Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

AFC Championship Game in infobox

Someone is insisting on putting the AFC Championship Game in the infobox for Zoltan Mesko (American football). This seems odd to me. Can someone else look at this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 18:19, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I had removed, but the same IP has added it back. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?—Bagumba (talk) 04:20, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That IP has been doing it to random football players who appeared in super bowls. See his contribs and look for +46 or so characters. Their almost all like this. I say remove them all. That level of detail isn't necessary here. --Jayron32 04:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

I've invited the editor to this discussion.—Bagumba (talk) 04:34, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Which one better? - (AFC Championship Game|AFC champion) or (American Football Conference|AFC champion) 71.180.203.153 (talk) 05:15, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Now on Brett Favre's profile he has 2× (NFC Championship Game|NFC Champion) (1996, 1997) unless this is what this about.71.180.203.153 (talk) 05:24, 9 June 2012 (UTC) Like what's the problem here?71.180.203.153 (talk) 05:26, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that not every achievement needs to be noted in the infobox. I'm not sure that appearing on a team that later lost the Super Bowl qualifies as the sort of thing we put in infoboxes. It doesn't need to be noted in that manner at all. Major records, major year-end awards, induction in the PFHOF is the sort of stuff that should appear, but lesser stuff can be left out of the infobox. It can be covered in the article text. If you swamp the infobox with too many frivilous achievements, it masks the important stuff. --Jayron32 05:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

ic Look I understand all of that but it's in Tom Brady's infobox, again Brett Favre's infobox. Ben Roethlisberger's infobox I did not see this topic on here. Now that someone put this on let's um...Gerard Warren's infobox then this topic pops up. Where was this 3 years ago or something. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 06:14, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Put that on there just means how many Super Bowl appearances that individual made in his career. Not necessarily to put it for losing the Super Bowl. 71.180.203.153 (talk) 06:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Other stuff is not always the best reason; other articles may need cleanup as well. It's nothing personal. This is good to discuss how best to move forward.—Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

This is actually a good launching point. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject_National_Football_League#Article_Format you'll notice that the "Player pages" item is redlinked. That means that no standard has yet been developed for NFL player articles. Unless and until we develop that standard, we're going to have problems like this. Perhaps it is time that we get on that, so we can set forth a standard layout, format, and the like for NFL player articles. --Jayron32 18:29, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

For the infobox, it would be best to add to the existing documentation for {{Infobox NFL player}}.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

So what that means then going forward? 71.180.203.153 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

That means for short time, we should avoid making any wholesale additions/removals from infoboxes until we set a standard format. Lets work out a Wikipedia-wide standard for what we include and how we organize it, and don't make any big changes until we get that worked out. --Jayron32 23:57, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

What standard format? 71.180.203.153 (talk) 02:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

We don't have one yet. My proposal is we start creating one. --Jayron32 03:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

This guy is at it again. I just deleted the line in the infobox.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:32, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

What's that supposed mean about the infobox? Elaborate. What Guy?71.180.203.153 (talk) 20:36, 10 June 2012 (UTC)

All I'm going to say is I don't think it that big of an issue so whatever you guys gotta do to come up with a standard format.71.180.203.153 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Riki Ellison

Per [1] I looked at the 49er's all time roster and Ellison is listed for 1989. It seems he was on injured reserve the whole season. How is this usually handled? --NeilN ^{talk to me} 20:34, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I think his infobox should say he was with the team in 1989.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I added that he was on team in 1989 and got a ring per sources found to corroborate.—Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

Dallas Cowboys - Rivalries Section - 49ers

In the Cowboys page...There is a subsection on Rivalries and from there a subsection on the Cowboys v Niners Rivalry. It states that the two teams first met in the Playoffs in 1972 and then goes on to discuss that game...it also discusses the two teams meeting in th 82, 92, 93, 94 Championship Games.... Strangely there is no mention of the 1970 and 1971 NFC Championship games Niners v Cowboys, in fact the first two NFC Championship games ever played after the merger.

So the article states: "The two clubs had first met in 1960, and in 1972 met in the NFC playoffs for the first time on December 23 at Candlestick Park;"

This is factually incorrect, the sentence should read: "The two clubs had first met in 1960, and in 1971 met in the NFC playoffs for the first time in the 1970 NFC Conference Championship Game played on January 3, 1971 at Kezar Stadium in San Francisco." Then it should discuss the 1971 Conference Championship followed by the 1972 Divisional Playoff Game discussion

AfterSeven 00:00, 26 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AfterSeven (talk • contribs)

Notability of television and televised sports

I am developing an idea of creating notability guideline about televised sports events in WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Notability (television). I could have some assistance if you are willing to help out. --George Ho (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

Iheanyi Uwaezuoke

An SPA and an IP editor have added a wall of unsourced text (and a bunch of strange nonexistent categories) to this article, and have removed much of the pre-existing standard formatting in the process. I might be inclined to revert to the last normal-looking version[2] but the added material does seem to include some valid content that probably could be sourced, so I'd appreciate a look by some NFL-experienced editors to see if they think it's worth salvaging and improving. --Arxiloxos (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I revamped the article, but it still needs a ton of improvement. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:26, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed change to quarterback navbox

I think that quarterbacks who at one point or another were the primary, first string, starting quarterback (not due to injury) should be in bold. The box makes it too hard for the reader to indentify which quarterbacks were truly the most important. There will always be gray area (Tom Owens and Norm Snead both started the same number of games in between John Brodie's retirement and the arrival of Jim Plunkett), but at least putting names in bold would make it easier to tell. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{22:27, 3 July 2012 (UTC)}

This seems like a good idea. It may be useful, but there is not proper way to determine primary quarterbacks. ~ Richmond96 t • c 00:06, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Support for this suggestion. Very good idea. It might be nice to have some an objective measure of who's the primary starting quarterback, if we can, since in certain cases it's ambiguous.--Batard0 (talk) 07:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment Good luck defining "primary". In some years, weren't Hill and O'Sullivan named the starter at beginning of season over Smith. Eras for teams that had subpar QBs will be difficult to objectively determine "primary".—Bagumba (talk) 08:00, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose Not a good idea. Way too subjective. The gray area is big enough to span the whole way between black and white. Jweiss11 (talk) 12:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: What do people think about an objective criteria like: the bolded QBs started in at least half of one team's games for at least three successive seasons? (You'd of course list that constraint at the bottom of the box.) Or is something like this too complex? Do we even agree that readers will find the box more useful if the "primary" (however that's defined) quarterbacks are highlighted?--Batard0 (talk) 22:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. No authoritative list exists for a list of NFL "primary" quarterbacks by team per WP:V and WP:RS. Creating our own objective criteria, however defined, and attaching such a "primary" designation in the absence of a reliable source smells a lot like original research per WP:OR. Rating such players subjectively simply becomes a matter of one or more editors' opinions, and that's even worse and a possible violation of WP:NPOV. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Another proposal: Bold quarterbacks who played for the team for three years or more. We already have date ranges next to their names. I don't see how this would be POV or OR, and it would at least give people a better idea of who played for the team for a significant period of time.--Batard0 (talk) 05:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

But that would lead to long-term backup quarterbacks being bolded and players like Brett Favre for the Vikings not being bolded despite being the obvious starting QB for two years. – PeeJay 13:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment: Personally, I don't consider a bench-replacement for less than a season or an injured replacement as a primary starting quarterback. Every quarterback is handed the starting job with the expectation they will stick around for the next decade and a half or so. Some do, and some fall after a couple seasons. Those are the ones I think should be bolded. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{19:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

One more thing. After a close read of above, I think here is the best way of determining primary starters: If they started more games than any other quarterback for their team for 2 seasons or more, and not due to injury. If the real starter was so bad that they benched him twice, and the backup started half their games twice, then they can be considered the starter. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{20:04, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

Maybe, if possible, also include them if they started x or more games for one season if it was not due to injury, like Randall Cunningham for the Vikings, Brett Favre with the Jets, or any of the Dolphins people in the past 10 years. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{21:00, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

The 49ers are relatively an easy one to do compared to other teams. Here are others; the early Broncos quarterbacks (prior to Morton) are very "iffy"-- it's almost as if they have 10 quarterbacks on their roster every year and they rolled dice to see which one would start:

This is all based off of information from List of Denver Broncos starting quarterbacks and other corresponding articles. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{19:58, 11 July 2012 (UTC)}

This one uses these exact rules: Started more games than any other quarterback on the roster for two seasons or more, or started 13 games or more for at least one season and not due to injury:

I think if the need for specific rules is important, then these rules can be used. And yes, I realize that the other four infoboxes would have to be modified to qualify for said rules. --67.180.161.183(talk)_{02:15, 13 July 2012 (UTC)}

I appreciate the spirit of what you are proposing. However, I don't think it is easily maintained, or verifiable. The designation of "primary" seems to be original research, as it is not a standard definition, and verifying it would require making a spreadsheet generally available to all editors to see who rightfully belongs. Frankly, I think the need to mark which quarterbacks are primary is an indication that the navbox of all QBs is not very useful and clutters up articles.—Bagumba (talk) 16:37, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

In the spirit of cooperation, I think we should give some consideration to how we can use this idea, because I think it's a good one at heart. These boxes have long lists of starting quarterbacks, which makes it difficult to tell who was important and who wasn't. Thus having criteria where more significant QBs are bolded makes sense on a basic level. I think you're right that "primary" isn't the right word, because that's POV and maybe OR. I think we'd simply need to spell out what the criteria are that qualify a QB for bolding. And I think to avoid confusion and miscategorization, it's best to keep it simple even if that means there are a couple (or even a few) cases where a not-very-important QB gets bolded. It's easy to get info on how many starts a QB got, for example. That's right up front on PFR and other sources of stats. It would not be hard to check a standard like "started more than half the team's games for two (three?) consecutive years". If we start introducing qualifications like injuries and other stuff, it becomes increasingly difficult to sort out -- and it might even be contentious.--Batard0 (talk) 19:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest to first define the criteria, highlight the players, and provide verifiable sources in List of Dallas Cowboys starting quarterbacks. If there is consensus in the article, there wont be much debate in the template. The problem with just having it in a template is that the criteria is undefined and not verifiable.—Bagumba (talk) 20:01, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Would it be better to organize the infoboxes by year more strictly. Maybe something like is done in the List of ... starting quarterbacks articles: break it down via year, that way it would be clearer who, and when, and for how long each player started. It wouldn't require us to define what "primary" means, it would let the reader decide. --Jayron32 17:44, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

Talk:Aaron_Rodgers/GA2

Hi fellows! A user became in active and then this was started. This page was nominated by them and there is no one to fix the issues. I tried but I know nothing about the game and I m having trouble in dealing with it. I will not be able to do any more to it so can anyone from you please try to fix the problems. I'd appreciate any help. Thanks! →TSU ^tp* 14:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Career stats templates

Why aren't there templates for career statistics tables for various positions? I haven't been able to find any. Has this been discussed?--Batard0 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Broncos subproject

I just nominated the WP:WikiProject National Football League/Denver Broncos subproject for deletion. I was just informed to make you guys aware of this. Besides, the project rarely even took off. (Discussion here: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Denver Broncos subproject) ZappaOMati 16:42, 18 July 2012 (UTC)

John Garrett (American football coach)

Could ya'll check out what I've done to expand it and possibly regrade it? And if you could help me get the years in the infobox to line up with the teams coached I would really appreciate it. Crash Underride 05:07, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Offseason and/or practice squad member only

In player infoboxes, how does "Offseason and/or practice squad member only" apply to the preseason? For example, Lee Evans was released by the Jaguars following the first preseason game. Should he have an asterisk for 2012 or not? I would tend to think so seeing as that teams carry a 90-man roster in the preseason. ~ Richmond96 t • c 21:53, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Once a player has been released from a team that he never played for in the regular season, he should be asterisked.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:10, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. ~ Richmond96 t • c 22:18, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Tom Brady - GA

I recently listed Tom Brady at WP:GAN. If you have any experience with reviewing Good Articles and would like to help out, please don't hesitate to make constructive comments. Achowat (talk) 19:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Adrian Peterson's nicknames

Can I get a ruling on the use of "A. P." as a nickname for Adrian Peterson. Some anonymous editor came along a few days ago to remove it because Peterson himself decried the use of that nickname, but surely if people use that name for him, it's still a nickname? A third-party opinion would be very useful. – PeeJay 09:30, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

People being confused about his nickname and saying it incorrectly doesn't make it his nickname, it makes those people confused. People come to Wiki for correct information, further spreading an incorrect nickname makes no sense. The man himself has said those who call him AP have "got it twisted", for whatever reason you wish for these people to remain twisted rather than be informed about what his nickname actually is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.123.71 (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it's wrong! If people call him it, it's a nickname. – PeeJay 10:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

As the article provided states, people who call him AP have it twisted, some people think AP is his nickname, in reality it is AD. The people who call him AP have it confused or are lazy, that doesn't make it his nickname, that makes those people confused or lazy.

A persons initials hardly qualifies as a nickname anyway.

Fact is the man himself has said no, that isn't my nickname. Fact is he has explained where his actual nickname comes from, fact is he has expressed how those who call him AP have it wrong. Yet for whatever reason you want to continue to have these people persist in being wrong rather than accept and respect the players actual nickname and have people be given the correct information. I provided quotes from him to support my stance, all you have done is stomp around. Clearly you were amongst the "confused" crowd. I remember when his Wiki page did not have AP listed on it, unfortunately someone who has it "twisted" came along and changed that. Now it has been changed back to being correct again. You can see it was only a few months ago that someone even decided to add it on to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.252.123.71 (talk) 10:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

People don't get to pick their own nicknames! I'm sure hundreds, if not thousands, of reliable sources can be found for the use of "AP" to mean "Adrian Peterson". This situation is more than closed. Achowat (talk) 13:04, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

"thousands of reliable sources can be found for the use of "AP" to mean "Adrian Peterson" wow are you serious lol?

If anything most people when seeing AP, Football fan or not, would think Associated Press when they read AP. But as AD himself said, it's easy for people to be lazy and say AP, when they don't understand what his nickname actually is. Furthermore, he didn't choose that nickname, it is what was given to him.

and yet, amazingly enough, a Google search of "What is Adrian Peterson's nickname" shows nothing on the first page of results suggesting that it's AP. Even Purple Jesus gets in on the first page, but no AP. Aside of course from some thread with someone asking whether his nickname is AD or AP and someone explaining to that person that it is actually AD.

and indeed the further through the Google results you go, the same trend continues. Most of the mentions of "AP" are people asking whether his nickname is AP or AD or people explaining that AP is wrong. Funny, with these supposed thousands of reliable sources, you'd think Google would be picking them up somewhere?