Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

James Laurinaitis

Andrewcoy28 is edit warring because of stats as can be seen here. NFL, ESPN, Yahoo! Sports list his tackles as 869, while the user that is making the change is basing his reason for the change on this lone article. In the article it is clearly stated that NFL and the Rams' used different methods to determine the number of tackles. Which number should be used? – Sabbatino (talk) 08:17, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

If the league and two independent sources all agree he's made 869 tackles, that's the number that should go down. The team may have a vested interest in making their players look better by inflating their numbers, so I wouldn't take their word for it, especially when the article notes they use different methods of counting tackles. – PeeJay 12:05, 25 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE and MOS:BOLDAVOID

Hello everyone, me again. User:Sabbatino this morning made a few edits to recent Minnesota Vikings season articles so that the opening sentences now include bold titles. I believe that this is contrary to MOS:BOLDAVOID, which says that the opening sentence of an article shouldn't be worded awkwardly just so that the title of the article can be added in bold. To that end, I believe that writing

The 2018 season will be the Minnesota Vikings' 58th in the National Football League

works better than

The 2018 Minnesota Vikings season will be the franchise's 58th season in the National Football League

I'm willing to roll out my suggested format across all the Vikings articles, but I'm going to need some help to do the rest of the NFL if this is something the community approves of. – PeeJay 12:59, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Completely agree with the non-bolded approach which is consistent with the guidelines you cited. "2018 Minnesota Vikings season" is more of a descriptive title than a formally accept name. Also, providing key links early, like to the Vikings, is consistent with WP:CONTEXTLINK. Early on as we transition this, it's better to be inconsistently good than consistently bad. There is WP:NODEADLINE. However, completing it sooner rather than later discourages drive-by editors who are unaware of this discussion that might revert for "consistency".—Bagumba (talk) 13:43, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

No strong view on which version is better, but such a change should probably discussed across all American professional sports projects that have been following/sharing the same article naming protocol for the last decade. Compare 2017 Chicago Bears season (NFL), 2017 Chicago White Sox season (Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball), 2017–18 Chicago Bulls season (Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association), 2017–18 Chicago Blackhawks season (Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey) all of which use the bold titles approach. Cbl62 (talk) 15:36, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm happy to suggest this across the board for all sports. I had originally hoped to see how this was received among the Vikings season articles and go from there, but someone decided that consistency was more important than actually analysing why we present our content the way we do and how. So maybe we should limit this discussion to just NFL articles for now and then attempt to roll it out across the other projects? Unless you think it's futile to introduce it here because it won't be accepted anywhere else? – PeeJay 15:52, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Accusing me of reverting to the accepted standard is silly and this is not the first time I am being accused by you. Therefore, I do not wish to have any more discussions with you directly since all you do is take it personally. Moreover, I never said anything about consistency in that discussion. Personal synthesis is not the way to go. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Dude, your exact words in your edit summaries were "Restore standard for NFL pages + MOS:BOLDTITLE". If you don't think that has anything to do with consistency, then I don't think you know what consistency means. I'm here to make a better encyclopaedia and you're blindly reverting because it doesn't jive with your conservative attitude; just because something has been done a certain way for years doesn't make that way right. I'll admit my way might not be perfect, but you'll have to prove that it isn't first. – PeeJay 19:25, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

First of all, I know very well what consistency is and I did not say anything about it, but you keep making it up. In addition, you are the one who is blindly reverting as you did today when you restored your preferred version despite the fact that this discussion is still ongoing. And no, I am not conservative since you do not know me in real life. Furthermore, you are leaning towards harrasment so I advise to stop it right here since this discussion is not about me, you or anyone else. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:45, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

By the way, the one I find the most ridiculous of the four you linked to is the ice hockey one. Why does it mention the date the franchise was founded in an article about a specific season? Seems totally ludicrous to me. – PeeJay 15:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: The ol' consistency across North American sports WikiProjects argument, although well intentioned, usually just stonewalls any progress. There's little commonality in style among the projects as it is anyways (infoboxes, navboxes, stats tables, etc), and this is a community guideline as opposed to some arbitrary project convention.—Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't have a super strong opinion but the bolded version does appear to meet MOS:BOLDTITLE as that would be a commonly held term for the season and can fit in normal English which are the first two points. And unlike the example in MOS:BOLDAVOID a person would normally say something like "The 2018 Minnesota Vikings season will be the franchise's 58th season in the National Football League" as a normal sentence, that is how seasons are typically talked about whereas the flooding example that wouldn't be a typical sentence. -DJSasso (talk) 16:48, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Though I can't recall exactly (and not going to check my contribs), over the years, 'here and there', I've bolded the intro to sports team season articles. Until now, I wasn't aware of any opposition to it. GoodDay (talk) 17:02, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

MOS:BOLDTITLE does say that "Otherwise, include the title if it can be accommodated in normal English", which the second example does. I'm neutral on which should be preferred, just that it's consistent with other similar articles. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:15, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

It does say that, but it also says that you shouldn't put links in bold titles, and there's no way of writing the sentence naturally (and without putting in an Easter egg link) while still linking to the franchise page at the earliest possible opportunity. If you write "The 2018 Minnesota Vikings season will be the franchise's 58th in the National Football League" you get an Easter egg link. Furthermore, I disagree that "the 2018 Minnesota Vikings season" is a normal thing to say in everyday parlance. You might talk about "the 2018 Minnesota Vikings" as a team, or you might talk about "the 2018 season", but I wouldn't refer to the "2018 Minnesota Vikings season" in normal speech - in fact, when I Google it, I find practically zero hits for that exact phrase (and not just for 2018 but for previous years too). Writing the opening to these articles in the manner I suggested in my original post avoids all these pitfalls. It does mean there's no bold text at the top of the page, but that's by no means essential for a Wikipedia article. – PeeJay 18:28, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

I've yet to see any prevailing arguments about why the wording I propose should not be used, so I'm going to go ahead and restore that wording to all the Vikings articles. I do not have the time to do all 32 teams (and their forerunners) myself, so if people could help out, perhaps with the use of a bot, that would be great. – PeeJay 14:57, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

It would appear rather odd, to make the Vikings intros different from the intros of the other NFL team season articles intros. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Hence why it would make sense to change the rest of them. No point sticking with something that doesn't satisfy the MOS when we have a better option. Furthermore, we shouldn't shirk the responsibility of making the encyclopaedia better just because the amount of work involved is a little too high. – PeeJay 17:20, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Since this is the Football Wikipedia & AFAIK, you're not going to make such changes to the NHL team season articles, then cool. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I won't be making such changes to the NHL season articles, no, but I think that such changes should be encouraged, especially those to remove the founding dates of each franchise from the opening paragraphs of their season articles. – PeeJay 17:38, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

There ought to be consensus before you change a protocol that has been in place for a decade across every American professional sports league. Two days of discussion (and over a weekend) is a bit hasty, and I'm not yet seeing evidence of a clear consensus for your proposed change. You offered to post on the other WikiProject talk pages, and I think that's a sound idea. Let others express their views. Let the discussion play out. Cbl62 (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I don't recall overtly making that offer, I simply said I would be happy to suggest it to the other sports and that we should see how it's received here first. I also recall User:Bagumba pointing out how the old "let's be consistent across all four major US sports" argument is often used as a poor excuse for not wanting to change the status quo. You say I should try to get a better consensus here before rolling out any changes, but you've all had the opportunity to weigh in and so far there have been contributions from only four editors, the last of which came two days ago. It's not my fault the conversation has stagnated, so I'm being bold. – PeeJay 17:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Conversation is often slower over weekends. Give the discussion a week to play out. I've now notified other American sports projects, which should help to draw the issue to the attention of interested persons so that a consensus can be reached one way or the other. Cbl62 (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

You may want to hold off on making anymore changes, until you get a consensus for them. It will only be more frustrating for you, if eventually those changes end up being reverted. What's more annoying then having 10 of your edits undone, is having 100 of your edits undone, etc. GoodDay (talk) 19:29, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough. I notice that you haven't yet offered an opinion on the change, by the way. If you do so, perhaps we can move towards a consensus. – PeeJay 19:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

IMHO, we should keep the status quo - Year Team season intro & remove the page links from them. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Okay, but don't you think there should at least be a link to the team page somewhere in the opening sentence? – PeeJay 19:42, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I suppose, though the team page is already linked in the infobox heading. GoodDay (talk) 19:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Are you sure? It's not linked in any of the Vikings season infobox headings, and I'm not sure it should be, per some other MOS guideline. I'll see if I can find the pertinent one. – PeeJay 19:48, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Found it. Check out Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Infoboxes#Consistency between infoboxes where it says "The template should have a large, bold title line. [...] It should not contain a link." – PeeJay 19:50, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Apparently, it hasn't been applied to all infoboxes, concerning sports team season articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

No, but when there are so many articles under that umbrella all maintained by different people with different experiences of Wikipedia's policies and all working at cross purposes, there are bound to be some inconsistencies. Surely as members of this WikiProject it's our job to iron out those inconsistencies and get the articles to look as good and MOS-compliant as we can? – PeeJay 19:56, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm a pro-consistency gnome editor. Therefore, I wouldn't object if all sports team season articles were consistent among themselves. GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

That's great, I appreciate that. I just go one step further and would prefer it if all articles on the entire encyclopaedia were consistent. If they're not, what's the point in having the MOS in the first place? But that's by the by. I'll let you mull over what I've said and I hope you'll consider the format I propose to be a benefit to the encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 20:04, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

• Keep as is – Year team season should remain as is. Link the team article in the second sentence. Corky 20:19, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

This isn't a vote, Corky, but thanks for your input. I see where you're coming from, but I think MOS:BTW suggests that the first instance should be linked, so it would be a little weird to force the link to appear in the wrong place just so we can maintain bolding that falls foul of MOS:BOLDAVOID. – PeeJay 21:03, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

I realize this isn't a vote, but you asked for our opinions... that was my way of voicing my opinion. Sorry I didn't format it like everyone else. If this proposal goes through, are you and others going through every single article that this affects or is a bot? Corky 00:42, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

And please don't edit my posts as you did in your response. Though it was minor, you still edited it and it is not appreciated. Corky 00:44, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I haven't decided how best to implement the changes if they're approved by this WikiProject, but I would hope that we could all pull together to get it done pretty quickly. I've been going pretty slowly on the Vikings seasons so far, but that's partly because we haven't yet reached a full consensus and partly because I'm also making some other changes to the lead of each article (might as well take the opportunity while I'm there, right!) – PeeJay 09:23, 29 January 2018 (UTC)

I tried addressing this a couple months back at WP:BASEBALL. The discussion is here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_43#Team_season_problem?. A few of us agree to change the articles, but I didn't have the time and forgot about it for a while. Zoom (talk page) 16:28, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

That's interesting. So it seems like the reason we haven't done this so far across all WikiProjects is a sort of apathy among editors. All the arguments I've seen so far seem to be a bit of a smokescreen for the real reason, which is that people just don't want to do all the (admittedly) hard work it would take to change all the articles. – PeeJay 21:41, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

• Agree The title is merely descriptive and repeating it in the opening sentence serves to create awkward verbiage. Lizard (talk) 18:11, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

This is starting to feel like a consensus for the change. Anyone else care to weigh in? – PeeJay 11:03, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Hey, a bit late, but do you think we should have a consensus on each sport project talk page? I agree that the work would be tedious, but it will be worth it in the long run. Zoom (talk page) 16:52, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

I can see why you would say that from an encyclopaedia-wide consistency standpoint, but wouldn't it be better simply to establish a consensus here and then use this project as a test case when it comes to raising the issue at other projects? – PeeJay 00:09, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, there appears to be a consensus in existence (at least for WikiProject Baseball) at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball/Archive_43#Team_season_problem? – PeeJay 00:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I was Epicandrew1220 and changed my name. The problem with that is that there were only three others in the discussion and we didn't even reach what I would classify a consensus, given that all the articles remain unchanged and there was no real effort to even update the newer articles. Zoom (talk page) 01:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Honestly that's about as much "consensus" as you'll often get in these project discussions. We're all volunteers here, so often it's a matter of someone taking the lead and having the time and interest to take on things. I'd suggest doing one high-profile team first and see if anyone hollers.—Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Okay, well I've already done 10 seasons of the Minnesota Vikings before I was advised to stop, although they may not be a big enough name to attract any dissenting opinions. I'm just wondering what kind of "holler" counts as a valid objection; if someone simply says "this isn't how we do things", I'm inclined to ignore them. In fact, I'd be inclined to ignore them unless they had a very good reason to oppose these changes, since I'm supported by MOS:BOLDAVOID. – PeeJay 09:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd just link to this discussion in the edit summary. If we get more objections, I'd suggest getting MOS people involved. I really don't see a reason why an exception to override community guidelines is warranted here.—Bagumba (talk) 09:53, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Except you aren't supported by MOS:BOLDAVOID as mentioned above.... -DJSasso (talk) 15:58, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

You're going to have to point out the exact portion of the above discussion you're referring to, as I don't see anyone disputing the fact that MOS:BOLDAVOID agrees with this change. – PeeJay 16:19, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I did, above, it meets the first two points of MOS:BOLDTITLE in that it is a widely accepted name for the subject and that it can be used in normal English. It does not violate any of the MOS:BOLDAVOID points. The only one you could try to argue is about the floods, but nobody refers to floods by the year, whereas people do with seasons for sports teams. I myself use the exact format you say wouldn't be used when I am referring to a specific teams season when talking in everyday English. Now as I said above I have no strong opinion one way or the other which is used, but I want to make sure its clear that the change is a preference thing as the current versions in no way violate the MOS so just ignoring objections would be disruptive. (And looking at the above discussion there seem to be more disagreeing, or uncaring on which is used, than there are agreeing to the change so there is hardly a strong consensus for one) -DJSasso (talk) 17:48, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would argue that perhaps you only use that phraseology because you are a regular on Wikipedia and therefore it doesn't seem unnatural to you any more; I often see references to "the 2017 Minnesota Vikings", but the terminology "2017 Minnesota Vikings season" is almost exclusive to Wikipedia. Regardless, your option would result in having to link to the team via a piped link ("The 2017 Minnesota Vikings season is the franchise's 57th in the National Football League"); although it's pretty obvious where that link goes, it's not ideal per WP:EASTER. Why force a bold title when it's not necessary? Honestly, it feels like you're clinging to this simply because it's easier to stick to the status quo than to make a bunch of changes that could probably be run through a bot. – PeeJay 18:04, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Nah not at all, an AWB run could change all the articles in a matter of minutes once the right regex was written. It is more a case of really disliking when people have a particular pet peeve about some sort of formatting and so they try to claim it doesn't meet the MOS so they can get it changed to their preferred way. Happens all the time. MOS:FLAG is one of the best examples that is constantly claimed but often incorrectly. I would say your example in regards to an easter egg isn't really an easter egg as there probably isn't a single reader who doesn't understand where that link is going. But even if you don't use that format you could use "The 2017 Minnesota Vikings' season will be the 57th season of the Minnesota Vikings franchise." which doesn't have that issue. As to your comment about me using it that way in speech because of I am an editor here, I don't know if that is true, I feel like I referred to seasons like that before I even had the internet in the early 90s but I can't say for certain. As I said my only real concern is that this not be portrayed as a mandated change per the MOS, because it isn't. -DJSasso (talk) 18:17, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Fair enough, I apologise for making that assumption about your motives. As to your suggestion, doesn't it sound pretty weird to say "The 2017 Minnesota Vikings' season will be the 57th season of the Minnesota Vikings franchise"? You're saying "Minnesota Vikings" in full twice in the same sentence just to satisfy MOS:BOLDTITLE. That sounds pretty unnatural to me. Just my opinion, though I'm sure it's shared by plenty of others. – PeeJay 18:31, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I would probably use the franchise version you mention or use Vikings instead of the full team and city but that might be a bigger easter egg. I literally just copied that sentence from the baseball discussion above and changed it to be the Vikings. It's not really my preferred way. It was just an example avoiding the "easter egg" version. -DJSasso (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I understand, I just think it seems like we're bending over backwards to find a way to put some words in bold when there's actually a policy that says we don't have to. – PeeJay 20:11, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, this entire discussion should be either transferred to WP:SPORTS or copy-pasted to all the sports related WikiProjects. GoodDay (talk) 19:32, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

FWIW2, GA 1998–99 Manchester United F.C. season neither bolds nor repeats its title in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 20:15, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Indeed so! And I don't mean to imply that GA or FA status should be the endgame for all articles (some just aren't suited to it), but if any of these articles ever have aspirations of reaching FA status, I feel like MOS compliance is one pretty important aspect that we should be following. – PeeJay 21:03, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Notification of other projects For the record, Cbl62 stated (above) on January 28 that they had already done so.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Requesting additional eyes

Hey everyone, There is currently a small content dispute on Aaron Rodgers talk page regarding the inclusion of him dating race car driver Danica Patrick. It would be nice if we could get some more eyes to gain a consensus. Thanks in advance--Church ^Talk 19:53, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

Module:Sports table

I think we can centralize most standings templates across Wikipedia by implementing Module:Sports table. We can choose to create a modified variant (as it stands, we do not have a template that all of the standings templates use on WikiProject NFL). –Piranha249 (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Cardinals history

In the "History of the National Football League championship" article, why are the Chicago Cardinals 2 championships not credited to the Arizona Cardinals? I've never seen anything that says they are not the same team. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColemanPoag (talk • contribs) 22:35, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating an opinion on it but the Chicago Cardinals are listed in the table with the 2 title wins. The LA Rams and St. Louis Rams are separated as well. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Need admin(s) on standby during the Super Bowl

I know there are a lot of admins in this WikiProject. So can we get at least one of them to be on standby to protect high-target pages at a moment's notice? Any player on the field is one ankle-breaking juke or one burn by a wide receiver away from having his page swamped by vandalism of epic proportions. Despite putting in a request at WP:RFPP almost immediately, the page wasn't protected until hours later. We need a dedicated admin tomorrow to ensure something like this doesn't happen again (and so I and others can watch the game in peace). Lizard (talk) 04:27, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Your best bet would be to post at WP:RFPP and link to it here also, in the event there are NFL admins that monitor this page but not RFPP.—Bagumba (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Terry Bradshaw

There is a disruptive IP in Terry Bradshaw's page. It would be good if someone took a look as I am at 3RR until 13:45 EST. I also asked for the page to be protected. – Sabbatino (talk) 15:09, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd suggest posting to their talk page first and discussing why you disagree with their edits.—Bagumba (talk) 16:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: There is a Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format page, which shows how the player's infobox should look like. I reverted and linked this page in my edit summary, and wrote to that IP user. And what did he do? He instantly changed IPs and restored the wrong format. It is obvious that this page should be protected for some time. – Sabbatino (talk) 19:48, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

@Bagumba: The IP has used 3 different IP addresses in a row for 3 edits in a row when he restored bad version. It is obvious that this page needs to be protected since that IP user has ignored my every message and just keeps re-adding his preferred format. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The player pages format page is a bit outdated, but the IP is making changes that are very clearly against the standard format. Lizard (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

Let me know if they continue w/ Bradshaw, I can protect now that they should know better.—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

On another note, I see that the same IPs are changing various infobox All-Pro entries to limit it to AP selector. I don't think we have a clear consensus on which All-Pro's to use, and AP is arguable the most notable one.—Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

I base that off of the selectors that are listed in the collective bargaining agreement that players receive contract bonuses from being named to (sorry I don't remember the page). Currently that's the AP, PFWA, and Sporting News. Otherwise I use the teams listed on Pro-Football-Reference. Lizard (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

@Lizard the Wizard: I vaguely remember that coming up before. If there is consensus, it should be noted at the format page.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Yeah I've been meaning to update the format page for a while now. Lizard (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

List of Super Bowl jersey colors worn

Should List of Super Bowl jersey colors worn be nominated for deletion? There are no sources and jersey colors are not important at all. This is a completely trivial list. – Sabbatino (talk) 20:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

• Absolutely. This is trivia at its finest. I wouldn't even go ahead with a proper AfD nomination either, I'd just boldly redirect it to Super Bowl or something. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:47, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

PRODed it. Lizard (talk) 21:55, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Concur. I also removed the "Record by jersey color worn" section. Facepalm - BilCat (talk) 21:58, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

The article was probably inspired by the fact that white jerseys have dominated recent Super Bowls. Still doesn't justify it though. Lizard (talk) 22:06, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A few sentences regarding it can be added to the main Super Bowl article, but no way should this deserve a detailed list, it's just trivia. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

The PROD's been removed with only 2 days left by some do-gooder who wants to see a "full deletion discussion". So now we're stuck with this idocy for at least another week. Send to AFD? - BilCat (talk) 07:50, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Fine with me, no way it remains after a proper AfD. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:52, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Super Bowl jersey colors worn. Lizard (talk) 03:01, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

All-Pro navboxes

The annual navboxes for All-Pro picks at Category:National Football League All-Pro Team navigational boxes seem like WP:TCREEP to me. See examples like Ray Lewis or Peyton Manning. It becomes unwieldy when accomplished players start accumulating them. We already have enough navboxes from Super Bowl champs and annual award navs that collect the all-time winners, let alone these which have a new nav each year. Also, we don't limit All-Pro's in infoboxes to AP, but we single out the AP selector only here. Let's not let this mushroom when copycats start creating navs for other All-Pro selectors and the Pro Bowl too. What do others think?—Bagumba (talk) 12:21, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree it's template creep. Reggie White and Jerry Rice would have 10 each. A few months ago someone even started making ones for AP second teams before that endeavor was nipped in the bud. Lizard (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Super Bowl MVP article

There's a discussion at Talk:Super Bowl Most Valuable Player Award#Trivia added in need of input to establish a consensus. It's mainly regarding whether high schools that have produced multiple Super Bowl MVPs should be mentioned in the lead, and whether to add a "College" column to the table. Lizard (talk) 18:54, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I ask that everyone please take a look at this and provide input. It involves major edits to a featured list. If we can't serve as a vanguard for our highest-quality pages then we've failed as a WikiProject. Lizard (talk) 21:09, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Disregard, editor has been banned for placing his hand inside garments meant for feet and making them appear to speak by forming the shape of a mouth with his fingers. Lizard (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2018 (UTC)

Template for discussion

I've nominated for deletion a few NFL awards templates and other general sports awards templates that apply to some NFL bio articles. Please see the discussions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 February 17. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 16:06, 17 February 2018 (UTC)

1982 and 1983 All-Pro Team navboxes

Hey guys so I'm working on making navboxes for the AP All-Pro first team since the merger (1970). Well as I was creating 1982 and 1983, I got the titles mixed up. I tried to move them, but because they are each others titles, it won't let me. Can someone fix this? Thanks, RoyalsLife 22:01, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Just rename one of them to kdjsgajdkdfh or something so you can do the moves. Lizard (talk) 22:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Or just swap their contents. Lizard (talk) 22:04, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Lizard thanks, it's fixed now. RoyalsLife 22:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

Lizard can you check and make sure everything looks good? I've made over 100 edits today so I might not catch everything haha. RoyalsLife 22:21, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

@RoyalsLife and Lizard the Wizard: As a followup to the #All-Pro navboxes thread above, is there a compelling reason to keep these given the clutter they can create?—Bagumba (talk) 09:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I dunno. I can't think of a good reason. But the reasons I'd give for nuking them is the clutter, and the fact that they only account for the AP teams (in the infobox we take all teams into account). Lizard (talk) 15:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Though on the subject of how we do it in infoboxes, that may be something we should reconsider. The AP team is far and away the most notable. Google search "2017 All-Pro team" and try to find an independent source that mentions a team other than the AP's. Lizard (talk) 15:29, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Lizard on how we do it in the infoboxes. On the subject of the navboxes, I personally like them for research. In a way, getting rid of those would be like getting rid of the Super Bowl champions navbox. For a guy like Tom Brady with five, that kinda adds clutter. I say keep them and it was time consuming making them, so they would feel like a waste if we delete them. RoyalsLife 15:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, time invested in creating something isn't taken into account in deletion discussions. What is taken into consideration is cruft; I'd imagine many people wouldn't be fond of the idea of having as many as 10 of these things on a single player's page. The comparison to Super Bowl champion navboxes is WP:OTHERSTUFF, but Brady and Charles Haley are the only ones with 5 of them; many players would have 5 or more All-Pro navboxes. Lizard (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@RoyalsLife: Appreciate the work that you put into it. The worst part is that I'm sure you saw the existing All-Pro navs and assumed there was prior consensus for them. I agree there should be a way for a reader to research and get from a player to the individual All-Pro teams. In NBA bios, this is typically done by linking to the annual honors like at Stephen_Curry#Awards_and_honors. For players with only a few honors, this can be place directly in prose instead of a list. From there, readers can see the other members of the team that year. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 11:13, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Lizard I guess so. I'm not doing anything before 1970 which means only Jerry Rice, Anthony Muñoz, Bruce Smith, Lawrence Taylor, Reggie White, John Hannah, Ray Lewis, Peyton Manning, Bruce Matthews, Mike Singletary, and Randy White would have more than 6+. That's only 11 guys compared to the hundreds that make the team. Making the team is in fact considered a big honor. RoyalsLife 16:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

• I would support deletion of the annual All-Pro navboxes. In addition to the clutter factor, I don't think they serve a particularly valuable navigational function. Cbl62 (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

All-Pro navboxes TFD

FYI

You are invited to comment on the annual All-Pro navboxes at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2018_February_22#NFL_All-Pro_Team_navboxes.—Bagumba (talk) 10:43, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Games played notability

There was a discussion back in 2007 (here), that didn’t go very well as far as I’m concerned and perhaps 11 years later we can maybe finally get this right moving forward.

The case in question is, should a player who has never appeared in a season game, although being signed to a contract, and/or playing in preseason but being cut before the season starts, should have the merits (categories etc) of what a player who has played in a game should have. As far as I know, one has to have played in an official game to be considered “notable”; therefore if a bio has done nothing else to be considered notable, their article probably would not exist. Somebody like Brock Lesnar for example, has an existing article because he is notable in other fields not related to football. Therefore, I do not think it is appropriate for people like him to be categorized as an American football player. Thoughts please. Savvyjack23 (talk) 19:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

HS labeling conventions when city name in HS name

Edday1051 (talk · contribs) and I cannot agree on the following issue, so I'm asking for additional opinions. The labeling scheme of high schools in our NFL player infobox so far has been city (state) school name, for instance

• Odessa (TX) Permian
• Las Vegas (NV) Bishop Gorman
• Washington (DC) Ballou

Very often, however, the city name is part of the school's "common name". So far, we handled these cases like this:

• Long Beach (CA) Poly
• Miami (FL) Northwestern
• Midland (TX) Lee

If the high school name is basically the city name only, we just wrote

• Auburn (AL)
• Pahokee (FL)
• Springdale (AR)

The issue between Edday1051 (talk · contribs) and me is now about Paramus Catholic High School in Paramus, New Jersey. Should the label in Jabrill Peppers' and Rashan Gary's infobox be

• Paramus (NJ) Catholic

or

• Paramus Catholic (NJ)

This is a matter of preferred style as much as it is about consistency, so please leave you comments. --bender235 (talk) 20:32, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Under the standard naming scheme it was "Paramus (NJ) Catholic." This is wrong as it makes it appear that the school name is "Catholic High School." The official name of the school is "Paramus Catholic high school" and should be noted as such. Under the standard naming scheme, the correct version should be "Paramus (NJ) Paramus Catholic." I'm fine with this version as well, but I changed it to "Paramus Catholic (NJ)" as I felt having Paramus twice was superfluous. I had this same discussion with another user and we came to the agreement that my version was correct. Bender keeps bringing up other examples like "Northwestern" and "Poly" as an argument against, but there are obvious differences here. "Northwestern" and "Poly" are the colloquial versions used for Miami Northwestern and Long Beach Poly, so I think it is okay to use those names for the school name. Oppositely, nobody would refer to Paramus Catholic as "Catholic." If you are in Los Angeles and you say you go to Poly, people will know exactly what you are talking about. If you are in Bergen County and you say you go to "Catholic," people will look at you with a puzzled look. Bergen Catholic? Paramus Catholic? There are two versions that are correct here and that is either "Paramus (NJ) Paramus Catholic" or my shortened version "Paramus Catholic (NJ)" Edday1051 (talk) 20:49, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

As a reality check, outside of Miami or Long Beach, people will not associate just "Northwestern" or just "Poly" with either school. On the flip side, a person in Paramus, NJ, will cause no ambiguity by saying "I attend the Catholic High School." In other words: I doubt the validity of this line of reasoning. --bender235 (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

as a reality check, you again are avoiding the actual argument. You keep deflecting and talking about "Poly" and "Northwestern" when that is not the argument. The argument isn't whether we should only put "Northwestern" or "Poly" alone in the infobox. Nobody here is arguing that. On the other hand, the argument is whether the school name should only be "Catholic" for "Paramus Catholic." That should be an unequivocal no. Considering Poly and Northwestern are two well known high school football powerhouses, I guarantee you a lot more people know about Poly and Northwestern than a "Catholic high school" in Paramus, New Jersey lol. Yeah you really are a German who knows nothing about America. You really think people will just automatically associate "Paramus" and "Catholic?" with "(NJ)" sandwiched in between? That is idiotic. Why make it ambiguous when you can just clearly state "Paramus Catholic" and leave no doubt. Again, this whole argument comes down to you thinking that "Northwestern" or "Poly" is equivalent to "Catholic." I understand English is not your first language and your knowledge of America and geography is awful, but this is pretty simple to understand. Edday1051 (talk) 02:57, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

and for the record, even though this is just part of the deflection of the actual argument by Bender, I would be for the change of the Northwestern and Poly names to "Miami Northwestern (FL)" and "Long Beach Poly (CA)." I think we should treat any high school name with a city or town as part of the name as the same as the high school names that are the same for the school and city like one of the examples bender wrote above. Again, I don't mind the three name template for something like "Northwestern" because as I've said a million times already, "Northwestern" and "Poly" are the common colloquial names for the school, unlike "Catholic," which is not at all a name that anyone would say to refer to Paramus Catholic. This is the point that underlies this whole argument, which our German friend just does not seem to understand at all. Edday1051 (talk) 03:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm living in the US. But thanks for the nationalist ad hominem. I'm not going to debate with you anymore, you have disqualified yourself from this discussion per WP:NPA. --bender235 (talk) 00:27, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

is this what you do when you lose the argument? You take your ball and go home? I only guessed you were a non-native English speaker because this whole argument boils down to you believing that "Poly" and "Northwestern" is considered to the be the same as "Catholic." This is a mistake only a non-native English speaker would make. Then I go to your page and it turns out you are a native German speaker. No surprise there. What in the world does me bringing that up have anything to do with nationalism? I'm sure as a non-German speaker, I would make a similar mistake if we were talking about something similar with the way German schools are named. Only difference is I would realize I made a mistake once someone corrected me. And even though I gave you a clear explanation over and over again, you remained stubborn and unwilling to even consider the possibility that you were wrong here. Edday1051 (talk) 13:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog. --bender235 (talk) 02:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I accept your apology and appreciate you finally admitting you were wrong. It happens to the best of us. Edday1051 (talk) 04:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Actually this was a response to your null argument of "I see you're German, so you must have no clue. I'm American, so respect my authority on the matter." But nevermind. --bender235 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

dude, when someone offers you a way out of a bad situation, just take it. You admitted to something that makes you look even worse in this whole thing and I offered you a nice little olive branch and there you go again not understanding small nuances of American English. You sure you are American? You just play one on TV, right? Edday1051 (talk) 20:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a competition, 'dude.' We had a debate on which way to implement the current naming scheme, and the (unexpected) reaction from the community was to abolish the current scheme all together. There is no winners and losers. We are in this for a common goal. --bender235 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• I've always hated this naming scheme and have no idea why we can't just go with the article name for simplicity. Does the convoluted format come from college scouting reports or something? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:39, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

The current naming scheme for HS is an extension of the naming scheme for colleges (like "Miami (OH)" or "California (PA)"). --bender235 (talk) 22:01, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

Which are rare-ish exceptions that are used for disambiguating from the primary usage of the name. Not sure why we took the standard form from that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:55, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Personally, I have no problem with "Paramus Catholic (NJ)" see as it's the schools full name. That, or "Paramus (NJ) Paramus Catholic". ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 16:51, 24 February 2018 (UTC)

You'd still pick the second example over just going with the easy to read (and article name) of Paramus Catholic High School or Paramus Catholic? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 04:57, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Dissident93 that the current <city> (<state>) <school name> format used in football inboxes is unnecessarily cryptic. Aside from niche followers of the national high school football scene, this format is non-intuitive. Non-football fans who attended the high school wouldn't be familiar with the format. Take Josh Rosen, soon to be in the NFL. He went to St. John Bosco High School in Bellflower, California, but his infobox lists "Bellflower (CA) St. John Bosco". Now if anyone asks me which HS I went to, I mention the HS name, not the city and state first. UCLA's website lists Rosen's HS as "St. John Bosco"[1]. MaxPreps' last football poll lists the school as "St. John Bosco (Bellflower, CA)".[2] <school name> (<city>, <state>) would be so much more intuitive to the average reader, and avoids issues like above whether to repeat the city name or not. It is also the WP format used in basketball bios. Keep it simple, for readers and editors alike.—Bagumba (talk) 05:19, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

I like the idea. But how would this scheme look like for Paramus Catholic High School? Paramus Catholic (Paramus, NJ)? Or in general, for high schools that only have their city's name, like Auburn High School? Do we make it Auburn (Auburn, AL) or just Auburn (AL). The advantage of the existing scheme was, I guess, that there was little need for exceptions to the rule. --bender235 (talk) 02:10, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just look at the way it's presented on the pages of NBA players. They have the school name(City, State) whether the name of the school and city are the same or not. With the city and state together inside the parentheses, it actually doesn't look superfluous, it actually just makes everything look clearer. The first name is the high school and then city and state in the parentheses. Very clear to the reader even in cases where the school and city have the same name. For your example, you would just present it: Auburn (Auburn, Alabama). I think in these situations where the school and city have the same name, you could put city and state on the second line, so it doesn't appear superfluous, but here with Iowa Falls on Nick Collison's page it actually doesn't look bad on the same line. With Carmelo Anthony and Jordan Bell, the city and state are on the second line. Both look fine to me. Edday1051 (talk) 04:22, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'd personally just settle on Paramus Catholic with no mention of city/state, but this would still be an major improvement over the current method. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:16, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree there's no need to repeat a city name. In the case of Paramus Catholic or any school where the city is included in the school name, it should be either Paramus Catholic or "Paramus Catholic (NJ)", but not "Paramus Catholic (Paramus, NJ)". Cbl62 (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Just to be clear: I'm not clinging to the current naming scheme, all I'd like to see is consistency. For this, I'd like to see a rule established that guides even the corner cases. How about this for a first draft:

• Schools with "unique" names are listed schoolname (city, state), such as
  • Permian High School becomes "Permian (Odessa, TX)"
  • Bishop Gorman High School becomes "Bishop Gorman (Las Vegas, NV)"
• Schools with city names (at least as part of their name) are listed schoolname (state), i.e. the city name is not repeated, e.g.
  • Auburn High School becomes "Auburn (AL)"
  • Paramus Catholic High School becomes "Paramus Catholic (NJ)"

Suggestions for improvement? --bender235 (talk) 14:50, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

• That looks quite reasonable and efficient. Cbl62 (talk) 19:54, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to Bender's new naming format. It's infinitely better than what we have now, but I just look at the NBA player pages and think why are we not just going with that. Just have school name(City and State) no matter what. This way any sticklers for consistency have nothing to complain about and it shows all of the relevant information in a fairly clear way. By only putting "Paramus Catholic," you are just assuming a reader is aware that "Paramus" is a city or town in the state of NJ. The vast majority of readers will not be aware of the formatting exception for names that are the same for the school and city. I think the way the high schools are presented here with Carmelo Anthony and Jordan Bell is just perfect It's all of the relevant information right in your face. There is no guessing what city the school is located in and what is the school name. It's all there without even taking up all that much space. Edday1051 (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Infoboxes should not be all encompassing. The school itself matters way more than its physical location on earth. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:26, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure adding the city name is "all encompassing." No one here is suggesting we add the name of the school's mascot and the year of the school's founding. On a more serious note, the city here is important because you will have a number of cases where there is a common high school name like Central High School, even within the same state. Those cases would need to be differentiated with the city name. I don't see a reason to create formatting exceptions for these special cases and again, this appeases the sticklers for formatting consistency. Additionally, I can't speak for everyone, but isn't location a big part of the reason why someone would even look up what high school a player went to. I know that is the case for me personally. Outside of the handful of well known high school powerhouse teams like Bishop Gorman or Mater Dei, I don't so much care that player X went to some random high school named "Mount Bum." I want to know where the hell "Mount Bum" is located. Again, referencing Carmelo Anthony, I can just look at the infobox and right away know that the two high schools he attended are located in Towson, MD and Mouth of Wilson, VA. I don't have to click on the high schools and go to their pages to find this information or scroll through the body of Carmelo Anthony's page. It's all conveniently right there in the infobox and it's not like it takes up a ton of space. It's one extra line and in the case of Nick Collison, it's all on the same line. Edday1051 (talk) 07:38, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dissident93, disagree with Edday. Jordan Bell is a perfect example of what NOT to do; in that case, the infobox discussion of the high school is just as long as the discussion in the body of the article. The extra detail should be saved for the body. Cbl62 (talk) 08:13, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

that is exactly my argument for the inclusion of city and state in the infobox. The fact that I don't have to scroll to the body for the information is argument for, not against. Isn't that the whole point of the infobox? Were adding literally one additional word. I'll repeat this part from above comment: "On a more serious note, the city here is important because you will have a number of cases where there is a common high school name like Central High School, even within the same state. Those cases would need to be differentiated with the city name. I don't see a reason to create formatting exceptions for these special cases and again, this appeases the sticklers for formatting consistency." For this reason, you have to include the city the high school is located in the infobox. We could make special rules for these cases, but why? Just keep everything consistent. We need the NBA editors to come join the NFL wiki. The goal here should be to make things as clear as possible. I mean no disrespect to all the NFL editors, there's very few of us and overall you guys do a great job, but it's like our aim is to make things as ambiguous as possible. The idea that the clear, but concise way the high school is presented for Jordan Bell and NBA players is "what NOT to do," while we've had this odd three name template for high schools on NFL player pages for a long as I can remember is this discussion in an nutshell. Edday1051 (talk) 10:43, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The same argument can be made for including every bit of trivial information in them, then. I'd argue to remove the city/state from schools in NBA player articles too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:55, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

so for common high school names like Central High School. In the state of Alabama, there are two "Central" high schools...one in Tuscaloosa and the other in Phenix City. We shouldn't differentiate these two high schools by simply adding the city name because the addition of 3 additional words to the infobox is just simply too cumbersome. The internet and our low tech internet devices just would not be able to to handle that. Again, the goal here seems to be to provide pertinent information in the most ambiguous way possible. Edday1051 (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I'm with Bagumba; this is unnecessarily convoluted. I would also add that the manual of style recommends against the use of postal abbreviations such as NJ in text and in infoboxes. That's not writ, but we shouldn't depart from it unless there's a great reason to do so. If this convention is based on Miami then I'd call that a doubtful precedent. That's a strange situation, where the real world disambiguates with OH, usually "Miami of Ohio" when spoken, to avoid the ambiguity. Mackensen (talk) 05:45, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dissident93 and Bagumba. Cbl62 (talk) 06:29, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

nice to see a consensus here. I'm just puzzled why it has taken this long for a discussion on changing the high school format. There is no reason at all for the city to come first before the high school name. Look at the way high schools are presented for NBA players:Carmelo Anthony. It takes up a bit more space is the only negative, but I think we can sacrifice an extra line for clarity. Look at the way Poly is presented here: Jordan Bell. It's just perfect. You have the entire official name of the school and since the city and state is presented on the second line, Long Beach appearing twice doesn't feel superfluous, as it would if it were on the same line. I'm all for changing the high school format to the NBA style. Edday1051 (talk) 13:32, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Dissident et al., this standard has always been odd to me. Lizard (talk) 20:57, 26 February 2018 (UTC)

I think I'm in agreement with Dissident et al as well. Another wrinkle to consider: much of my relevant editing on this point concerns the infoboxes of the college sports coaches, principally college football coaches. I've generally followed the form of the school name with "High School" abbreviated to "HS" and then the state code in parenthesis attached to the end. See: Hayden Fry, Gerry Faust, and Len Casanova for some examples. In this context, I think it makes sense to explicitly convey high schools with the "HS" to differentiate them from college and pro teams. Rikster2 has objected to the my use of parenthetical state codes in this manner for college basketball coaches on at least one occasion, offering that it's a "football thing". Whatever the case, we should come up with a unified scheme to represent high school in the contexts of all sports. Jweiss11 (talk) 20:27, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

Important to note that in many cases basketball has different concerns than football. Basketball is a global sport and we have people from all over the world who read and edit basketball articles (today's All-American is tomorrow's Serbian League All-Star) and they often aren't as familiar with state abbreviations or high school conventions. So we pretty much never use state abbreviations (I think they are just in the recruit templates) and try to just put the name of the school (minus "high school" because it is clearly in the high school field) plus full city, state. It is just clearer to the reader, even if it takes a little more space. As for the issue jweiss mentions, if a coach has a high school in their coaching tenure we just put the HS name and "HS" (e.g. "Auburn HS") at the end with a hotlink. I don't think we need to come to a consensus way of listing (I don't change them if the coach is primarily a different sport than basketball), but if we do I would like to see abbreviations and parenthesis largely eliminated for space/readability concerns. The high school stint with fuller info should be documented in the prose anyway. Rikster2 (talk) 20:58, 27 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Bender's proposal of: schools with "unique" names are listed schoolname (city, state) and schools with city names are listed schoolname (state). However we should spell out the state name, since as Mackensen says, the MOS advises against postal abbreviations even in the infobox. Lizard (talk) 16:51, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Spelling out the state makes the label too long, in my opinion: Junípero Serra (San Mateo, California), or Century (Bismarck, North Dakota). --bender235 (talk) 18:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and would much rather abbreviations but I'm a stickler for following the MOS. Then again, we've been using abbreviations for this long and no one has brought it up as an issue. I can go with it if everyone else does. Lizard (talk) 18:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Again, we could just go with the school's name without any mention of its location if this turns out to be an issue. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:52, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

spelling out the entire state name is too cumbersome? It's like the addition of 8 characters at most if we spell out the state. We are adding like 3 words at most to the infobox with the inclusion of city and state. For the sake of clarity and consistency, just include city and state like the nba player pages for every scenario, whether the school name is same for school and city. It simplifies everything and it is crystal clear to the reader. You can't not include city and state because there are cases where there are common high school names like "Central." Some of them are even within the same state like the Alabama example in my comment above. I'm all for the new bender format where we do include city and state, but my only issue is the exception that we make for the high schools with names that are the same for school and city. As I've said above, why make special rules and complicate things? Just include city and state for every situation and keep things consistent. It also assumes the reader will figure out why some high schools have city and state together, and others only include the state. Using Towson Catholic as an example, we should just assume the reader knows Towson is a city in Maryland? I didn't even know that. I knew about Towson University...had no idea Towson was an actual city. Look at the way it's presented with Carmelo Anthony. I'm not sure how anyone looks at that and thinks that isn't the way we should be doing it. Were adding one additional line at most. You guys are discussing this like were contemplating adding the school mascot, the all time high school football record of the school, and all of the head coaches in the history of the school. Edday1051 (talk) 23:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Maybe it's just me, but I'd prefer the new scheme to have as little exceptions as possible. --bender235 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

by adding city and state to all scenarios, you create exactly zero exceptions. Like I already said above, not including city and state like dissident suggests, that creates a huge problem with common school names like Central High School. Edday1051 (talk) 00:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

To be fair, the infobox isn't the place to be specific. It's important to remember the infobox is merely an extension of the article; it's not meant to stand alone. It's meant to give the reader general information, and if they want to know any specifics (such as the location of Central High School) they can look in the main text of the article. So I'd be fine with excluding city and state. Lizard (talk) 03:24, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

lizard, I understand the infobox is not a place to write a short story about the history of the city the high school is located in. I hope my sarcasm is not coming off as abrasive, I really mean no disrespect, but I find the push back on this very odd. It's like I'm suggesting we include the entire mayoral history of the city and every principal in the school's history. I mean, is it really that big of a deal to include the city and state of the school in question? It just seems pretty standard thing to do, particularly in the situations I outlined in a previous comment. If player x attended Central High School, we should make it crystal clear that we are referring to the one in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, as opposed to the one in Phenix City, Alabama, or the one Grand Junction, Colorado. Why make a reader click on an additional link to find this information? It's like our goal here as wikipedia editors is to make things as ambiguous as possible. It works great on NBA player pages. The precedent has already been set and it's not like it takes up some absurd amount of space in the infobox where that is some big issue. It's literally 3 extra words in the infobox. I'm of the opinion the infobox can handle 3 more words in the interest of clarity and consistency. Edday1051 (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

The three extra words should be in the body of the article. We don't include a parenthetical (City, State) for colleges, so why do it for high schools. An NFL's player's high school is not so critical as to warrant two lines in every infobox. And the high school, as displayed in the infobox, in almost all cases has a wikilink, so a reader who is so interested in the precise location of the high school can find it by looking in the body or simply clicking on the wikilink. Cbl62 (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

there are only 130 D-1 football programs, while there are more than 30,000 high schools/secondary schools in the United States. Colleges are far more well known to the general public than high schools are. And how many colleges share the same name? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Miami University and University of Miami, which we differentiate with "(OH)" and "(FL)." High schools on the other hand, there has to be hundreds of examples of schools that share the same exact name, but located in different cities and states. I've already brought up the case of Central High School, where nearly every state has one or more schools named "Central High School." Many of them have multiple schools of that name in the same state. Another great example is Independence High School. If I counted correctly, there are 14 "Independence High School" in California alone. Again, why are we making it harder for readers to find out which "Independence High School" the infobox is referring to? I mean, the whole point of Wikipedia is to give people quick and easy access to information. Why are we making them click on an additional link to find out which "Independence High School" player X attended. This is a no brainer here. There are simply way too many high schools with identical names where we have to have some form of differentiation and the simplest way is to just simply include city and state along with the high school name. Edday1051 (talk) 08:20, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Edday1051. Few high schools are nationally known, and even then it would be by niche, diehard, national high school football fanatics. Without the added context of city and state, we may as well remove high schools from infoboxes altogether. However, my preference remains to list the HS with format <high_school_name> (<city>, <nonabbrev_state>) It's the same format already used in basketball articles. It's also not much longer than the existing football format, which is generally <city> (<abbrev_state>) <high_school_name>—Bagumba (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

An infobox is supposed to summarize the truly essential elements of a bio. I frankly think including two lines of detail in the infobox about a professional football player's "high school" is pure fancruft. The optimal solution IMO would be to eliminate such trivia from the infobox altogether, but if the majority view is for inclusion, keep it simple with no more than one line devoted to such nonsense. Cbl62 (talk) 16:46, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Other than football/basketball, no other bio infoboxes that I'm aware of even include a parameter for high school. Compare Template:Infobox ice hockey player, Template:Infobox baseball biography, Template:Infobox football biography, Template:Infobox sportsperson, Template:Infobox person, Template:Infobox tennis biography, Template:Infobox golfer, Template:Infobox gymnast, etc. The inclusion of such information in the box is part of a trend toward inclusion of all sorts of recruiting web site fancruft into football bios. Cbl62 (talk) 17:17, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

There is a pretty big difference between the coverage high school basketball and football get vs. (say) baseball and hockey. For better or for worse, it is essential info for basketball at least. Rikster2 (talk) 17:31, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

I'll reiterate what rickster said, comparing high school football and basketball players to other sports is just silly. Look at how big high school recruiting is in football and basketball. There are multiple websites that are entirely dedicated to high school recruiting. ESPN spends an entire day televising national signing day. With basketball and football players, what high school they attended is an essential piece of information that unequivocally, should be part of their respective infoboxes. You list tennis, golfers, and gynmasts? A lot of those athletes don't even attend high school or their club teams are far more important. Hockey players in particular, especially top level Canadian players play junior hockey, instead of for a high school. For baseball players, high school baseball recruiting is not a point of interest for the general public, especially compared to basketball and football recruiting, but I would not be opposed to listing high schools for baseball players. Edday1051 (talk) 01:17, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

There's basketball players that go pro directly out of HS, so that's another distinction for hoops. I'd be ok with removing HS for NFL players; however, the format discussion is still relevant for college players.—Bagumba (talk) 12:37, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I agree that inclusion of high school in the infobox is more justifiable for college players, but once a player is elevated to the NFL, it is no longer "essential" information. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Since one of your concerns is keeping HS on one line, would you be amendable to <high_school_name> (<city>, <abbrev_state>)? The state would be abbreviated, and the other components are the same as the existing format, just reordered. With all due respect to MOS:POSTABBR, I think using {{abbr}} would be a reasonable exception (WP:IAR) in this case.—Bagumba (talk) 12:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

An abbreviated state is better than whole state names like Connecticut or Rhode Island, but there's also no justification for repeating a city name when it's already in the school name. Consider the case of Gavin Escobar. If we use the full high school name and then repeat the city name and the state with no postal code, the high school consumes a ridiculous three lines in the infobox: "Rancho Santa Margarita Catholic HS (Rancho Santa Margarita, California)". There is no justification for such infobox clutter since (a) the high school is not "essential" information, and (b) anyone seeking more information on the high school can either scan left to the body of the article or click the wikilink for the high school. Less is better in the infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 14:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

you would just place city and state on the second line. This idea that a few extra words clutters the infobox is just ridiculous. Look at Jordan Bell, it looks totally fine. All of the information you need to know in two lines. There is no confusion and it maintains consistency across all examples. How is less information better in the infobox? As a matter of fact, we should put more information in the infobox. What is the point of the infobox then? The fact that I can go to career history and quickly see what teams the player has played on without scrolling to the body of the article is the entire point of the infobox. Give quick access to basic information at the very top of the page. The college and high school the player attended is the exact type of basic information that belongs in the infobox, in which a reader should not have to click on an additional link or scroll to the body of the article to discover. Is clarity, consistency, and quick access not enough justification? I can't speak for everyone, but I often look up what high school a player attended. Considering how big high school football and recruiting has become, it is a point of interest for many football fans. I do the same for college and NFL players. Did they go to some powerhouse high school like Bishop Gorman or were they able to make it to the pros from a high school in some small town in Texas. It's particularly nice to have in the infobox as it is right below the place of birth. You can see whether the player attends a high school in his hometown/place of birth or has since moved and attends a different high school. We should not have to force a reader to have to scroll through the body of an article or click on an additional link to find such basic biographical information. Edday1051 (talk) 21:59, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

forgot to mention this. Bagumba, the one year college rule was implemented years ago, unless you're referring to older players still in the league. And just to add to this idea that the high school is non-essential information. I could not disagree more with this. What high school you attended is essential information for any person. Think about what high school you attended and think about how that shaped you as a person. Now think about that in the context of a football player. Statistically, you are far more likely to make it to the NFL if you attended a high school in Florida, California, or Texas. In 2016, 34% of NFL players attended a high school from one of these three states.[3] If you attend a football powerhouse like Bishop Gorman, you are far more likely to get recruited by a major college program, which in turn paves a clearer path to the NFL. The high school also tells you where a player spent their teen years and also the level of talent they played around. Not only on their own team, but also from the high school league they played in. This is all part of their biographical history, especially in the context of being a football player. This doesn't become less important when they become NFL players. It is all part of their path to becoming a professional NFL player. Edday1051 (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

A person's high school is not "essential information for any person", at least not in the Wikipedia infobox sense. Were that so, then Template:Infobox person would include a parameter for it. It does not. The only Wikipedia infoboxes that include such recruiting-web-site fancruft/trivia are those for American football and basketball players. Cbl62 (talk) 18:54, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

yes because the standard for wikipedia infoboxes or any other editable part of wikipedia are not subject to change and the whole point of wikipedia is all about being static. Why are even having this discussion at all if things cannot be changed for better or for worse. Again, excuse my sarcasm, but the counter arguments you are presenting are just ridiculous. I've countered each and every one and then you just move the goal posts with another inane counter point. You are the "contrarian" guy right? This discussion went from changing the wording format, then to whether we should include city and state, then to whether we should just remove the high school altogether. You've disagreed and moved the goal posts every step of the way. By the end of this discussion, you are going to make the case that we should should get rid of wikipedia altogether. Just shutdown the entire website lol. Whatever discussion there is for the relevance of high school for other biographical pages is a whole another discussion. Like you said, the high school parameter does exist for football and basketball players and they exist for a reason. This discussion, pertaining to NFL players, the case has been made clear why high school is a relevant piece of information that absolutely should be included in the infobox. Edday1051 (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Not sure why you are personalizing this. I suspect we both share the same objective, which is to improve Wikipeida, not to "shutdown [sic] the entire website" as you suggest. We simply disagree as to how much space should be consumed in a football player's infobox by the high school he attended. Not the end of the world either way. Cbl62 (talk) 22:08, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

sorry man, it wasn't my intention to make it personal. I just wanted to point out that it just feels to me you are just being the "contrarian" guy. You and others may disagree, but I feel I've presented valid counterpoints to whatever disagreements you may have had and you just keep on moving the goalposts. I give you a reason why including the city and state is important, then suddenly you are in favor of just removing the high school parameter altogether. I give you a reason why high school is particularly relevant for football players, then it's...well other biographical infoboxes in other parts of wikipedia don't include high school...etc. This has been the same pattern over and over. Edday1051 (talk) 22:24, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Well we're in a pickle. Looks like everyone agrees the current format needs to go. But from what I gather:

• Bagumba and Edday favor the basketball format of schoolname (city, state)
• Bender is for the "unique names are listed schoolname (city, state) and schools with city names are listed schoolname (state)" format
• Dissident and Cbl are for listing just the school name

I just wanna see it changed but ideally I also think we should list just the school name. Crash Underride, Jweiss11, Mackensen, and Rikster2 have also commented but haven't taken a side. Lizard (talk) 21:12, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I don’t contribute enough to the project to feel like I should have a say if I won’t be doing the work to implement. Jweiss just pinged me and I thought I’d give context as to why basketball does it the way we do. Rikster2 (talk) 01:25, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
• I favor the third option but wouldn't mind the first. I fully object to the 2nd option as it's not really any better than the current version. (that being unnecessary complicated) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:40, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

What exactly is complicated about it? Whenever the school name is the city name, we simply make sure there is no duplicate. So no "Pahokee (Pahokee, FL)", "Auburn (Auburn, AL)", "Midland (Midland, TX)". How is that complicated? --bender235 (talk) 15:30, 4 March 2018 (UTC)

Because it could be even simpler by getting rid of the city/state. We don't include this info for colleges, so why do this for high schools? Because that's what scouting reports do? Using that logic is how we got to this bad format in the first place. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

At some point we should start implementing the new scheme. We do agree, as I see it, on the basic scheme of School name (city, state), as in

• Permian (Odessa, TX)
• Mater Dei (Santa Ana, CA)

but we still have to come to an agreement on the city-named schools. Is it

• Pahokee (Pahokee, FL), or simply
• Pahokee (FL)

As mentioned before, I prefer the latter. But my #1 goal here is to simply establish a consistent scheme. --bender235 (talk) 16:09, 11 March 2018 (UTC)

• If these are the only four valid options left (I haven't paid much attention to the conversation above, it's gotta too long-winded), then option #4 is my personal favorite, as its the most simple. School name + state abbreviation, we don't need to list city names here. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:05, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
  • @Dissident93: If the school is not the same name as it's city, e.g. Mater Dei High School (Santa Ana, California), are your proposing "Mater Dei (Santa Ana, CA)" or just "Mater Dei (CA)"? Thanks.—Bagumba (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Dissident93: The other option proposed was listing just the school name only with no parenthetical for city or state. I had favored this one, and from the comments above it appeared you did too. Lizard also stated that "ideally I also think we should list just the school name." Accordingly, and from those casting votes thus far, it appeared that was the majority view. Cbl62 (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I prefer this one over all others. We don't mention location for colleges (in the infobox), so why do it for high schools? I would just go with Mater Dei and nothing more, although I'd still support Mater Dei (CA) if we don't go with that as it's still a vast improvement over the current format. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think that's a good idea. As was mentioned earlier in this discussion, there are only a couple of hundred of college, so there is little room for ambiguity. In contrast, there are tenths of thousands of high schools, lots of them with similar names. We should distinguish them a bit in these infoboxes. --bender235 (talk) 22:16, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Dissident93. Colleges are far more significant for a college player and we don't burden the infobox with city/state details for colleges. For both colleges and high schools, such secondary details can be gleaned from either clicking on the wikilink or referring to the body of the article -- it's just not essential information. The numeric count of colleges is a bit of a red herring, but in any event there are actually far more than "only a couple hundred colleges" with football programs. Try 760: FBS (130), FCS (124), Division II (169), Division III (249), NAIA (88). Cbl62 (talk) 02:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

So I skimmed through this and don't think a straight forward answer was given for this, what should be done for when the the name has the city in it, for example my hometown uses the city name and what side of town the school is on.--Rockchalk717 03:06, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

it has come full circle...me and Bender are somehow on the same side of the argument now lol. The only thing I don't agree with Bender on is the exception we make for the schools in which the school name is the same for city and school. Just keep things consistent and list city and state no matter what. It works totally fine on the NBA pages and it doesn't clutter the infobox like dissdent and cbl claim. It's literally 2-3 additional words. It's not a big deal, especially for pertinent information like high schools. A lot of this argument is going in circles. I've already explained why high schools are pertinent information and it unequivocally belongs in the infobox of NFL players. Secondly, the other option seems to be to just get rid of city and state and that is another one that I've already explained why that has major problems. As I've already stated, there are over 25,000 high schools/secondary schools in the United States. Many of which share the same name like Independence High School or Central High School. There absolutely needs to be some differentiation and the simplest way to do that is input city and state. Edday1051 (talk) 09:21, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

CBL, how is that a red herring? First of all, even if you include every college football program, that is still only 760. That is still nowhere near the 25,000+ high schools in the United States and how many of these colleges and universities share the same name where we would need a method of differentiation with city and state? Secondly, that still doesn't take away the fact that colleges are far more well known to the public than high schools are. I mean even high school powerhouses like Bishop Gorman are helluva lot less well known that any major power 5 university. If you took a poll of 100 people and asked them what city and state Bishop Gorman is located...how many do you think would answer correctly? Now ask them the same question for the University of Washington or Stanford. I'm guessing Seattle and Palo Alto will be answers more commonly heard than Las Vegas, Nevada for Bishop Gorman. Edday1051 (talk) 09:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

"How is it a red herring?" Because you're missing the real point which is that infoboxes should be limited to essential information, and the city/state location of an NFL player's high school is miles away from being essential information. Even assuming arguendo that the point were not a red herring, it is certainly true that most people don't know where Bishop Gorman HS is located. But it is equally true that they don't know where Bethel College (KS)/Bethel University (TN), Anna Maria College (MA)/Ave Maria University (FL), Benedictine College (KS)/Benedictine University (IL), Wayne State University (MI)/Wayne State College (NE), or Franklin College (IN)/Franklin & Marshall College (PA), all of which have college football programs, are located. The city/state location for these high schools, colleges, and universities are minor details, and readers seeking such minor details can find them by clicking on the wikilink or reading the body of the article. The infobox should be limited to essential information. Cbl62 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

aren't those differentiated in the infobox with the state abbreviation? If not, they absolutely should be, the same way we do it for "Miami (FL)" and "Miami (OH)". If we list "Independence High School" for player x, noting that we are referring to the one in North Carolina, as opposed to the one in California...is that not essential information? Making sure it is crystal clear to the reader which "Independence High School" we are referring to? How is that information not essential? So we are going to force a reader to click on an additional link or scroll through the body of the article to obtain this information when we can just clearly add that information to the infobox? Edday1051 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

We just disagree. You view the city/state where Dick Butkus went to high school to be essential information to his biography. I do not. Let's let the vote initiated by Bagumba run its course. We can then all abide by the result. Cbl62 (talk) 13:53, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

the precedent has already been set with nba player pages. Just look at the way high schools are presented here: Lebron James...Jordan Bell...Nick Collison.....what in the hell are we even arguing about? Why are we not just using the NBA format...it is just so straightforward. Cbl and dissident, you guys are in favor of less information and making people click additional links or scrolling to the body of an article to find information. Lets make it harder for people to find the information they are looking for, which is the complete opposite of the purpose of wikipeida and infoboxes. Edday1051 (talk) 09:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Just because the NBA infobox includes trivia doesn't mean we have to follow that. If you're looking at other precedents, the overwhelming majority of infoboxes do not include high schools at all. Cbl62 (talk) 10:13, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

you can read my previous comments addressing the importance of where a player attended high school, specifically for a football player. It's a pretty important part of a football player's biographic history. I don't even think that is even an argument. As for other infoboxes, we can have another discussion about that, but specifically for football and basketball players, I honestly feel that is not even worth a discussion. That is how strongly I believe high school should be pretty standard for football and basketball infoboxes. Edday1051 (talk) 12:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

HS convention poll

After lots of discussion above, it seems useful to have a poll to see where we stand on listing high schools. Please !vote on one of the options below in its respective section, or feel free to add a new option.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Use basketball bio format: <school> (<city>, <state>)

1. Most people would not recognize the school name alone, and the location of where they went to school is actually more useful than the school name for most readers. The current football format (<city> (<state>) <school>) is a format most readers are not familiar with except for die-hard high school fans who follow national publications.—Bagumba (talk) 10:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
2. I'm generally in favor of this option, with a fall-back simplification of <school> (<state>) if the <school> and <city> are identical, i.e. "Pahokee (FL)" instead of "Pahokee (Pahokee, FL)", and "Auburn (AL)" instead of "Auburn (Auburn, AL)". --bender235 (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

   Sure. We can easily discuss minor tweaks like that if this general option is chosen.—Bagumba (talk) 16:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

3. I'd say I'm good with this one over the others. ^{(talk page stalker)} CrashUnderride 14:29, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
4. Edday1051 (talk) 15:31, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
5. My vote is for this one. Even though different sports have different projects, we can still try to find some consistencies between them. But we would need to know what to do in the case of Darren Sproles's high school for example? Would we do Olathe East (KS) or East (Olathe, KS)?? --Rockchalk717 21:51, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

   under bender's format, I think it would be "Olathe East (KS)". "East (Olathe, KS)" is just plain wrong IMO. It makes it look like the high school name is "East High School," instead of the official name "Olathe East High School." And this is why I strongly prefer the NBA style, where there are no exceptions. This way the format is consistent across all scenarios. By inputting city and state no matter what, you would have "Olathe East (Olathe, Kansas)." It's clear and concise and there is no confusion about formatting with the nba/no exceptions style. Edday1051 (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

   I agree with you 100%. That's what I figured I just wanted to be sure if that's what the consensus winds up being.--Rockchalk717 16:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

   There are really two options here that ought to be split. Bender’s version is preferable (less verbose) to Edday’s IMO, though I still maintain my main vote below.Cbl62 (talk) 16:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

   it's one additional line at most and in many cases, it all fits on the same line as is the case here: Russel Westbrook. This idea that it clutters the infobox and it's too verbose is just puzzling to me. It's like were discussing whether we should add a list of every principal in the history of the school to the infobox. Even if it took up 5 lines, I think we can sacrifice a couple additional lines for the sake of clarity and consistency. Consistency is the biggest reason I oppose Bender's format. Just add city and state for all scenarios. Simple. No confusion. I'm glad Santa Margarita Catholic High School was brought up because this is a real tricky one. What happens if there are additional words like "Catholic" or "East," like in the "Olathe East" example. Does "Santa Margarita Catholic" qualify for bender's exception? Technically no, since the city is RANCHO Santa Margarita, but this certainly will bring up confusion and debate under bender's format. Under the NBA format, there is zero confusion or debate. You simply use the standard format and input city and state for every single scenario...no exceptions. Edday1051 (talk) 21:00, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

List school name only: <school>

1. City/state are unnecessary detail for the infobox and constitutes infobox bloat/clutter. Those interested in the precise location of the players high school or college can simply click on the wikilink or refer to the body of the article. Infobox should be limited to truly essential information. As noted above, the case of Gavin Escobar illustrates the bloat factor of including city/state, stretching the high school name to a ridiculous three lines in the infobox: "Rancho Santa Margarita Catholic (Rancho Santa Margarita, California)". Cbl62 (talk) 13:47, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

   comment It's two lines here: Klay Thompson. You have to use the line break(< br >) + (nowrap) Edday1051 (talk) 15:34, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

2. Per Cbl. Lizard (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
3. Per my previous arguments/Cbl. It doesn't matter if it "only takes up one more line", why is nobody arguing for college location with this logic then? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:33, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

   comment come on dissident, don't be disingenuous. You were part of the discussion above. Your question was addressed multiple times in that discussion. Edday1051 (talk) 10:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

   And my opinions have not changed from anybody's counter-argument thus far. Keep high school location cruft in prose; the infobox is not meant to be all encompassing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:45, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

   so player x attended Central High School and we should just leave it at that. Let's put them on a treasure hunt to figure out which of the dozens of "Central" High Schools this player attended. The other option is we put city and state right next to the school name in the infobox like they do for NBA player pages. It takes up a whopping extra line in the infobox and in many cases, an additional line isn't even required as is the case here: Nick Collison, Russell Westbrook, Kyle Singler, etc. This argument that it clutters the infobox.....I just don't get it. Nobody here is suggesting we add 50 lines of new information in the infobox. This isn't even about adding city and state as a point of adding additional information just for the sake of adding additional information. City and state is important here to differentiate high schools due to the fact that there are 25,000+ high schools in America and many of them share similar or identical names. If you believe a reader should have to scroll to the body of the article or click on an additional link to find location information, and you believe "clutter" is such a huge issue with infoboxes, then you should be voting to get rid of the high school parameter altogether. Edday1051 (talk) 20:41, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

4. Agree with Cbl62. Listing school's name is enough, because city/state adds unneeded clutter as infobox is supposed to be as short as possible. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Playing position

Do we need a playing position parameter for articles like Matt Daniels? seems suboptional to put both the coaching and playing positions in the same arg. Frietjes (talk) 00:47, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes, unless he's the first player-coach in the NFL in roughly 70 years. Lizard (talk) 02:58, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

The question is relevant for the coach's position during their playing career. Basketball infobox has this e.g. Luke Walton.—Bagumba (talk) 07:00, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Maybe a separate field is warranted for their position as a player. As long as we don't do it like baseball does it, which makes it seem like Mark McGwire is currently a first baseman and coach for the Padres. Lizard (talk) 07:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Exactly. I think basketball used to comingle also before the additional field.—Bagumba (talk) 07:36, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that Mark McGwire infobox is an example of poor design. I've seen similar stuff for NFL players where the position field is populated with something like "Head coach / linebacker". I'm in favor of a dedicated playing position field for Template:Infobox NFL biography since it is used for players, coaches, and executives. Take John Dorsey (American football) for example. Nowhere in the infobox is his playing position mentioned. How about Bill Cowher? Since he's retired, looks like the position field at the top has been purposed to indicate his playing position. But should his playing number and position be the first two bits of info listed given that he was more noted as a coach? Jweiss11 (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

Brian Dawkins' playing career position was tossed to the side in favor of his current position as executive assistant vice president of coffee-making affairs for the Eagles. Lizard (talk) 21:44, 1 March 2018 (UTC)

In short, Frietjes, yes, this is a good idea, and yes, we do need it. Ejgreen77 (talk) 11:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

I think a seperate parameter is a wonderful idea. I've always had issues with that when editing a coach that used to be a player. There's seperate parameters for teams as a player, coach, and executive, so it makes sense. Though that brings up a seperate question though, should we only include positions played in the NFL or should we include what they played in college, like with Andy Reid being a guard in college or Marvin Lewis being a linebacker even though neither one played in the NFL. --Rockchalk717 03:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Ricky Williams

I noticed there is confusion on Ricky Williams's page. NFL.com lists him as on the Dolphins 2006 roster while he was suspended. People don't want include the 2006 season in his infobox because he also played in Canada that season. He was on the Dolphins roster which led to the whole thing with Joe Theismann saying that they (Toronto) shouldn't play an addict and a player still on an NFL roster. This means that the 2006 season should in fact be included in the infobox. If not, then players like Josh Gordon's infobox should be changed so that it doesn't include the 2015 and 2016 seasons. RoyalsLife 16:35, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

If he was contracted to the team during the 2006 season and either on the active roster or a reserve/injured list, surely the 2006 season should be listed in his infobox? – PeeJay 17:27, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

PeeJay He was on the reserve/injured list just like Josh Gordon, Aldon Smith, and Randy Gregory. I'll change the infobox then RoyalsLife 18:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Unconferenced Pro Bowl players

From 2014 to 2016, the Pro Bowl game was between two teams picked by captains, so I get where Category:Unconferenced Pro Bowl players came from. However, isn't it more historically significant which conference the player was picked from, not which team they actually played on? Also pinging WikiOriginal-9, who created the category.—Bagumba (talk) 11:20, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

I don't think so. If the Pro Bowl had always been unconferenced, would we still segregate Pro Bowlers into AFC/NFC categories? I'd think not, since it'd be largely arbitrary. Lizard (talk) 15:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

AFAICS, Pro Bowl selections were still by conference in those years, even though the game itself was not AFC vs. NFC. And the fact is that all the other conference-specific Pro Bowl categories did already exist, so it's a little too convenient too discount that fact.—Bagumba (talk) 20:11, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm not stating an opinion in this comment, just trying to get the facts straight. This says "Players were selected without regard to conference in voting by fans, coaches and players and will later be assigned to teams via the Pro Bowl Draft." "The AFC had 38 different players named All-Stars and 48 NFC players were honored." WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying that the picks were independent of conference. Serves me right for only reading 2014 Pro Bowl LOL. I though it was like the NBA ASG this past year where it was just captains picking teams, but the player pool was still equal from AFC/NFC. My bad.—Bagumba (talk) 02:31, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Minor infobox request

So recently we decided to omit the visibility of any entry in the |number= parameter if the team one is set to free agent. I'll add that we should also do the same to the |status= parameter, because it shouldn't be shown if a player isn't under contract with any team. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:19, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yes. Do this. Lizard (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Which staff positions belong in infobox

How far down the totem pole do we want to go with which coaching staff positions to include in the infobox? See Kevin Mawae. He was hired as an "offensive analyst" by ASU. What that entails is anyone's guess. For all we know he's a shoe shiner. "Mawae and former ASU quarterback Danny White will be analysts in 2017-18, a role White also held last season. Herm Edwards also is expected to add several more analysts or consultants." Note that Danny White's infobox makes no mention of this, nor does the rest of his article for that matter. This is a college hire but I'm asking here since it's also relevant to the NFL. What's Brian Dawkins' role as "executive of football operations for player development" for the Eagles? And is that role significant enough to have the infobox display him as a member of the team? And even include a highlight in his already jam-packed infobox that he's a Super Bowl champion in this capacity? Did he even get a ring? (And before someone makes me look dumb, the first and last questions are rhetorical.) I think we need to draw a line somewhere. Lizard (talk) 08:54, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it's hard to tell what's important sometimes. There are a lot of different positions. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 09:16, 17 March 2018 (UTC)

Pro Football Hall of Fame members navbox TFD

Template:Pro Football Hall of Fame members has been added to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 20#Template:Pro Football Hall of Fame members. Feel free to comment. – Sabbatino (talk) 17:26, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Steelers MVP, Rams MVP, and Rams ROY navbox TFD

Template:Pittsburgh Steelers Team MVP, Template:Rams Rookie of the Year, and Template:Rams MVP have been added to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 21#Template:Pittsburgh Steelers Team MVP and after. Feel free to comment. –RoyalsLife 02:47, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Steve Largent Award navbox TFD

Template:Steve Largent Award has been added to Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2018 March 21#Template:Steve Largent Award. Feel free to comment. –RoyalsLife 03:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Players who were suspended (again)

We've had this same discussion a year ago, but it doesn't appear that it was ever resolved. How should we list players' careers who were suspended for a full year or more (e.g. Josh Gordon, Ricky Williams)? The argument against including their suspended years is that they weren't active and didn't play. The argument for inclusion, suspended or not, is that they were on the team's roster, the same as a player who may have missed an entire season on IR (e.g Kevin White). Thoughts? (pinging Crash Underride as we have different opinions on this.) Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:20, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Just for the record, there was also a discussion earlier this month. Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Ricky_Williams. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:46, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm in the they were on the team's roster camp. Suspended players are officially placed on the team's reserve list. The only difference between them and players on IR/PUP/NFI is that they don't get paid. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:51, 21 March 2018 (UTC)