Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:50, 10 January 2024

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject National Football League and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Shortcuts

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24: 30 days

National Football League Project‑class

	This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League articles
Project	This page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

WikiProject National Football League was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 November 2013.

Some NFL featured lists progress

For those who don't know, I've been working on making some of the annual stat lists into featured lists and I've recently ventured into working on team specific lists (specifically my Lions). I thought it would be interesting to share where we're at in terms of overall progress on a few sets of featured lists.

	Team's lists are complete
	Team's lists are all (at least) prepped or nominated
	Article is prepped for nomination
	Work in progress
	List
	Featured list candidate
	Featured list
	Former featured list

NFL featured list status by team
Team	First-round picks	Head coaches	Seasons
Overall FL summary	21/33	22/33	16/33
National Football League
Arizona Cardinals
Atlanta Falcons
Baltimore Ravens
Buffalo Bills
Carolina Panthers
Chicago Bears
Cincinnati Bengals
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Denver Broncos
Detroit Lions
Green Bay Packers
Houston Texans
Indianapolis Colts
Jacksonville Jaguars
Kansas City Chiefs
Las Vegas Raiders
Los Angeles Chargers
Los Angeles Rams
Miami Dolphins
Minnesota Vikings
New England Patriots
New Orleans Saints
New York Giants
New York Jets
Philadelphia Eagles
Pittsburgh Steelers
San Francisco 49ers
Seattle Seahawks
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Tennessee Titans
Washington Commanders

I currently have List of Detroit Lions first-round draft picks at WP:FLC, with List of Detroit Lions seasons prepped and ready for nomination once of my current nominations are processed (List of National Football League annual interceptions leaders is the other nom I have). Additionally, List of Seattle Seahawks seasons is currently nominated at FLC by @SounderBruce while @ULPS has gotten List of Baltimore Ravens seasons and List of Houston Texans seasons promoted recently.

I think it would be really cool if we could get a full set of these to featured status, though I realize it's unlikely and that I can't do it by myself. If anybody else wants to work on any of these I'd be happy to help out and give advice. Even if you just want to promote a list for your favourite team, that's fine too, I would just love to see progress made on more NFL lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:33, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I'll pick up the Seahawks coach list, but the seasons list FLC has stalled due to a lack of reviews. If anyone can drop a few comments, it'd be much appreciated. Sounder Bruce 20:09, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the Chargers are covered already (I can take some credit for the 1st-round picks list). Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice. I'm the one who made the Chargers list. I didn't realize you took it to FL! ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job people! Some of these are proving easier than I initially expected. I've got the Lions first picks one at FLC and the Lions season one ready, but I've also got the Jaguars first picks, Jaguars seasons, and Saints seasons mostly prepped with a bit of work left. I'm going to polish those 3 off though so they're fully ready to be nommed before moving on to another one. Then they'll just sit in my "to be nommed" queue for a bit til their time comes. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, I think the Vikings one has been ready for years, but because of some daft rule that list articles for lists with fewer than 10 entries shouldn't be spun off from a main article, it was denied when I first nominated it. I reckon it would be an immediate promotion with a bit of tweaking now. – Pee Jay 16:46, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PeeJay, thankfully that is no longer a problem anymore. Put it up! List of Green Bay Packers retired numbers only has six items. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:04, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PeeJay: In the last FLC nomination, which you started, they mentioned generally wanting at least 10 items on lists, which this now has vs the 7 it had in 2009 when it was nominated. The Chiefs had 10 when it was promoted in 2008. Additionally, the table itself has been pretty beefed up and the article is over 10,000 bytes larger now. Between that and the Packers' retired numbers list, I think you should be fine. I say do some cleanup on the list and give it another shot. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just nominated List of Atlanta Falcons seasons at FLC, if anyone wants to leave some comments it would be appreciated :) ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:42, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2023-December-18 Update

A few notes... Since I shared this table, I've nominated List of Detroit Lions seasons at WP:FLC. I've also prepped an additional 6 lists that I believe are ready for FLC nomination:

These lists cannot be nominated until my active FLCs are reviewed, but I wanted to get as many ready as I could in the mean time. I've had one person take me up on the offer to work on these lists, and we're working on List of Chicago Bears first-round draft picks. Additionally, I've highlighted the ones I prepped in the table and noted which teams are entirely completed. I'm still more than happy to work with anybody interested in taking on a list and helping promoting to featured status. I'm willing to work on-wiki with others, but I'd ideally prefer to go back and forth over Discord if that's an option.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 16:54, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey man im josh, great work! One thing that should be considered as part of this is going through some of the older WP:FLs you have identified and making sure they are up to current standards. I have been slowly doing this for WP:PACKERS lists, and some of these that were passed as early as 2008 aren't in great condition (need inline cites, need accessibility in the tables, need expansion, need better Legends, etc). Just a note, but great work on the existing lists you have prepped! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:06, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Gonzo fan2007! I've felt in a bit of a pickle regarding the state of some of these previously promoted lists, and I did notice and appreciate what you've been doing. I'll address them if they become nominated for featured list removal, but for the time being, I'm focused on upgrading lists that have don't have the FL classification yet. I thought about a featured topic, but I don't think there's one that can be made for NFL lists unfortunately. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:10, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

2024-January-02 Update

Since my last update on this, the following has occurred:

List of Minnesota Vikings head coaches -> Nominated since December 19, 2023 by PeeJay
List of Seattle Seahawks seasons -> Promoted to featured list on December 24th
List of Detroit Lions seasons -> Promoted to featured list on December 31st
All Detroit Lions lists in these sets are now completed
List of Atlanta Falcons seasons -> Nominated since December 31, 2023 by ULPS
All Atlanta Falcons lists in these sets are now either completed or nominated at FLC
List of Green Bay Packers to win a most valuable player award -> Nominated since December 31, 2023 by Gonzo fan2007
List of New Orleans Saints seasons -> Nominated since January 1, 2024 by Hey man im josh

So, in summation, two more lists have been promoted to featured, while another 3 from my above table (and a bonus list) have been nominated! Including List of National Football League annual interceptions leaders, which has been nominated since November 6, 2023, we currently have 5 lists nominated for promotion to featured status!

This is great news and progress from the WikiProject, for which I'm grateful. Keep it up folks! Hey man im josh (talk) 13:35, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Finally did it...

...one of my works is Today's Featured Article! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:23, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations! Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:29, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well deserved recognition. I was so pleasantly surprised to see it just now :) Keep it up! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:14, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great when Beanie!!! Looking forward to this being the first not the last knowing you ;) Hey man im josh (talk) 01:37, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You did a very solid job on that article! Congratulations are certainly in order, if there was a Gatorade shower barnstar I would give you it. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:27, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Norm Glockson

You may be interested in the deletion discussion on Norm Glockson, a 1910s/1920s NFL and MLB player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:41, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Football America needs sources

Hello WikiProject NFL. The article Football America is listed under your WikiProject and is also one of the oldest unreferenced articles on the site. If anyone would be willing to take a look and add sources to the article it would be much appreciated. Tooncool64 (talk) 22:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Budde: Request

I would appreciate if someone would be willing to expand Ed Budde a bit in time to post his article at ITN; see discussion about him at Wikipedia:In_the_news/Candidates#RD:_Ed_Budde. Thanks. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:16, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Local stations for nationally streamed games

Over the last couple of weeks I've seen local stations being added to the game boxes and schedule tables for games that are streamed on Peacock or Prime Video. Previously we've only listed local stations for preseason games that don't have national coverage, and I've seen these changes reverted and have reverted some myself, but they keep getting re-added.

Since this is a relatively new thing I wanted someone else's opinions on this before removing local stations again. I think it's unnecessary clutter, even if all stations are removed after the season is over. KristofferAG (talk) 16:17, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat related to this, I have done quite a bit of work in historical articles and some editors (or IPs) are adding networks to these tables. I agree that it is uneccesary clutter.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:56, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that I'm aware of WP:NOTTVGUIDE, which I think is another reason why we shouldn't be listing local stations at all. KristofferAG (talk) 15:59, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, even listing the national network is TVGUIDE-ish. I'd remove them for all but broadcast-specific pages (e.g. List of Los Angeles Rams broadcasters) or special dedicated game pages like a Super Bowl, where the broadcast is significantly related. It's trivial info to place in a season schedule table or game summary. But at a minimum, we certainly don't need local channels in most tables. —Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth removing network info from schedule tables per WP:NOTTVGUIDE, as you mentioned. If the info is sourced, I don't see a problem with adding it to game summary templates (i.e. {{Americanfootballbox}}), but not the schedule summary tables. – Pee Jay 17:32, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't personally think they're worth having in the game boxes either, but at least it's less distracting there than in the tables. KristofferAG (talk) 14:17, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to template the header of the schedule tables to discourage the creation of such information in tables? I don't necessarily mean go full template like college football for the whole table just something that could have team/team color for the season, Week, Date, Opponent, Result, Venue, (attendance is in many historical articles) in the header to standardize the tables both currently and historically? I would argue that putting the color of the weeks as the jersey combo can even violate WP:COLOR. I have been working on and off trying to standardize/modernize the formatting of historical season articles schedule tables, that is why I am asking these questions.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no...

This discussion needs to be done. It is going nowhere and this is a common talk page with a ton of watchers. Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard can be used to start a discussion on whether it is reliable. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

ProFootballArchives.com was shut down. That was probably my favorite football research tool. I used it for almost EVERYTHING relating to historical football. Now we've got 4,000 deadlinks to somehow fix and an enormous amount of lost info that exists nowhere else... ugh! BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What the heck, they had tons of stuff no one else had. Hopefully, a lot of it is archived. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be an issue for us, nothing which can only be sourced to them should be on wiki in the first place. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also this: "Thanks for the all kinds words about the Archives. I hope to make an announcement in the near future about what will happen to my data. It does NOT involve reviving the Archives web site." ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm missing the reason why they're shutting down. What happened? Hey man im josh (talk) 18:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know either. I sent the website maintainer an email about it and he responded simply, "Yes, the website has been shut down. Apologies for the inocnvenience this has caused." ...sigh... I had used it on a near-daily basis for years, even going back before I edited Wikipedia. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Was ProFootballArchives.com ever actually a WP:RS? I'm not seeing anything which would indicate that this was ever a source which should have been used on wikipedia in the first place, let alone "for almost EVERYTHING relating to historical football." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it has been discussed before and determined to be RS ([12]) - plus it was published by a highly-respected football historian. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is no such determination in the link just a conjecture (and that conjecture is one of mixed reliability, the final comment is a listing of errors which was never rebutted so if you want to say that there was a consensus it was not towards reliability...) and that is a self published book so demonstrated neither that one of the authors is highly respected or a subject matter expert for wikipedia's purposes. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If being considered reliable by numerous high-quality publications and being given numerous honors for being one of the top football historians - including the highest lifetime achievement award for football research by the Professional Football Researchers Association (the top organization for football history) - does not make one reliable, then I don't know what the heck does. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:45, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We require independent publication in reliable sources. You could win a Nobel and it wouldn't matter on wiki unless you've been independently published. I appreciate how proudly ignorant you are of that though. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would being featured in the Professional Football Researchers Association magazine - a top resource for pro football history - be "publication in a reliable source"? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:54, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(EC) It would be, but does the Professional Football Researches Association publish a peer reviewed academic journal? They publish the The Coffin Corner but I don't believe that its either academic or peer reviewed. It appears to be a hobbyist/enthusiast organization, as far as I can tell the "Professional" in the name doesn't refer to the researchers but to football (as in pro not amateur). There is after all a world of difference between a Professional Football Researchers Association and an Association of Professional Football Researchers. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:58, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I am uncertain of all the aspects that make a source more or less "academic" but they do have a staff for The Coffin Corner and don't just let anyone publish anything in it. If that does not qualify, then I will have to ask, are there any sources in the football area that would meet that criteria? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:02, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Something like The Journal of Sport History for example. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Which seems to have had in its last two volumes (they published three per year before being discontinued?) a grand total of one article focusing on football history (about Walter Camp) - applying that standard to the rest of its editions, we get a total of 68 people who were ever reliable in the field of football history. (I know, there's more academic publications that have talked about football than just that one - but looking at this reference talking about top academic football coverage, nearly the entirety are regarding concussions and none seem to be about the sport's history - I myself am unaware of an academic journal that focuses exclusively on football, or a journal that even has a good amount of non-concussion football coverage, if The Coffin Corner is not considered). Considering how well-covered the sport is, it doesn't sound right that that would be all the people who could be used as references. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TBH 68 almost seems high for such an incredibly niche topic, I would expect that you will find multiple articles from the same people. The sport of American football does not seem well covered outside of the American popular press (even the Canadians can't be said to really cover it).Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, if you think multiple articles are published by the same people, then let's call it 50. 50 people in the whole world who are reliable for a sport that receives viewership up to ~113 million and has existed for over 150 years. That small a number...is utterly ridiculous... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:41, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

50 SME is in the ballpark considering how incredibly niche the topic is, sports history in its entirety is a niche topic... American sports history an even smaller niche... and American football history an even smaller one still. What do number or viewers or age of topic have to do with anything? Note that there haven't even been fifty major books on the topic published in the last 20 years. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:46, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The viewership shows how not niche a topic sports is... BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:48, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership =/= coverage. For example the history of the television program Yellowstone (American TV series) is a niche topic despite its viewership being significantly higher than the NFL's... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, huh? NFL averages 17 million viewers per game, Yellowstone seems to get ~5 million an episode (looking at the list of episodes). BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thats primetime viewership only, most viewers aren't primetime anymore they're on non-live streaming. You also appear to be completely ignoring the point because you can't refute it... Viewership =/= coverage and viewership is 100% irrelevant when it comes to determining notability or how much coverage exists. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Still shows they have a large viewership. As for whether I am "completely ignoring the point because [I] can't refute it" – I would say that it seems (in my opinion) you've made some off-topic points to get us here and I couldn't help but respond to these points – of course, you probably think the same applies to me. Let's just leave it to someone else, shall we? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Viewership is not part of how we determine anything on wikipedia as far as I am aware, we actually place the emphasis on secondary and academic sources over primary and popular press ones (which almost by definition get orders of magnitude more viewership, billions of people might watch live news coverage of a war but only thousands might read an academic article about the war... And yet we almost infinity prefer the article to the live coverage). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My point about viewership was that it shows there are people who are interested in sports – you were saying that it was "incredibly niche" – the viewership statistics show that is not correct – but we're getting very off topic here... BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Number of people interested in a topic has no bearing either. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And where are you getting this stat that there have not been "50 books published on football in 20 years"? I have an edition of The Coffin Corner which has a five-page long list of football books published just last year. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:50, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And how many books on that list would you consider to be high quality? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And who gets to define that? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:00, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking you could use the regular wikipedia standards. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:06, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We're getting off topic here – let's agree to disagree? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:14, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. You're wrong and its as simple as that. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:22, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And I believe the exact same thing in the opposite sense – of course, neither of us will get each other to change our minds which is why I am dropping out of this argument. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is that you being right requires policy and guideline to be wrong... Whereas nothing has to change for me to be right. That is unless there is something about the source which we have both managed to overlook (always a possibility). Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:33, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It should be noted that members of the PFRA are regularly quoted in articles covering football history, including in the New York Times[13][14] (also bunch of articles on Newspapers.com from various publications), which would seem to indicate that they are considered to be experts on the matter. Alvaldi (talk) 21:34, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But being an expert isn't enough... The wiki standard is expert+independently published in RS, not either alone. Why would we make an exception for this topic area? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:37, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

And that last comment about the "errors" also lists the same "errors" in other reliable sources (PFR), so it's not like it's an error solely by PFA, but rather poor record keeping at the time by all sources. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That couldn't possibly indicate that PRA was reliable, it could only indicate that PFR was not reliable. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:52, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tom Brady Number Retirement

Another editor at New England Patriots is insisting that Tom Brady's number was retired during the season opener this year, using dubious sources. I have pointed out on my talk page, as well as the team's talk page, that more reliable sources like NFL.com [15] and the team itself [16] make no reference to the number being retired. Ditto ESPN [17] CBS [18] Boston.com [19] NBC Sports Boston [20] Yahoo [21]. Thanks. Jessintime (talk) 15:43, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime: As previously discussed on your talk page, those sources do NOT support the argument that you are making. @ULPS provided 4 sources which stated that it was retired. Please provide sources that state that Brady's number is not retired, not just sources that omit a mention of his number's retirement. Sources that ULPS listed: People, MensJournal, PFR, Pro Football Hall of Fame. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:54, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Jessintime What is wrong with these sources that clearly state the number is retired? 331dot (talk) 16:05, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

People magazine is a glorified tabloid and Men's Health isn't much better. The other two others are simply lists of retired numbers and are wrong. It's ridiculous I'm being asked to prove a negative here because a couple sources got something wrong. Why would the team, the league, or the team's actual beat writers omit any reference to the number being retired? If you don't believe me, watch the ceremony online [22] and tell me where Robert Kraft, Brady or anyone says the number has been retired. Jessintime (talk) 17:02, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime: The Pro Football Hall of Fame and Pro-football-reference.com are reliable sources for NFL info, but you're stating they're wrong without any sources that back up your statement. Why do you think these are not appropriate sources for confirming that the number has been retired? Additionally, please note that People is considered a reliable source based on past discussions, per WP:RSP. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because the number hasn't been retired? And you still haven't explained why it is that, if the number were retired, the Patriots etc. made no mention of it. (And to address to a point that I'm sure will be brought up, while I expect the number 12 will be retired in the future, we cannot say it is until that happens. For now it's enough to say the number has been taken out of circulation.) Jessintime (talk) 17:23, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime: "Because the number hasn't been retired?" – Then help us with SOMETHING that verifies this. I've explained that multiple sources (which we consider reliable) state that his number is retired, why would we not consider those to be accurate? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let other users chime in. I'm out. Kafka has nothing on this. Jessintime (talk) 17:35, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime: To be clear, unless sources can be found that go against what the reliable sources listed above say, then there's no policy based reason for removal of the information from relevant articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Cat got your tongue? Jessintime (talk) 21:52, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jessintime, you wanna try that again? It's unclear what you're trying to say but that type of attitude is not appreciated. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not appropriate. No one is trying to "win" arguments here. If that's what you're doing, I suggest you stop. We're just trying to come to a consensus on what to do. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:06, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not trying to win, just trying to get misinformation corrected. Jessintime (talk) 23:02, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some conflicting sources:

But the Patriots didn’t retire Tom Brady’s number. "No statue? No retired 12? Patriots' Tom Brady ceremony under delivers". MassLive. September 11, 2023.
While his Hall of Fame induction was announced Sunday, we'd have to imagine a No. 12 will be retired soon enough, along with a Tom Brady statue being erected somewhere at Patriot Place. "Patriots announce that Tom Brady will go into team Hall of Fame on June 12, 2024". WBZ-TV. September 10, 2023.

—Bagumba (talk) 17:57, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Jessintime (talk) 18:31, 29 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

So 12 is either extremely discouraged to be used/retired in all but name, or officially retired. This is a pretty weird situation (Surprisingly not the only gripe I've had with retired numbers this week, I spent some time a few days ago scouring the internet for the date of number retirement for another Pats player, the NFL really needs to keep better records about this stuff.) I of course personally defer to PFR and the Hall of Fame, which is why I added 12 to the related retirement articles. Perhaps we should send an email to them asking how they came about this info? If it turns out that they jumped the gun as Jessintime put it, it should definitely be removed. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:15, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, it's entirely possible the number isn't retired, but going by the overall weight of the sources we're comparing, I'm inclined to lean towards PFR and the PFHOF. I wish teams had better history on their sites, including a list of retired numbers and members of their respective rings of honor. Pretty much every team's site is lacking in historical information. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:17, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The essay WP:INACCURACY suggests:

...there are three main editorial approaches to reporting potentially inaccurate material: inline attribution, footnotes, and exclusion due to insignificance.

I can understand presenting a balanced view of the conflicting viewpoints, or just excluding mention of the supposed retirement altogether, due to its uncertainty. However, I don't see a justification for mentioning the retirement without any mention that some reliablesources say it hasn't happened yet. —Bagumba (talk) 03:26, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can we circle back to this where it's been a week already? Or should I just go and remove Brady from the list of retired numbers? Jessintime (talk) 16:12, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessintime: I still oppose removal of the number retirement until better/more sources can be found. The weight of the sources provided for Brady's number retirement are more than that of the ones that mention they did not at that event. For all we know, they retired it a couple months afterwards without a ceremony. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How come team announcements are required for free agent signings, trades, etc. but here we can ignore the fact that the team has said nothing on the matter? Jessintime (talk) 18:43, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jessintime: Those are false equivalencies. Free agency is riddled with speculation, false reports (clickbait) about players having signed, and contracts agreed to in principal that simply don't pan out. We don't accept free agent signings from most of the Twitter reporters because they have been wrong on a number of occasions. We have reason to be skeptical of them and to not take those articles, which usually always say "x player is reported to have signed with...", whereas in this case, we have two sources which are typically reliable (Pro-football-reference.com and the Pro Football Hall of Fame) which state that the number is retired. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:54, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pro-football-reference.com and the Pro Football Hall of Fame are "typically" reliable, but everyone makes errors too. Those should be judged on a per-case basis, when sources conflict. And those are mere listings, with no background given, unlike in a full report. For the number retirement, I'd generally apply more weight to domain experts, like reliable NFL-related writeups of the event, over non-sports sources like People or Men's Journal. It seems plausible that his general retirement ceremony got misreported as a number retirement. Is there reason to suspect that the Patriots would be covert about the number retirement but so explicit about his upcoming team HOF induction? —Bagumba (talk) 01:43, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, neither PFR or the PFHOF are infallible. It's certainly possible they're wrong. But I wanted more of a discussion than "look what these two news sites said!"

Based on the arguments presented in this discussion, I am willing to yield. I've emailed both PFR and the PFHOF before and I think I'll do so again. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:01, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do the Patriots have retired numbers on display at Gillette Stadium? Number 12 should not be “retired” until/unless it goes up with the existing other retired numbers. (via Template:Cite sign) I strangely can’t find retired numbers in pictures of the stadium, as almost all other NFL stadiums have on prominent display. But maybe there’s one on the interior concourse or somewhere. PK-WIKI (talk) 17:58, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's no retired numbers inside the stadium. Jessintime (talk) 18:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very strongly of the opinion that the number has not been retired.

The Men's Journal article is basically a rewrite of an article that it links to at "The Source", which does not appear to be a reliable source. Both state that that the number retirement occurred at the Brady return celebration at halftime on September 10, 2023.

However WBZ-TV CBS News Boston's coverage of the same event directly states that his number retirement did not occur: "we'd have to imagine a No. 12 will be retired soon enough". This is a far more reliable source than any of the tabloid/magazine news articles stating the number was retired at the event.

Both PFR and the Pro Football HOF are self-published sources and the accuracy and original source of their jersey retirement data is not clear. It appears to be incorrect.

Back to fist principles, a retired jersey is a public honor a team bestows upon a player. This is typically a display of the jersey in the rafters of the stadium, but at the very least a display on their website, or a press release, or Robert Kraft mentioning the honor during his speech honoring Brady. We have no cited or recorded evidence from the Patriots themselves indicating the number has been retired. Based on the lack of in-house jersey retirement announcement and the CBS News article stating it has not been retired, this is an easy decision to keep the number off of Wikipedia until (presumably) 6/12/2024.

PK-WIKI (talk) 22:34, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with PK-WIKI. Also, a sentence like "Multiple sources noted Tom Brady's uniform #12 would be retired during a ceremony honoring his contributions to the Patriots over his career in September 2023. However, the team has made no announcements regarding the number retirement since and thus it is unclear whether the Patriots have formally retired the number." Then add the conflicting sources and leave it at that until a more definitive source comes out. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:45, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That seems reasonable. I'm doubtful that the number actually is retired. Sometimes sports journalists just say clickbaity stuff like that, even reputable ones. I mean, this is Tom Brady we're talking about. If the number really was retired, there would be tons of sources and commentary about it.

~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, @WikiOriginal-9. That was truly something I could agree with. After seeing the length of this talk page regarding this subject, I swore I crawled out from under my rock too late and missed the big news. Just remember, we do things officially here at Wikipedia. Example: When a player breaks his leg on Sunday and is out for the year, we cannot amended his page to 'Injured reserve' until it becomes official. And Tom Brady's number retirement trumps any injury in the NFL. @@ Bringingthewood (talk) 23:14, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think it is likely, in this day and age, that an arguable GOAT like Brady had his number retired without it being explicit from the team. The NFL domain experts that provided writeups of the event either did not mention a number retirement, or criticized the Patriots for not retiring it yet. Pro-football-reference and the Pro Football Hall of Fame has 12 in their retired number listings, but do not provide other context. I hate to write them off here, but I'll give more weight to the expert full writeups. It seems most likely that some reports confused his general retirement ceremony for an actual number retirement. My preference is to exclude any mention, as it is extremely unreliable. Only if there is no consensus for that should a mention of conflicting sources be included. —Bagumba (talk) 01:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now that I think about it a little more, I agree and lean towards Bagumba's take, or a note if some want that. This whole thing is a little silly, you'd think one of the biggest sports franchises in the world would take some care about keeping proper records, at least a spot on their website for retired numbers so we wouldn't need a whole discussion about this lol. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:16, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another great response. Right on the money! @ULPS!! Funny, with all this talk page comedy and a place to enjoy ourselves like Wikipedia ... maybe all of us, at least in America will put this much thought into the next election. November will be here before we know it. I think Tom Brady would do a good job as President ... but only if his number is truly retired. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I only vote for players with their numbers officially retired ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 02:46, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@ULPS has my vote! Bringingthewood (talk) 03:14, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't call the Pro Football Hall of Fame a self-published source as understood in Wikipedia terms. But this is a case where there is no clear confirmation that the number is actually and officially retired. So we need to leave it off. oknazevad (talk) 02:11, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with @Bagumba to 'exclude any mention'. A couple of months ago I read this and figured the other sources jumped the gun with the number being retired. Besides, the NFL Network would have spoken about it like the birth of a child anyway. This source came out a day later and unless they were blind or just hate the organization, it looks like it didn't happen yet. https://www.masslive.com/patriots/2023/09/no-statue-no-retired-12-patriots-tom-brady-ceremony-under-delivers-vautour.html Bringingthewood (talk) 02:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus seems clear so I've gone ahead and removed it. Feel free to change the wording as necessary. Jessintime (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking for a citation on the treatment of ties in the AFL

Hi,

The GA reviewer for 1966 San Diego Chargers is asking for a citation for the following line...

Note: Tie games were not officially counted in the standings in the AFL.

This line appears on the standings template for all AFL seasons, so it's certainly worth getting a good citation. The second citation on List of NFL tied games specifies that ties didn't count in the NFL until 1972, but doesn't mention the AFL directly. I've also found a newspaper quote specifying that those were the AFL rules in 1965.[23]

Still, a single citation saying that the AFL disregarded ties would be best. Does anyone know of one?

Thanks, Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:38, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can dig for this tomorrow if you still haven't found anything for it. Ping me if I forget to reply. Hey man im josh (talk) 02:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, the reviewer accepted the standings table of that season (with winnings percentages indirectly showing that ties weren't counted) as enough evidence. If you know of a more direct source then that's a bonus, but it should be okay as is. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:42, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Broncos-Dolphins

Should an article be made for that game? It was historical and saw the dolphins have the most points in a game in over a half century. 108.58.27.76 (talk) 20:40, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No. The game has no lasting impact, no broken records, no serious playoff implications, and wasn't particularly notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:44, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: Actually, the Dolphins set 13 records in their win against the Broncos. CBS News has significant coverage of the event on November 17, nearly two months after the event. This source describes how the loss contributed to the Broncos failing to make the NFL postseason. But if that can’t have an article there are other games that might be worthy. But I think an article should be considered.108.58.27.76 (talk) 17:21, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at List of highest-scoring NFL games, it does seem that most of them don't have their own articles. The bar is quite high for regular season games, I think. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RECENT is a nice essay that I think covers this a bit. Coverage needs to be significant and lasting. Note that most (all?) of those records were team records. Definitely justifies being included in Miami Dolphins records and 2023 Miami Dolphins season, but unless ongoing coverage from independent, reliable sources continues discussing it, it likely will fall short of the bar needed to meet WP:GNG. That said, the best case for an article is one that is already written. You are welcome to draft one and bring it here for an initial review. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:25, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Village Pump discussion, concerning the NFL Draft

There's a discussion taking place at Village Pump (policy), concerning the NFL Draft. GoodDay (talk) 05:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This led to this RFC: WP:VPP#RfC on capitalization in "NFL_Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc. – Dicklyon (talk) 04:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which is an opinion survey and not an WP:RM. Dicklyon, what do you plan to do with the results of the survey? If you plan to do an RM please do it at National Football League Draft, where the most readers and editors will be made aware of the process (because of the tag put at the top of the page) and not at a related but less obscure page. Or is it too soon after the last one, and in the middle of Super Bowl season after the 2024 NFL Draft winds down. Please let us know, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Hultman

You may be interested in the deletion discussion for Vivian Hultman, a 30-game NFL player. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:C. J. Johnson (American football)#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:C. J. Johnson (American football)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Antonio Morrison (American football)#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Antonio Morrison (American football)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Alex Ward (American football)#Requested move 4 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Alex Ward (American football)#Requested move 4 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 12:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Shrunken infoboxes

Is it just me or did the infoboxes on NFL players get smaller? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's just you @WikiOriginal-9. Myself, I would remove one or two things at a time if they meet this removal format: WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT. Also, there are a couple of editors that do cut the list of career stats down. That I believe is a personal thing and what they see as important. I don't ask. If it's regarding the high school city and state being removed when it's the same as the place birth ... that's me, guilty as charged, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure it's anything like that. It just looks smaller for some reason. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:37, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmmmm .. that's some spooky ****!

NFL Draft RFC at Village Pump

You may be interested in a proposal on whether to capitalize the "Draft" in National Football League Draft, taking place at the village pump. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly is not the place for a WP:RM discussion. Seems a tangential location and almost picked at random (and note that no notices have been placed atop the articles listed for change, which are only partial because if the NFL Draft page is lowercased then the scores of related pages will join it within minutes, so readers of the articles have no clue that an attempt at a drastic title change has been rolling). Since requested moves have been handled on Wikipedia by WP:RM, and if the result is contested they move to the RM review page, and since no notices appear atop the articles being targeted, ~~is there an administrator here who can step in and close the~~ fake RM? Thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:31, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Randy Kryn: To avoid accusations of WP:CANVASSing, your concern might be better at a neutral location like WP:AN. Feel free to strike my comment if you choose to delete yours. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 15:16, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll strike asking for an admin here, but placing an RfC at Village Pump (policy) for a name change is so irregular I would think a comment here is not canvassing as much as opining. The RfC also seems incorrect in stating that prior RM's were all closed as "no consensus". I don't think this is accurate but can't find a list of RM's on the topic, does someone have such a list, thanks. Randy Kryn (talk) 16:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a highly irregular RM at Talk:2016 NFL Draft (a new unwatched article) that closed with a consensus to capitalize. It was a tiny discussion, inappropriately extended to everywhere without notification. Also note that nom has said "Search results are about evenly split... Given no clear 'winner' using search results, we should default to the name given to this event by the organization holding it." and since there was nobody who knew anything about capitalization and title P&G there, nobody corrected that wrong idea. Dicklyon (talk) 23:10, 7 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion seems fine, and brought the page back to uppercasing after an apparently undiscussed move to lowercase. Is that the only time an "NFL Draft" page has been nominated for RM? It seemed to have just fixed an improper controversial bold move. As for this new RfC at what seems a tangential location, it is not an WP:RM and so wouldn't even count towards a title change, it would just provide a survey opinion. Randy Kryn (talk) 04:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

...note that no notices have been placed atop the articles listed for change, which are only partial because if the NFL Draft page is lowercased then the scores of related pages will join it within minutes, so readers of the articles have no clue that an attempt at a drastic title change has been rolling...: That's more or less the same thing that happened at Talk:2016 NFL Draft § Requested move 30 April 2016—the move request was only for 2016 NFL draft, with no notifications left on the main NFL draft or the other annual NFL draft pages. "WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY", someone wrote. And nobody seemed to care much about that oversight at the move review at Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2016 July § 2016 NFL Draft. Two "wrongs" don't make a right, but one should show the same energy in both cases if you truly want to be sincere about "proper notification". This whole "NFL draft" vs. "NFL Draft" has been a general shitshow. —Bagumba (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a tale as old as time. I remember it used to be at "D', then it was "d" for a while, now it's "D" again. I've lost track of how many times it's been changed. Looking at National Football League Draft, looks like there were even more moves back-and-forth earlier on. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 05:17, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I took a stab at the timeline here —Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comprehensive history Bagumba. It shows only two Requested Move discussions, the latest not too long ago. Where we're at now is Dicklyon taking a survey in the form of a request for editors to comment and to join the survey. The survey question is "Regarding the capitalization in "NFL Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc., should it be capitalized "Draft", or lowercase "draft", in article text and titles? With what exceptions, if any?" I don't know what anyone is going to do with the results of that survey, or what analysis is planned for it. In any case, it's a very limited survey, in one of Wikipedia's backrooms. So far many of the usual lowercasers have come by to say "lowercase", and uppercasers say "uppercase", all the regulars thinking they have it right. Randy Kryn (talk) 03:41, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Franchise Tag

Can someone take a look at the article Franchise tag? There seems to have been an edit war there that has left a weird stub. I personally think some of the information that was lost in the edit war was relevant, but even if you disagree, it's stubby and needs to be re-written IMO. 69.162.253.10 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I'm reading it correctly, a large amount was moved out in 2021. It was done by an experienced editor who cited his reasoning why. Looks like everyone moved forward from that point on. Maybe you should try to re-write the parts you believe should be re-written. Don't worry about a mistake being made, if someone doesn't like it, they will revert it. I have no doubt about that. :) Bringingthewood (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If you are referring to these table/lists, I'd suggest establishing consensus here for its inclusion.—Bagumba (talk) 08:02, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of current National Football League staffs

You may be interested in the deletion discussion for the List of current National Football League staffs. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:23, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Statweek in Active Player Infoboxes

While this may seem trivial to address, there are usually discrepancies with the statweek in active player infoboxes once the regular season is over. Some articles have it as "Career NFL statistics as of Week 18, XXXX" and some have "Career NFL statistics as of XXXX". Is there any consensus on this? HappyBoi3892 (talk) 22:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HappyBoi3892 Not sure about a consensus, but I do know of an editor who keeps the week 18 there at the end. At the beginning I wasn't sure, but it does show that the stats were finalized for the season, which is a good thing. In the past I saw just the statseason there and the stats were not updated for the last three weeks. But it looks like an editor is removing the week as we speak. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:07, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Like with this edit C. J. Gardner-Johnson, the stats were updated and the week was removed for the following season. If it's a credible editor who does this, that's great, but I always check to see if the numbers are right when week 18 was removed. It's another chore, but with no consensus I cannot confront each party and point fingers (like or dislike). Bringingthewood (talk) 01:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I personally remove statweek at the end of the season. But I don't think there's consensus on the subject. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:21, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this was my original thinking. @Hey man im josh brought this up to me in 2022 when I removed it from JPP. Another editor liked it there. Again, if it shows certainty it's great. But you have people now that actually add a sack when the game is still going on. As long as the numbers are correct, so be it. Maybe a consensus will come around one day. It's like putting games played/started in bold. I really think that's way too trivial, but that's me. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:01, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

USFL page-related moves

I've noticed recently, that USFL Draft was moved to USFL draft & likewise the year draft pages were moved (example 1983 USFL Draft to 1983 USFL draft) causing inconsistencies among those pages, without RMs being held. GoodDay (talk) 05:55, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

See stats. Dicklyon (talk) 06:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough about the league to know if this is a correct move sequence or not, but maybe Dicklyon thinks or hopes that these new mass moves are a prelude to using the fake RM at an RfC to change NFL Draft pages. That fake RM is nothing more than a poorly attended opinion survey since it is not being done at the proper location for page moves, WP:RM (or at the National Football League Draft page, to be precise, which is the ultimate trophy for both college players and for Dicklyon). Randy Kryn (talk) 15:38, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not exactly mass moves; there are only 10 in Category:United States Football League drafts. If anyone sees a reason for capping draft there, let's hear it. If someone wants to revert and go through an RM process, we could do that. See WP:BRD. Dicklyon (talk) 18:16, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

National Football League Draft Busts

Thoughts on the above-titled newly created article? I'm doubtful of its relevance to Wikipedia because the list lacks conclusive inclusion criteria (i.e. what constitutes a bust?). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose if they added multiple citations for each player being a bust, that would do the trick. There aren't any citations currently. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:26, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of NFL Draft busts in 2006. Among others, WP:UNDUE and WP:BLP would need to be addressed.—Bagumba (talk) 00:30, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 589: / Line 589: @@
 :This led to this RFC: [[WP:VPP#RfC on capitalization in "NFL_Draft"/"National Football League draft" etc.]] – [[User:Dicklyon|Dicklyon]] ([[User talk:Dicklyon|talk]]) 04:06, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
+::Which is an opinion survey and not an [[WP:RM]]. {{u|Dicklyon}}, what do you plan to do with the results of the survey? If you plan to do an RM please do it at [[National Football League Draft]], where the most readers and editors will be made aware of the process (because of the tag put at the top of the page) and not at a related but less obscure page. Or is it too soon after the last one, and in the middle of Super Bowl season after the 2024 NFL Draft winds down. Please let us know, thanks. [[User:Randy Kryn|Randy Kryn]] ([[User talk:Randy Kryn|talk]]) 03:50, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
 == [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Hultman]] ==