 (talk) 22:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

This is odd. In my newspapers.com search of the Marines in '22 the only other "Mason" mention besides listing in boxscores is about a player from Utah ([1]). PFR lists him from VMI, and PFA doesn't list any school at all. I've found both people in Ancestry.com with the info listed at the stats websites, but could not find which actually played in the NFL. (BTW I see a "Orin Mason" in Minneapolis who was a handball player here). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:58, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I found this mention of a Mason in a team photo. I find it interesting that they list whoever this Mason is as a utility back instead of a fullback. I'm still looking for more though. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:54, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you both. Nice photo too. Cbl62 (talk) 17:24, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

FindAGrave for Samuel Anthony Mason and then there's the FindAGrave for Orin Harold Mason (other site listed his middle name as Harild). The FindAGrave link for Sam Mason shows a picture of him in football equipment. In Sam's bio on that site it mentioned he's in the VMI Hall of Fame so I went to look for their Hall. I found his inclusion in their Hall as a charter member (their Hall being founded in 1972). His inclusion helps to verify he did at least play football at VMI, and did so with distinction.

While not a smoking gun, I found this WW1 draft registration card which gives the proper birthday, location, employer & title (VMI as a student). I then found this draft card for WW2 for Sam Anthony Mason. Sam went to a military school so it wouldn't be a surprise if he registered to fight in WW2. The date of birth, birth place, and weight match up while the height is 1" difference (20 years since he had been in the NFL, people can shrink slightly). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Nice work, josh! Cbl62 (talk) 21:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Any luck on Orin Mason? Are we hoping that it's a mistype by somebody? Are we satisfied that Sam Mason is the player that played professionally? It could be worth sending a message to VMI Athletics to see if they'd be able to share any type of record or reason as to why Sam Mason may have been inducted. Typically in inductions like that they'd often reference any type of professional career a player had. At least we were able to verify that Sam Mason was a real person and it's more likely than not him. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Haven't had a chance to follow up further as of yet. Will copy this discussion to the article talk page for future reference. Cbl62 (talk) 13:26, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Village pump proposal

Editors of this project may be interested in a village pump proposal which will "replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist'" in WP:NSPORT and "rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:26, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

To be more specific, your input, one way or the other, on several pending proposals to alter NSPORTS would be welcomed. These proposals are as follows:

• Subproposal 1: Requires "all athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD" and that "SIGCOV in multiple secondary, independent reliable sources would have to be produced during the course of an AfD". Also potential limitations/exceptions.
• Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere 'participation' criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events."
• Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in 'one' game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to 'three' games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."
• Subproposal 5: "Implement a requirement that all sports biographies and sports season/team articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual WP:SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."
• Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 6 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice."
• Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG." Further: "Replace all instances of 'presumed to be notable' with 'significant coverage is likely to exist.'
• Subproposal 9: Strike, as allegedly confusing and/or at odds with other parts of NSPORTS, the following sentence from the lead: "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below."
• Subproposal 10: "Require each project that has inclusion criteria based on participation in a league ... within the next 30 days to justify the inclusion of each league. Such justification must include actual 'random' (truly random) sampling showing that 90%-plus of the players in each league receive sufficient SIGCOV to pass GNG. At the end of 30 days, any league as to which the data has not been provided must be stricken from NSPORTS." Cbl62 (talk) 09:31, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jamie Fitzgerald (American football)

Jamie Fitzgerald (American football), a former NFL player, has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in the discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing it to our attention, Beanie. Anyone who does !vote or contribute, good luck trying to reason with the nominator. IMO, this AfD was nominated in poor faith. Perhaps this isn't the place to mention it, but I did anyway. Spf121188 (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I made a similar comment to this in the AfD, but Fitzgerald only played in the NFL as a replacement player during the 1987 NFL strike. I think it's worth having a discussion as to whether the replacement players meet the spirit of WP:NGRIDIRON. They weren't really playing at the top level of football, since the top-level players were mostly on strike. If you read articles from the time of the strike, most of the players had no shot at a NFL career if the strike hadn't happened, and the quality of play dropped considerably during the strike. Some of the replacement players played in other pro leagues or had notable college careers, but GNG would theoretically cover those players anyway. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:42, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

On a related note, I recently expanded Casey Tiumalu, a stub I created 10+ years ago. He was a replacement player. Tiumalu meets GNG with enough coverage from his college days, and had some draft and tryout tidbits to boot. A misconception with NSPORTS is that playing the one NFL game itself generated enough significant coverage, as opposed to the journey to the pros and and that one game. I'm not sure if this is necesarily the case with all replacement players or not.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on Hail Larry

Would be interested to hear some opinions on Hail Larry. My initial gut was to go to WP:AFD, but I can kind of be deletionist on these types of articles. It was definitely a well-known playoff game in its time, but has probably faded from memory over the last 6 years. Also concerned about the name, which doesn't really seem like the WP:COMMONNAME outside of Arizona, and even that isn't a given (as an Arizona resident, I don't hear anyone say "Hail Larry" to refer to this game, unlike Fail Mary or other well-known games). Interested to hear others' opinions? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Historic games should have WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, even better if it's still referred to years later. The refs are currently all bare urls, and I'm not currently free to click on them and dig more on their timing.—Bagumba (talk) 16:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

This is a tough call, but it feels like this should go to AfD. I filled in the bare references on the page, but it does seem like most of the coverage of the game is of the routine variety. "Hail Larry" is really only used to refer to the game in one reference (unless I missed something, which is entirely possible.) Gonzo_fan2007, I think your instinct is correct here. Spf121188 (talk) 16:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe merge and redirect to Hail Mary? It seems sourceable, but not screamingly high in independent notability. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 17:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming you meant Hail Mary pass :) Spf121188 (talk) 18:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Totally what I said. IP109 malreported. :) <exit, coughing somewhat embarrassedly, especially given my editing location> 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Haha, honest mistake, it happens. On a side note, I do think that's a solid alternative to deletion.Spf121188 (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It is still a memorable game. Even this article mentions it as Hail Larry. In 2018, the game was mentioned on the Cardinals website. Recently, Hail Larry was mentioned in this article and in 2022, Hail Larry was referenced on the team website. Fitzgerald even recalled those plays. It is notable as a article and calling it “Hail Larry” would be accurate. Even “Dez Caught It” has its own article. If this article is to be merged, it should be merged to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona). —2600:387:15:617:0:0:0:2 (talk) 19:47, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

In response to the above - any mention of the game on teams websites is not considered independent. Secondly, the "Dez caught it" game was MUCH more notable given the controversy surrounding the biggest play of the game, which led to some rule changes. This game was certainly a memorable game, but memorable games can be fairly common. Spf121188 (talk) 19:53, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

4th and 26 has its own Wikipedia page. I think Hail Larry can as well either as the name Hail Larry or change it to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona). 13 seconds has its own Wikipedia page. If Hail Larry isn’t the right name, it can be moved to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona) because it still is notable. I just added stuff regarding the 2021 game between the Packers and Cardinals, including a unsuccessful Hail Mary attempt by Rodgers. —2600:387:15:617:0:0:0:2 (talk) 20:00, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Another articles existence isn't a valid criteria for an article to be kept or not. I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but I'm just on the fence about this article/game having it's own article space. Spf121188 (talk) 20:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment regardless of the outcome of any future AFD, it definitely should be moved to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona) or something similar. Hail Larry is not the WP:COMMONNAME of this topic. The lead also should be rewritten to clearly identify the topic, which appears to be the entire game. I think if these were done, I would feel less inclined to AFD it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It's worth nothing, in my opinion, the articles' creator is currently blocked. I understand that has zero bearing on this being a worthy article, but, it may be worth noting. Spf121188 (talk) 21:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Spf121188, they were blocked because of their user name. Not 100% that I agree with said block, but it wasn't from their editing behavior. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:22, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not so convinced of notability. A redirect to 2015 Arizona Cardinals season#Postseason, which has the game summary almost immediately under the section header, or 2015–16 NFL playoffs#NFC: Arizona Cardinals 26, Green Bay Packers 20 (OT) may be more appropriate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 02:03, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with redirecting it. If 4th and 26, Miracle in Motown, and The Catch II can have their own articles, so can Hail Larry. If Hail Larry isn’t the right title, change it to 2015 NFC Divisional playoff game (Green Bay–Arizona). I think it is very notable. The 2006 Chargers-Patriots playoff game has its own article and so can this one. —2600:387:15:617:0:0:0:2 (talk) 03:39, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Again, WP:OTHERSTUFF. Except that those 'other stuff' are extensively sourced in a way that makes their independent notability clear: not within a Bear's roar of being the case here. However, your objection certainly rules out it being an 'uncontroversial' merge, so our remaining options seem to be to craft on it little more to see if it can be made to work better as a standalone topic, or AFD. If kept, I think the very scope of the article needs more thought. Is it about the game as a whole? Two HMs in that game, only one of which involved someone called "Larry"? Larry Fitzgerald catching them generally -- I see references to a HL in 2007(!). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 11:44, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not seeing why this just isn't redirected and merged to 2015–16_NFL_playoffs#NFC:_Arizona_Cardinals_26,_Green_Bay_Packers_20_(OT), which already has a decent summary there. There's not too much more about the game to need a dedicated article. Even if this is deemed "notable", the WP:N guideline says: This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.—Bagumba (talk) 12:01, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm in agreeance with Bagumba. While this is still a memorable game, it's kind of a run-of-the-mill OT playoff game, with one hail mary and another long OT pass that wasn't a hail mary as another user indicated. And the sources that one of the IP's attached earlier are almost exclusively from the AZ Cardinals website, which aren't independent. I say redirect and merge. Spf121188 (talk) 13:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with both of the above comments. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:38, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

• I'm in support of a merge/redirect. I've never heard people refer to a "Hail Larry" before this article was brought up here. Don't really see any notability to this game, it didn't change the course of history and I forgot about it until now. I also have an issue with the name because implies it was a Hail Mary but it wasn't. From the first source in that article; "Fitzgerald turned a short pass into a 75-yard gain on the first play of overtime to set up his five-yard shovel pass reception for the winning score". 5 yards and then running it up the rest of the way in overtime is a great play, but it's not something that deserves its own article. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
• Comment Thanks everyone, I boldly redirected Hail Larry to 2015–16 NFL playoffs#NFC: Arizona Cardinals 26, Green Bay Packers 20 (OT). If that gets reverted, I will send to WP:AFD. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:58, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  Mildly bold; seems like the correct result. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 18:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Dick Pierce and Floyd Pierce - another NFL history mystery

See Talk:Dick Pierce#Mystery and possible AfD

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Atchison

Tim Atchison, a former National Football League player, has been nominated for deletion. You may be interested in the discussion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:46, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

George Floyd (American football)

I plan on nominating George Floyd (American football) for featured article status but it still needs a good review by someone not involved, to put the sports wars aside for a period, due to a Wikibreak being taken by the reviewer who couldn't finish the review at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/George Floyd (American football)/archive2 (and I can't wait forever). Feel free to review/edit as you see fit. I am really hoping to get this to featured article status. Therapyisgood (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Mungavin

Jock Mungavin, a National Football League player in the 1920s, has been nominated for deletion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Mungavin. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)