Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Proposal: Remove (some) conference awards from infoboxes

We continue to face infobox bloat as conferences continue to add more and more awards to what's given out every year. Based on the above discussion, and in the spirit of keeping awards listed in the infobox to only the most notable/important awards, I'd like to formally propose that we exclude conference awards, with exceptions, from the infobox.

Include:

• Conference MVP
• Conference Offensive/Defensive/Special teams Player of the Year
• All-conference selections

Exclude:

• All other conference specific awards

Conference specific exclusions that are already noted at WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT:

• College conference championships

Please voice your concerns, support, or opposition as appropriate. Pinging those who were involved in the above discussion: @Sergio Skol, @Centurion Seraph, @Bagumba, @UCO2009bluejay. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I’ve been editing conference awards the past few days, and I can say there is a bloat on less than 1% of pages, the hall of fame caliber player. The overwhelming majority of average to good players barely have 3-4 awards. I think its a radical proposition to erase awards based on the 1%. i.e. offensive & defensive lineman of the year, receiver & running back of the year, ect. (I believe most viewers enjoy and gravitate towards reading awards, not strain through it. Though thats my opinion).

As @Bagumba mentioned in the previous post, Freshman All-American and Conference/Bowl MVP’s seem to be a better place to start if intent on trimming the info box. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:00, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It seems like there's position awards like Big Ten Quarterback of the Year, because the Big Ten has historically had separate coaches' and media All-Big Ten selections. So their position awards are akin to a consensus pick. —Bagumba (talk) 15:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes it can, but as with the offensive lineman of the year, that traditionally distinguishes between the 5-10 first-team all-conference selections. Same with defensive back, defensive line, ect. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:18, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Comment A related guideline is MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

When considering any aspect of infobox design, keep in mind the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article...The less information it contains, the more effectively it serves that purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance. Of necessity, some infoboxes contain more than just a few fields; however, wherever possible, present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content.

—Bagumba (talk) 14:58, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this. The Wikipedia

WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format seems to be quite descriptive in stating what is necessary and unnecessary. Ironically, the example they give for “Mister Accolade” could be seen as bloated.

Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:30, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

It is bloated. The perennial problem is to how to pare down the most accomplished players on a crowd-sourced platform with drive-by editors. Someone sees award X listed for one player and adds it to another to be "consistent". —Bagumba (talk) 15:39, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I completely understand the point of view, but how to pare down the overly accomplished without at the same time taking from the majority, the less accomplished. Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:48, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Could the awards section eventually be formatted to expand and collapse? Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:13, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

We don't pick and choose what awards are notable enough for inclusion based on the individual, and I don't believe that's an appropriate approach. Not every player needs accolades listed in their infobox. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:08, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

Who is picking and choosing based on the individual? Everybody is using the NFL infobox template, and I’ve yet to see a fundamental reason for removal of existing awards, other than wanting to remove awards based on individuals who have bloated award sections. Unless it’s that in your opinion, those awards just dont need to be included because they arent worthy enough awards. Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:44, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: Explain why these are notable enough for inclusion and how conference specific awards for positions, essentially what a first-team all-conference selection would already represent, needs to be included. Your arguments are entirely focused on WP:ILIKEIT. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:42, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh It has nothing to do with what I like. As mentioned already in this post, it’s in the NFL infobox template. I didnt form the consensus to install these awards, they have been existing awards for some time now.

Offensive lineman, defensive lineman, defensive back, they all distinguish the best from 5-10 first-team all-conference selections. Offensive lineman and special teams players really have no chance to win MVP or any Player or the Year award. The Big Ten has no broad Special Teams Player of the Year. So you’re erasing the possibility of awards entirely for specific positions.

You really think that only 2 players from each conference deserve awards? Either DPOY or OPOY will win MVP, so that only gives conference honors to 8 total players in the NCAA in ‘power conferences’? Its a great accomplishment to win these awards, they are distinguishing and deserving of inclusion as currently formatted. Centurion Seraph (talk) 13:33, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: You've just argued for WP:ILIKEIT again. There is currently not consensus regarding these awards, so please do not imply that there has ever been. You're focused on adding to the infobox, as opposed to whether it makes sense to do so. Not every player needs or should have accolades listed, as not every accolade is as notable as one another. It's pretty easy to say that conference MVP is a more valuable award that best o-lineman of the conference. Consider that removing positional awards better aligns with how we treat NFL awards as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Lets be clear you’re fighting to erase them, I'm not adding anything. If you dont understand why they’re notable enough for inclusion based on that last post, you’re unwilling to see this any other way than what you want.

There may not be a written consensus in a discussion right now, but by having every one of these awards already listed for years now in the infobox would surely imply the consensus at this time, that they’re deserving of inclusion. Centurion Seraph (talk) 13:53, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: Something existing for a period of time is NOT consensus, that's simply not how Wikipedia works (SEE WP:OTHERCONTENT). In fact, I've actually removed these from hundreds of infoboxes over the years in the spirit of following the standards we have for NFL awards, which is, no conference specific awards at all. My understanding is this was the standard that we used for a long time, but, over time, there have been editors, such as yourself, who want to add fluff to infoboxes. As such, I wanted to codify the existing practice we've had. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

(WP:CONACHIEVE) (WP:EDITCON). It is a consensus if it exists uniformly for an extended duration, years, where the overwhelming majority of editors form a general agreement to have conference awards and honors installed on the player pages.

Please present the standard stating no conference specific awards.

As the NFL infobox template states: Awards and highlights should be listed in the following order:

Pro championships

Pro championship MVPs

League MVPs

Other major individual awards (Offensive Player of the Year, Defensive Rookie of the Year, etc.)

First-team All-Pros

Second-team All-Pros

Pro Bowls

Season statistical leaders (NFL passing yards leader, etc.)

Pro career honors (retired number, etc.)

College national championships

College awards

All-Americas

Conference honors (SEC Defensive Player of the Year, etc.)

All-Conferences (college only)

College career honors

Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:03, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: We do not add division or conference specific NFL awards. It makes sense that this would also apply to college conferences and divisions. As stated though, there was not a consensus for years. When I removed those entries they were rarely, if ever, contested. But that's not the issue and is, frankly, irrelevant to the discussion about whether these accolades should be included or not. "IT'S BEEN THAT WAY!!!" is terrible reasoning, so let's keep focus here. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:58, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh This is a bad faith slander. You use quotation marks, when in fact I’ve never said that, or anything even closely resembling it. Neither in all caps, exclamation points or in general context. You are slandering my point of view, to prop up your own. This shouldnt be permitted. I’ve given fundamental reasons in an appropriate manner. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:15, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree, not every single highlight needs to be in the infobox, and I like only add MVP, OPTY, DPOY, STPOY and All-Conference Teams.

But, once again, how we should display the Big Ten awards? For the MVP is pretty simply, but the others? I keep thinking is better use Graham–George Offensive Player of the Year, Nagurski–Woodson Defensive Player of the Year and Thompson–Randle El Freshman of the Year, according to WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN. Anyway, if somebody wants to know what it means, they'll be redirect and notice that are Big Ten Awards. Sergio Skol (talk) 18:23, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

I believe this is better located in ‘Big Ten awards’ (that you created). There are responses in that post to your question. Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:35, 27 May 2024 (UTC)

This is how I personally do it, but I wouldn't necessarily oppose going with the generic title of Big Ten Offensive Player of the Year since only a Big Ten fan would know what these awards mean without clicking or hovering over it. Either way, WP:NOPIPE applies. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:09, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Frankly that's not the issue I wanted to focus on with this discussion. It just re-ignited the interest for me to start this discussion, something I've been meaning to do for a while. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:43, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I get it and I agree with you, it ain't necessary add SEC Lineman of the Year, Jacobs Blocking Trophy, Sun Belt Newcomer of the Year, and all of those conference awards. But there's a conflict between me and @Centurion Seraph if we should add "Big Ten" in the links, and I want you guys to help us to solve this.

As @Dissident93 said, only a Big Ten fan (as I am) would know what these awards mean without clicking or hovering over it, and according to WP:NOPIPE and WP:NOTBROKEN, it's OK link them as I do. Sergio Skol (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

• Support. No need for these more minor, obscure awards to be in the infobox. Useight (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  Obscure?? The Big Ten Offensive Lineman of the Year, as well as defensive lineman, are the two oldest awards currently given by the Big Ten Conference. As well as they distinguish between 5-10 first-team all-conference selections. But I respect your opinion. Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:12, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

  I called it obscure, but that could simply be derived from my own lack of knowledge on the intricacies of college-level awards and projecting that lack of knowledge onto others and thus assuming that it's not a household term. But I would be surprised if a randomly-selected American adult knew the Big Ten had lineman awards. Hence, I called it obscure. Useight (talk) 17:44, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

  @Useight This is a response worth reverence. The only thing I will say is I don't think we should delete information that we think the average American wouldn't know. We all first made the trip to Wikipedia wanting to learn. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:50, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

  By that logic we should be adding everything into the infobox. It's for the most important aspects, not every aspect. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Noting that, as of now, I'm interpreting the following:
  • Support removal: Hey man im josh, Sergio Skol, Useight
  • Oppose removal: Centurion Seraph
  • Unclear stance, could benefit from these users clarifying a support or oppose position: @Bagumba, @Dissident93

While I believe consensus has roughly formed around removal of these accolades, any feedback and thoughts from anybody else that has not yet been involved in the discussion would be very much appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh This is the single biggest problem I’ve found on Wikipedia. There is no way consensus has been formed on 3-1 vote discussion. (Especially when one of those editors who voted yes added and edited a majority of the awards in contention, and it is highly plausible the vote came just as an opposition to mine). You could use this conversation as a way to make and test edits you see fit to trim the award sections, but you cannot use this as a consensus guideline. The same four people talking dont speak for 99.9% of the editors who aren't reading or able to voice there opinions. If people revert and re-add, it is not consensus, as having these awards installed is the current consensus and common practice. I wish these discussions were more easily viewable and accessible. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:07, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: I encourage you to read WP:BLUDGEON. You should not be replying to every single reply that doesn't take your side. No one else has argued for their inclusion. Let the conversation take place instead of forcing your opinion on everyone. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:10, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh This is not the case at all. Once again you are slandering to lessen my point of view. This is a small conversation, where I’ve not bludgeoned anybody. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:18, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Nobody is slandering you so quit it with that. It's absurd and inappropriate how much you're responding to everything and everyone in this conversation. You're fighting tooth and nail to keep something you like. I'm not going to argue with you about it, it's bludgeoning. Now how about we actually let the discussion take place and if you want to personally talk with me you can follow up on my talk page. We don't need to bog this discussion (the whole point I'm trying to make here). Hey man im josh (talk) 01:23, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

“To falsely accuse someone of bludgeoning is considered uncivil, and should be avoided.” Per the link you included. Its defamation what you are doing, plain and simple. I’ve responded to three people in total, two people who voted yes, one who I just said I revered, and the other one who tagged me into this discussion to lend my point of view. So Ive not replied to half the people, and the times I replied never were forceful or disrupting. This is how conversations work. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:32, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The same four people talking dont speak for 99.9% of the editors who aren't reading or able to voice there opinions.: We can only go by people who choose to comment. Consensus can change too, if people happen to chime in later.—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

The very top of the Consensus link you sent me, first article states: “nor is it the result of a vote”. What you directly sent “consensus can change” is entirely about the proposal of consensus change, never once mentioning achieving or formulating. See Achieving consensus (same link) I do understand what you are saying, but by skipping the editing phase and jumping directly to a discussion and forming consensus for every NFL player with four people isnt right. By editing the changes you want to delete, you then see the reaction of possible opposition. Skipping the editing phase automatically eliminates any opposition before consensus is already reached and enforced. Centurion Seraph (talk) 06:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Skipping the editing phase automatically eliminates any opposition before consensus is already reached and enforced" If someone disagrees after the fact, they discuss it here, and that's when consensus can change. On the flip side, if it wasn't discussed first before editing, there's a certain segment of editors that will automatically delete merely because it "didn't already have consensus" It's a catch-22. —Bagumba (talk) 08:09, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm ok that Conf MVP, OPTY, DPOY, STPOY and All-Conference Teams are there at least. It seems that the conf-specific position awards are a niche Big Ten thing(?) I'm neutral whether they stay or not. One alternative might be list say Big Ten QB of the Year, but not if they also won the Big Ten Offensive POY. —Bagumba (talk) 08:22, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

This is a compromise I am willing to make, I had not thought of that. Deleting the positional conference awards if they won DPOY or OPOY. It make the most since I believe from all aspects Centurion Seraph (talk) 15:17, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

My opinion is that we shouldn't overcomplicate the inclusion criteria. Then we have people who come in and say "BUT X PERSON HAS IT INCLUDED!", without the knowledge of why. It's more direct and clear to list "Do not include x" in the WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

It’s not that complicated at all. Inclusion criteria (or exclusion criteria in this instance) pertains to adding only the highest conference award achieved, the others can be implied. If you win MVP, do not add OPOY and quarterback. If you win DPOY, do not include defensive back. If you win offensive lineman only, keep it as is. This is how compromise works, my opinion is not to remove any existing conference awards.

Also should anybody delete these edits proposed, can they make sure the information is in body, as it is not always. Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:57, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

@Centurion Seraph: If the information is not in the body already it shouldn't be in the article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh my god man, are we trying to improve things or not? The information is referenced through the link, most cases it is in the body, sometimes not. Centurion Seraph (talk) 17:35, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:CIRCULAR:

Do not use articles from Wikipedia (whether English Wikipedia or Wikipedias in other languages) as sources, since Wikipedia is a user-generated source...Content from a Wikipedia article is not considered reliable unless it is backed up by citing reliable sources. Confirm that these sources support the content, then use them directly.

—Bagumba (talk) 01:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Let me first say, that I didnt create create, edit or format the big ten award page and I dont add awards quite honestly. I did edit the way some redirected but never the initial adding of them to players. They existed already and I think they should remain in the infobox is all.

With that being said Big Ten Quarterback of the Year, you see how the reference is included in the table in the link, officially from the Big Ten. Is this using an article from Wikipedia as a source? Mind you I really have no idea what the articles/bodies of 99.9% of players present or source like. I just wanted to make sure there was an effort to preserve, as you said, before totally erasing. Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:36, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

CIRCULAR just means that a bio of Player X linking to Big Ten Quarterback of the Year still needs a citation, even if it's already sourced at the blue-linked target, in which case just copy the citation to Player X. —Bagumba (talk) 04:23, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

Okay. Got it, thank you @Bagumba Centurion Seraph (talk) 04:42, 1 June 2024 (UTC)

The WP:PRESERVE policy does say:

Instead of removing content from an article or reverting a new contribution, consider...Formatting or sourcing on the spot

—Bagumba (talk) 19:47, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

Noting that I've left a notice at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format about this discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

• Don't have time to read through all this – but if we include all-conference selections, I'm not sure I see why we should exclude awards such as Big Ten Lineman of the Year which are of higher significance? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:55, 31 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm conflicted on this. A player being named QB or DL of the year was usually good enough to win other awards, potentially adding to infobox bloat (see Dwayne Haskins). But like BeanieFan brought up, the awards are still higher in importance than all-conference honors since they were seen as better than the rest of their fellow Big Ten players at that position. On the other hand, this really only applies to the Big Ten since other conferences stick to the main MVP, OPOY, DPOY, FOTY-type awards as far as I'm aware.

My stance is to remove them if they won an award of higher significance, since it can be reasonably assumed a player like Haskins being named Big Ten MVP also made him the best QB and offensive player in the conference. This is not a preservation issue like Centurion said since they can easily be added to prose (which should always be the case regardless) and have an entire article dedicated to this anyway. Additional, we should be following WP:NOPIPE and go with the generic titles over the proper name per my previous comment. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 14:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I’d just like to note that a positional award winner was not usually good enough to win other awards. There are five on offense (QB,RB,WR,TE,OL), and three on offense (DL,LB,DB). So 1:3 and 1:5.

& Thank you for creating the Big Ten Most Valuable Player redirect to match the other generic redirects in use now. Centurion Seraph (talk) 16:38, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Dubious statement at Willard Dewveall

Was reading Willard Dewveall and noticed there's a long-standing statement that In 1962, Dewveall caught the (then) longest pass reception for a touchdown in professional football history, 98 yards, from Jacky Lee, against the San Diego Chargers. However, this doesn't seem right as Frank Filchock is listed as having thrown a 99-yard TD pass to Andy Farkas in 1939 at 99-yard pass play. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:59, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the statement is unsourced and incorrect. The Filchock-Farkas touchdown is in the NFL Record & Fact Book. The Lee-Dewveall touchdown was (and remained) an AFL record, which may have caused the confusion. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:06, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree that Filchock-Farkas is the record.

Clutch Points and Sports Reference agree, though SR has an error and incorrectly lists Bill Dudley’s total game passing yards for the longest pass. Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

J. J. McCarthy’s lead (again)

On J. J. McCarthy’s page there has been a four editor debate regarding his lead for the last 72+ hours. (@Cbl62 @Bluerules @Jweiss11) It’s been an even stand off, at times reaching a 3-1 agreement, but now its getting even further distorted with new edits again. We have all made an exhausting amount of edits and reversions, Im trying to learn and debate this in a more proper manner. As it cant be remedied through his talk page with evolving edits, keeping this cyclical.

The current version and editor refutes that he won three big ten titles, which I disagree, and wants a season by season recap, including his early life and high school career added at the forefront of the lead. Burying all his major accomplishments in 2023. I believe it should read as follows…

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football for the Michigan Wolverines, winning a national championship as a junior in 2023. The program’s first since 1997. He also won a third consecutive Big Ten Conference title and was the Big Ten Quarterback of the Year. McCarthy finished his college career with a 27–1 record (.964) as the starting quarterback, the highest winning percentage in NCAA Division I Football Bowl Subdivision (FBS) history. He was selected 10th overall by the Vikings in the 2024 NFL draft.

Centurion Seraph (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• A lead should summmarize the major sections of the article. McCarthy doesn't yet have a pro career, so his career has three elements: (i) a college career in which he led Michigan to consecutive appearances in the College Football Playoff, (ii) a high school career in which he led IMG to a high school national championship, and (iii) selection in the NFL draft. Each of these elements should be referenced in the lead. If and when his pro career develops (and hopefully it will), there will be more to be said and other elements may become less significant, but for now the article is what it is and the lead should summarize those elements. Cbl62 (talk) 21:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  This is contrary to everything Ive been taught. I’ve been told it is a synopsis of their major accomplishments, in order to provide a concise, engaging lead.

  
  

  If this isnt the case, then Ill start editing NFL player pages who dont have expansive NFL careers, to include each year of their college career and add their high school football career. Centurion Seraph (talk) 23:00, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

  Due weight is the key. Not every year necessarily needs mentioning if it's insignificant. Even in the body some editors will monotonously drop stat lines of uneventful years, incorectly thinking each year needs substantial coverage. Or MOS:OVERSECTION with a dedicated section for each season. Some periods might rightfully be grouped and lightly covered. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba is correct. McCarthy led his team to back-to-back appearances in the College Football Playoff in 2022 and 2023. That is an extraordinary accomplishment, but it doesn't mean that every football bio lead should summarize each college season. Judgment is required as to what's "due" in each case. Cbl62 (talk) 23:34, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

• MOS:BLPLEAD says:

  The lead section should summarise with due weight the life and works of the person.

  I just don't feel a player's high school career is all that relevant to the lead once they've become a pro. Accomplished HS players are a dime a dozen at that point, and not distinguishing to other pros, save perhaps of national honors. —Bagumba (talk) 23:03, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I just wanted to mention that according to an earlier discussion, in order to unambiguously state the subject's nationality and follow MOS:SEAOFBLUE, the first sentence ought to read:

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American professional football player who is a quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League (NFL).

OceanGunfish (talk) 14:08, 4 June 2024 (UTC)

The lead proffered by Centurion is too brief for a "B" class article and is somewhat undue in asserting that JJM won three consecutive Big Ten championships since he was a freshman backup in 2021. Until there's more to say about a pro career, my proposed lead would be something along these lines:

Jonathan James McCarthy (born January 20, 2003) is an American football quarterback for the Minnesota Vikings of the National Football League (NFL). He was selected 10th overall by the Vikings in the 2024 NFL draft.

McCarthy played college football for the Michigan Wolverines from 2021 to 2023. After serving as a backup in 2021, he became Michigan's starting quarterback as a sophomore and led the 2022 team to an undefeated regular season, a Big Ten Conference championship, and a berth in the 2022–23 College Football Playoff. As a junior, he led the 2023 Michigan team to a perfect season (15–0) and the program's first national championship since 1997. He was also selected as the 2023 Big Ten Quarterback of the Year. He finished his college career with a 27–1 record (.964) as a starting quarterback, the highest winning percentage in FBS history.

McCarthy played high school football at Nazareth Academy in La Grange Park, Illinois, and then IMG Academy in Bradenton, Florida. He led IMG to a high school football national championship in 2020.

Cbl62 (talk) 21:22, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is not your lead right now. You removed the Cade McNamara section and moved the high school section to the end, and erasing where he is natively from. You’re going back and forth again. But the general argument remains. Centurion Seraph (talk) 21:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

This is my suggestion. I don't think his city of birth is needed. Happy to restore Cade McNamara if you or Jweiss wish. Cbl62 (talk) 21:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

MOS:BIRTHPLACE is generally not notable for the lead. —Bagumba (talk) 23:06, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

McNamara is hardly a household name for a casual college football fan, so there's no point to name-drop him in someone else's lead. —Bagumba (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree that the 3rd straight conf title, while true, just comes off as puffery, given his backup status. Keep it out, or refer to it as the team's 3rd, if it must be mentioned there. —Bagumba (talk) 23:10, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

It should be made clear that McCarthy was not a starter in 2021, but it’s not like he only warmed the bench and played in garbage time. He was involved in key plays in some do the biggest games of the entire college football season that year when the outcome of those games was still in doubt. And the dynamic between him and McNamara is a key element of his career to date. It was one of the biggest stories in college football going into the 2022 season. That is supported by some of the strongest sources referenced in the article and many more than can be found. The high school stuff I can live without, but a quick sentence or two isn’t crazy given the national title with IMG. Jweiss11 (talk) 23:56, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

HS: Yes, I had said national honors could be notable for the lead, but missed that he won a title there. —Bagumba (talk) 00:06, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I agree. The fact that he led teams to national titles at the HS and college levels is rare accomplishment and worthy of mention in the lead. Cbl62 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I can live with the mention of HS national title, but the point i was making is it definitely doesnt need to be listed before his college national title as your current lead writes, neither does it need to mention where he was born, and first attended HS at Nazerth. Just mention the title with IMG if you must. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

My proposed lead is above and does not mention where he was born and places the high school bit after the college bit. Apparently, we agree on that much. Cbl62 (talk) 00:25, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Hey we agree on the 27-1 winning percentage record too. Though I think you should include Division 1 as I originally wrote it. Most people know what D1 means, but FBS by itself less so. At least in my opinion. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:34, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

McNamara: That dynamic you referred to would need fleshing out at J. J. McCarthy § 2021 season. As a non-Michigan fan, I saw his name in the lead and thought "So what?" —Bagumba (talk) 00:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

I do think that may be an issue with the three consecutive big ten titles, non-michigan fans just chalk him up as a freshman with his helmet off all year, but there is no doubt he contributed to winning that conference title (from a Michigan fan’s perspective). Both on and off the field. I should have written “two as a full-time starter” after won a third consecutive Big ten title though. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Well, even practice squad players contribute to a championship. Do sources regularly attribute 3 titles to him, or is this just a statistic being cited to right a great wrong. The body should make it clear how sources are lauding his significance as frosh, which would need to be more than a stat line. —Bagumba (talk) 00:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe so. I will work on the body and sources. But yes he is regularly credited with 3 big ten titles and defeating Ohio State three times. He never lost in his three years in regard to either. A three-year career when you win three big ten titles at 100% rate is worth noting in my opinion.

“With three straight victories over Ohio State, three Big Ten Championships and a national title to close out his career, McCarthy served as a key leader in Michigan’s renaissance.”

“After helping lead Michigan football to a 15-0 record, its third-consecutive Big Ten championship and the program’s first national championship since 1997, J.J. McCarthy has more accomplishments in front of him.”

I could do this 10x over but Ill just give two sources for the time being. Centurion Seraph (talk) 00:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Maybe wording like "helping lead" would make mentioning the 3 titles less objectionable? I'll leave it to the Michigan experts. —Bagumba (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I'd omit the 2021 Big Ten title (when he was a backup) as undue for a lead. He was the starter for the 2022 and 2023 teams and led both of those teams to undefeated regular seasons and College Football Playoff berths -- and the 2023 team to the NC. Those are his most important accomplishments. Cbl62 (talk) 01:00, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Two additional national publications, as not to present bias. It should not be up to you personally to omit and ignore solely on your opinion, despite a consensus of sports publication sources.

“McCarthy decides to turn pro after three straight wins over Ohio State, three straight Big Ten titles and three straight trips to the national semifinals”

McCarthy and the Wolverines finished a 15-0 season, capped off by a third consecutive win against Ohio State, a third Big Ten title and a national championship after beating Washington 34-13. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:15, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Of course, there are numerous publications referring to UM's three straight Big Ten titles. That's a big deal for the Michigan program, and it may even have a place in the McCarthy article, but it's "undue" for McCarthy's lead given that he was a freshman backup player in 2021 with only 516 passing yards. I thought before that you were saying we should only focus in the lead on the most important highlights? Cbl62 (talk) 01:46, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Are you even reading these sources? They are not sources talking about the Michigan football program. You’re intentionally spreading false information to slant to your point of view. They are all four each individualized summaries of JJ McCarthy’s college career accomplishments as he entered the NFL draft this year. Centurion Seraph (talk) 01:58, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Yes, I read the sources. It's fine to include in the body, but that doesn't mean it belongs in the lead (any more so than the assertion in these articles that Michigan won three straight against Ohio). Cbl62 (talk) 02:03, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Given the amount of information in your lead i cant see why you wouldnt include it. In all reality, JJ will be remembered for two things at Michigan.

  • 2023 national championship
  • 3 straight victories over OSU, with 3 big ten titles.

  
  

  Nobody will ever remember or care about Cade McNamara, a 2022 fiesta bowl (cfp “appearance”) or his big ten qb of the year award for that matter.

& for the record he accounted for 640 total yards with seven touchdowns in 2021, and as Jweiss said played in many critical moments. It may not be an exorbitant amount, but its surely worth counting him as a member of the 2021 Big Ten Championship he won. Centurion Seraph (talk) 02:12, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

• Your assertion that McCarthy will be most rememberd for 3 straight victories over Ohio State is seriously flawed given that he appeared only briefly in the 2021 Ohio State game and threw only one pass. Likewise, your assertion that "nobody will ever remember of care about" McNamara is astonishing given that he led UM to its first ever College Football Playoff appearance. Are you serious or simply trolling? Cbl62 (talk) 03:41, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

  Im talking about Cade McNamara in relation to JJ McCarthy’s career and life. This should be the obvious I'm not saying nobody cares about him personally. In 20 years or 2 months, nobody will first think of him being Cade McNamara’s back up, as opposed to remembering him winning three big ten titles.

  
  

  Secondly, its a collective. In his three years at Michigan, he had three straight victories over Ohio State and three Big Ten Championships. I just presented you with the same exact information written by ESPN, Fox Sports, The Detroit Free Press and The Michigan Daily. Are they all trolling as well? Centurion Seraph (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

References

Infobox NFL team sprawl

Looking at Chicago Bears, it seems that Template:Infobox NFL team is getting too long with less notable lists like the team's historical list of owners and presidents. They don't seem more notable than head coaches and GMs, and comes off as worshipping organizational hierachy. Certainly useful information, which I suggest moving into the body and sourcing (eventually). Then we can remove the parameters from the infobox.—Bagumba (talk) 03:21, 6 June 2024 (UTC)

• Support: I do agree that we shouldn't include the full owner and president history in the team infoboxes like that. I do think though that we could possibly wikilink some of the listed personnel to a list of the team's personnel, if it exists. For example, on Green Bay Packers, linking General manager to List of Green Bay Packers presidents, head coach to List of Green Bay Packers head coaches, president to List of Green Bay Packers presidents, etc., while still listing the active person in that role beside it. That would be one way to still provide that info, if it's available. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support that is what the lists are for. What is next a list of head coaches? Imagine if all of the countries had a list of monarchs and prime ministers in their infobox?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:06, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
• Support but only if the ownership information is preserved in the article body, like what I've done here with the Washington Commanders. I'm indifferent on maintaining a list of team presidents, as they are a hired position that aren't notable in most cases (could any of you name 10 active ones without looking it up?). A list of general managers would make more sense. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

• Actually, I'm going to redo the list of NFL franchise owners page and add the same information under individual team headers. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  @Dissident93: That article was actually on my to do list to rework and nominate for featured list status, so I'm open to working on it with you. But, based on your description, I think maybe a List of NFL franchise owners and List of current NFL franchise owners might be useful as different lists. That way we could have an "at a glance" for current ones and a full historical page for all that info. Thoughts? Hey man im josh (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I was actually thinking it would be best to prominently list the team's current owner first and then list the ownership history below. Having two articles makes more sense if we decide to list them in chronological order with notes on each (if possible) like the Commanders example. But anything is better than the current status of the article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  List of current NFL head coaches and List of NFL head coaches provides a precedent for the layout that Hey man im josh is proposing. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  I love the idea of all the information in one place, but I do worry that if we include it ALL in one list, the entire ownership histories, we'd be doing a disservice to readers. I expect that they'd be normally searching for a current list first and foremost with the historical list of owners being a secondary thought. We could strike a good balance I think. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:11, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  For my first example, I was imagining a smaller condensed table for the previous owners that omitted prose and only included years owned, purchase price, and team achievements overseen. The current owner would be the one with a historical summary of their ownership that includes all of the above. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Purchase price was a difficult aspect for me when I was brainstorming about the owners list in the past. I thought about an acquired column instead of purchase price, where you could state it was inherited or purchased, and use either notes to include how that happened (at least when thinking about the "current" list) or an extra column. I'd think for a historical list you'd simply include a notes column that gives you the info instead of using notes themselves for that info, based on the goals of such lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

  Another thing I'd like to work is changing the scope of Glazer ownership of Manchester United to include their Bucs ownership. Glazer family redirecting to Malcolm Glazer, somebody who has been dead for 10 years, isn't ideal. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  I'd support the scope change, however, the article is already promoted to good article status... that makes it a little more difficult of a sell. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

  Maybe then a subsection on Malcolm page? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:16, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Support: Yeah these seem a bit much to include in infoboxes. I agree with Dissident93 that the info should be in the body in a table. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

If a player has only played in college, can it be made into an article?

There are a few players that did not player or even make an NFL team yet they have Wikipedia pages. Is it important enough or no? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 17:38, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

They can have independent articles if they meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:43, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, so should I start it as a draft then, rather than just making a page? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 17:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Not a bad idea to start it in draft space if you are unsure. I do that often. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

How did this look? Michael Geiger (American football) WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 21:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'd remove the cookie-cutter prose listing his stats which are already listed in the table below and get rid of the professional section since he clearly never played or even tried out for a pro team. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:19, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

FLRC

I have nominated List of Minnesota Vikings starting quarterbacks for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:25, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Standardized naming for Category:American football team records and statistics

Within WP:NFL we have a tiny mess regarding the naming of lists related to records and statistics, as well as awards. Some examples:

• List of Green Bay Packers records
• Minnesota Vikings statistics
• List of Carolina Panthers records and statistics
• List of Chicago Bears team records

Regarding awards, we have:

• Baltimore Ravens awards
• List of Chicago Bears award winners

I propose we standardize these in the following ways:

• List of *TEAM* team records (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers team records): this clarifies the content of each list, which is "team records" and not an indiscriminate list of statistics
• List of *TEAM* award winners (i.e. List of Green Bay Packers award winners): this also clarifies the content of each list, which is a list of award winners (not a list of team awards)

Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)