Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

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

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

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

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

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

@Spf121188:@TheCatalyst31:@Bagumba: I saw this ended up being the longest AFD of February(!), and it was written about in The Signpost. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:16, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, That is actually fascinating! It still amazes me that an article like this could create such controversy and division. Thanks for the note! SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 17:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Dick Pierce and Floyd Pierce - another NFL history mystery

See Talk:Dick Pierce#Mystery and possible AfD

Which for reference... Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dick Pierce. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Mungavin

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

BeanieFan11, I would recommend WP:DRV for this close. The troubling misapplication of WP:CANVASS (albeit stricken) leaves a tough stain to overcome when trying to assess the validity of the close. Just my two cents. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do NFL conference championships not have their own pages but irrelevant college football bowls do?

Something called the 2021 LendingTree Bowl, a bowl between the 7-5 Liberty Flames and the 7-5 Eastern Michigan Eagles that 15,000 people attended, has its own Wikipedia article, but the NFL's conference championship games do not. Why is this? I don't think it needs to be stated how popular and impactful these championship games are. They're watched by tens of millions of people and rivers of ink are written about them afterwards. Does this not count as being noteworthy? --Somarain (talk) 21:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly because the Super Bowl overshadows the AFC & NFC championship games. There's a bit of inconsistency concerning playoff rounds, in professional sports leagues. Example: We've got articles for every annual MLB playoff series, but not every annual NHL playoff series. I guess, it's up to each respective WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 21:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we should test the consensus. I would support having stand-alone articles for the NFC and AFC championship games. They are pretty big deals. Cbl62 (talk) 21:44, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside the other stuff exists argument, I would support individual articles for AFC/NFC Championship games as well. I would generally be in favor of articles for an entire NFL seasons playoff (minus the Super Bowl which keeps its own article,) but AFC/NFC championship games are notable enough to have their own articles I would say. SPF121188 ^{(tell me!) (contribs)} 21:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

To be fair, bowl games used to be a big deal when there were only a few of them. But now that nearly every "successful" team gets a bowl game, they have become quite watered down. But yeah I would support having AFC/NFC championship games as well. Natg 19 (talk) 22:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the NFL? I've no objections to the creation of Year AFC Championship Game & Year NFC Championship Game articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Is there anywhere we're landing on this topic? If anybody wants to work with me on creating some of these articles, let me know. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 14:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Adding to what Natg 19 stated, not only have the Bowl games become watered down, but even the major Bowls now get upstaged by the College Football Playoff (that is, unless they are hosting one of the CFP semifinals). So even the Rose Bowl for example generates less interest now, outside of the Big 10 region. DB1729 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: I think there is agreement that creation of NFL conference championship games is a good idea and I agree with that as well. Regarding your mention of articles of entire NFL season playoffs in your first post, we already have those don't we? At Category:National Football League playoffs? DB1729 (talk) 16:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

DB1729, Yeah, we do, for sure! I think I was referring to Wild Card/Divisional games (which I should have clarified better, that's my bad.) I absolutely support standalone conference championship game articles, and would be happy to help in their creation if needed. SPF121188 ^{(talk this way) (contribs)} 16:43, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

@Spf121188: Ahh, of course, and that did finally occur to me shortly before your reply. Thanks for clarifying. I'm less so in favor of articles for WC and divisional games. While writing large amounts of prose is not exactly my strong suit, I would be willing help out where I can, if/when those championship articles are created. DB1729 (talk) 16:56, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I'll note that several conference championships did have pages last year (e.g. 1974 AFC Championship Game), but they were all redirected by Onel5969. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

See my previous November 2021 post on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 19#Recent conference championship game articles. If there is consensus here to create all these articles, please be aware of WP:SPORTSEVENT. Those like 1995 AFC Championship Game and 2018 NFC Championship Game were initially kept under the "A game that is widely considered by independent reliable sources to be notable" rule, where there is a significant amount of citations beyond outside routine coverage. As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2019 AFC Championship Game, that game was not really the case. Zzyzx11 (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I think it's marginal either way. If someone Thanos-snapped the entire AFC (#arbitrarily #actuallynotarbitrarily) out of existence, would the NFC championship be independently notable, with or without a halftime show? Clearly (indeed vastly) so. But in reality it's a Superbowl Semi with a fancy title. The proportionate (as opposed to the necessarily strictly procedurally and policy correct) thing to do would likely be to have an article per playoff weekend. That actually would work fairly well for the Wildcard Round and the Divisional Round, especially as they have a pretty recognisable common name (or two, each). But we don't really have a Championship Weekend in the same way, and it'd look a little uncomfortably like two half-lemons welded together. So that's not entirely satisfactory either. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think they are mostly fine in the respective season's general playoff page at Category:National Football League playoffs. Per Wikipedia:Notability:

This is not a guarantee that a topic will necessarily be handled as a separate, stand-alone page. Editors may use their discretion to merge or group two or more related topics into a single article.

That's not a viable option for all the college bowl games.—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

An RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to this Wiki Project. The RfC will add language to the WP:GUIDELINE and will affect multiple article titles. Please join the discussion at the above link. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Today's football challenge

See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject College football#Today's football challenge: Maurice Dubofsky. Cbl62 (talk) 20:32, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

"Wide back"

Someone's added a redlink wide back to the Deebo Samuel article a couple of times. I've reverted as it doesn't make much sense in the context, and I don't anticipate we'll be getting a standalone article on the subject anytime in the foreseeable future. (Not that we couldn't source such an article: prominent NFL player makes one possibly fairly offhand comment, and it naturally gets reported all over.) Their other related edits look perfectly reasonable. But I thought I'd mention it here to see if it needs any treatment beyond that one player's self-descriptor (maybe even category of one), or any more comprehensive discussion within it. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:27, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, "wide back" isn't a thing. Deebo Samuel can play either wide receiver or running back on any given play, but he can't play both. It's a cute portmanteau, but it's not worthy of its own article, I'd just mention it in Deebo's article and have done with it. Besides, this isn't a new phenomenon. Cordarrelle Patterson is another player who does it right now, and he wasn't the first. – PeeJay 10:45, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That last kinda argues that it is a thing. And you could critique edge rusher on the same basis -- can't play OLB and DE at the same time! Or even WR if you go back far enough. "What is this, some new-fangled combination of split end and slot-back?! It'll never catch on." But it's a fairly marginal one, and this seems the most fresh-minted and one-off of neologisms as of the present. I could see a case for a redirect from WB to Samuel's article (above my pay grade as a mere IP editor, of course), but I don't think it'd make the grade for being an alt-title for it. The other additions that editor made seem to cover it for me, I think. At least until it starts being used much more "wide"-ly (yes). 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

My point was that while the term "wide back" is new, the idea of players playing in multiple skill positions is not. Ty Montgomery is another who could be said to be equally adept at both running back and wide receiver. Samuel – and the others – don't play some hybrid position, they play running back on some plays and wide receiver on others. "Wide back" isn't a thing. – PeeJay 16:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Tavon Austin is another example to go along with Patterson.

I think it's important to consider that most positions are named based off where you start the play. For edge rushers, you can consistently say they are on the edge with the intent to rush. Deebo starts at a different position on the field depending on if he's lining up for a pass or for a rush play, so it makes it hard to apply a name to a position like that. The term wide back makes me picture someone starting each play where a fullback typically would.

Also, what would you do with players like Christian McCaffrey, Darren Sproles, and John Williams? Here is the list of runningbacks with the most receiving yards. I don't want to reclassify them or refer to players as a wide back, but we would need to nail down what makes a player a wide back if we were to consider using it as a term. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:45, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

RIP NGRIDIRON

Per Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Sports notability #3, NGRIDIRON has now been repealed and excised from NSPORTS. Playing in the NFL, AFL, CFL, and AAFC no longer give rise to a presumption of notability. If we wish to propose a new guideline for American football, it will need to be more strict. Here are some discussion points for a new, stricter NGRIDIRON:

• Increase the number of games required to trigger a presumption of notability. Maybe three games? Five games? Ten games?
• Limit the years (e.g., post-1930, post-World War II, post-1960) as to which playing in specified leagues would trigger a presumption of notability.
• Shift from a "game played" standard to a "game started" standard.
• Limit the leagues in which playing would give rise to a presumption
• Adopt a series of performance-based markers. Examples might include:

(1) Inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, Canadian Football Hall of Fame, or College Football Hall of Fame;

(2) Chosen for Pro Bowl or All-Pro honors (or equivalents in Canadian Football League?)

(3) Ranked among the leaders in a major statistical category in any given year or on a career basis

(4) Won a significant award (including those specified at Template:NFL awards)

(5) Named to a franchise's ring of honor

I'm not advocating at this point for one particular approach, but this is a discussion that needs to happen. Cbl62 (talk) 09:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Or just use GNG. There seems to be an admin or two at AfD and DRV closes that side with a few deleters who say that GNG is not met, even when the majority say NSPORTS is sufficient to keep. I'm not saying all bios meeting NSPORTS should be blindly kept, but it should be up to the !voters. Invest your time in NSPORTS at your own risk. Maybe things would change if NSPORTS is tightened. As an editor in the last few years, I generally have tried not to rely on it to create pages.—Bagumba (talk) 10:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You may be right ... but having NSPORTS continue to exist with detailed guidance on curlers, cyclers, and even badminton players, but without guidance for players of American football, basketball, and baseball strikes me as pretty bizarre. Cbl62 (talk) 10:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That might mark the end of my wiki career, for I don't feel like editing much anymore with the chaos this is likely to cause :( BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:12, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

@BeanieFan11: Based on my experience, I'd say that 99% of all NFL players pass GNG in any event. The ones that don't pass GNG are typically from the 1920s when coverage of the NFL was not as extensive. Accordingly, the repeal of NGRIDIRON will have little impact on articles relating to NFL players. The repeal simply means that we need to take greater care to include SIGCOV in our NFL bio articles. Hopefully, you will continue to use your talents to develop football articles and to continue to defend our legitimate football content from those editors who are likely to continue their campaign to radically reduce sport content on Wikipedia. Cbl62 (talk) 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that close after looking at it, as I did not see a "consensus" (though I'm not even sure what that means anymore) in favor. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Despite the protestations, "consensus" in practice tends to mean "just count the votes!". And the "!" in "!votes" is largely silent. It's an abuse of the word, but when you bear in mind how it works at AfD ("Keep, IAR, you'd better not discount this or I'll complain the closer is a SUPERVOTER!"), and the narrowness by which many guidelines were even adopted in the first place -- this one very much included -- it'd hardly be reasonable to have more sort of supermajority threshold requirement. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:15, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there a way to review the village pump closure like we do with AFDs at DRV? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

You can request a close review at WP:AN. I don't think that would be very helpful. Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think some kind of close review must be done, for in my opinion that closure was ridiculous. I do not see at all how that was a "consensus." Plus I feel that this is just going to cause chaos and even more confusion related to notability. BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:14, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The vote count on sub 3 was roughly 27 to 21 in favor. I think the closes of subproposals 5 and 8 (eliminating the presumption of notability) are even more problematic. See User talk:Wugapodes#Subproposal 5 regarding that close. Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's a "no consensus," not a "consensus in favor" IMO (on sub 3). BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

That's the logic of the 'blocking minority'. If consistently applied, NSPORT would never have been adopted in the first place. Kinda hard to try to argue that both ways. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:09, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In the (very) modern period, three is a nice threshold because it'd screen out the 'flexed from the practice squad' people, some of whom are rather lacking in any real "in a hundred years time, will this matter to anyone?" inherent notability. But that's pretty moot, as they'll get a ton of "significant" coverage long then at present, and it doesn't have any broader meaning outside the particularities of the current roster rules. As we've seen, people can have played more games than that in The Olden Days(TM) and have so little coverage we don't know their name or their DoB -- actual identity confusion, basically. A series of tiers by era and number of games would likely work, but might be too faffy to be worth bothering with. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:34, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

• I think that moving the games played criteria to somewhere between three and ten is probably the best criteria, especially for players in the modern era, probably works best. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Even if we do make a new NGRIDIRON with, say, three games as the criteria, the deletionist editors will find a three-gamer they don't like, so then we'll have to make it four games, then five, then six, and it could go on and on indefinitely, until we reach some absurd criteria that is worthless. Plus, I'd say probably every person to play in the NFL in the 2000s (whether its one game or 318) has sufficient coverage to warrant a page (probably 99% of prior players as well), so I see it unnecessary to increase the mark. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Response to proposed criteria

Here are my thoughts about some of the new criteria Cbl62 has proposed, in order:

• On increasing the participation ceiling: This would likely attract the ire of the anti-NSPORTS editors that dedicated so many bytes to excising the one-game participation presumption of notability. Personally, I see it as a slippery slope to continually being challenged on the given number and potentially needing to continue to raise it.
• Limiting the years: I support this, but I'm not sure when to draw the cutoff myself. Perhaps post-1935 (when the league mandated a fixed number of games per season)? I don't think we really need to draw it any later.
• Switching to a games started standard: This could be helpful as well, but given how the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jock Mungavin went, I'm not entirely optimistic. Though setting a cutoff date of 1935 or later could potentially assuage that. I support this more than I don't.
• Limiting the leagues: I agree with this. Keeping it to the NFL, AFL, and CFL is good. This isn't like soccer or basketball, where there are numerous fully professional leagues.
• I broadly support the award-based criteria, with provisions for similar awards in the CFL or AFL. "Major awards" are integral to just about every biographical notability guideline we have.

Thanks to Cbl62 for taking the initiative here. Whatever happens, we move forward. Etzedek24 ^{(I'll talk at ya) (Check my track record)} 16:35, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the key concept to grasp here is that a subject-notability guideline never trumps the GNG. For an article to stand on its own, you will eventually need significant coverage in reliable sources. The idea behind an SNG is that given certain criteria, these sources may be presumed to exist. That presumption generally pans out for players in the current era, but it doesn't for a player in the 1920s or 1930s. I think if you were trying to guide an editor, you'd say that anyone who played in multiple seasons in the Super Bowl era is presumptively notable. That doesn't foreclose writing about people who didn't, or who played earlier. Again, for an article written from multiple sources with significant coverage, this inquiry never comes up. It's when you're defending a sub-stub written from a database that you wander into the presumption question. For players who played in only one season, writing about them in the team article is a good compromise (and might be more relevant than a potted biography). Mackensen (talk) 20:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

A SNG can "trump" the GNG. Or more precisely, provide an alternative path to being deemed notable. Example, WP:PROF, where if someone is a widely cited academic amongst their peers, they don't necessarily need to be getting repeatedly namechecked in USA Today. But there needs to be community consensus for such a measure, which in practice is going to mean that it looks like a similarly high one, not just 'this can't make GNG, but we want to keep it anyway, and a few hundred thousand just like it'. Broadly speaking I very much concur with the 'smoosh 'em together to make one good one' approach, though it'll require care in identifying suitable upmerger targets, case-by-case. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

How about having a series of pages along the lines of "NFL one-season players: year xxxx" where all the stubs of one-season players from that year could be collected together. For players with enough coverage to pass notability requirements, they could be moved into their own pages, and a link left on the "one-season player" page. Then articles that would otherwise be deleted would have a safe haven (I'm assuming that any player with 2+ seasons would pass notability without issue. BeanieFan11 proposed something similar in the discussion over Fitzgerald, and critics of NGRIDIRON seemed amenable. If you're curious as to how many single season NFL players there have been, the number was 56 in 1970, and 81 in 2015. Most years the number is somewhere in that range, with the obvious exception of 1987, which produced 986 such players.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Where did you get those statistics on single-season players from? BTW, I'll note that I've gotten to start-class or better nearly every NFL player I've tried making since Dec. 21 (with the exception of Bill LaFitte), most of which were one season players (and several of which only have played in just a single game). My suggestion at the AFD was only for the replacement players, the ones who would have most likely never played if the 1987 NFLPA strike did not happen. I'd say we should have a standalone page for each "real" NFL player, though that's just my opinion. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

It's possible to find those stats using the PFR's stathead tool, though only for seasons from 1970 onwards I think. Using Player Game Finder, set career game number to 1 and filter to the last year of the player's career. Unfortunately, career game number is only available from 1970, and there doesn't seem to be a way to filter to first year and last year at the same time. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:44, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I've found a workaround that lets you do the same thing as far back as 1950. I can share the list if there's any years you're interested in.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

For the one-season wonders, I'd argue that upmerger to 1868 South Datoka Ratels#Team roster is the better choice. That's generally going to be an existing page, and isn't in danger of falling foul of WP:NOT or MOS:LIST in a way that 1868 one-season players might. But I think that does leave in either case a possible issue of 'jobbing' players that might have had a small amount of involvement in more than one season without being hugely prominent in either. In theory that's also a possible issue for modern such players, but in reality they'll have a ton of coverage regardless. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

For an article to stand on its own, you will eventually need significant coverage in reliable sources.: That was how NSPORTS was intended to read before—that sources were eventually expected. That option has now been removed, and a minority claiming "does not meet GNG" will now prevail over a majority saying "meets NSPORTS, keep for now, as sources will likely surface".—Bagumba (talk) 02:24, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Does anyone think that being drafted (or being drafted in the first x rounds (3? 4?) should be a criteria for the new NGRIDIRON? Some of the other current guidelines at NSPORTS mention being a draft selection, e.g. Are a first-round draft pick of the NHL Entry Draft or Were selected in the first two rounds of the NBA draft. Natg 19 (talk) 03:12, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

  Looking at the 1936 draft, we're already articleless as soon as the first second-round pick, one John McCauley. Obviously in the modern era, "was ever mentioned in the same sentence as the NFL draft" will produce an amount of coverage, so actual likelihood will vary a lot across the decades. Certainly a promising line of advance, with that admittedly huge proviso. Likely the record-holder/league-leader in a significant stat model would work too. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• I personally think the previous NGRIDIRON was perfectly fine, as I could write a start-class or better article on 99% of people passing it. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
• I wrote what I think NGRIDIRON should look like here, and believe that 95-99% of people passing it meet GNG (probably the same with the current criteria as well, though). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, having taken a while to take all of this in and digest everything, here are my thoughts on this entire mess. The recent proposed changes to NSPORTS have effectively gutted the current guideline, at least as far as gridiron football is concerned. The impetus behind this change comes largely from opposition to the guideline for international sports, and NGRIDIRON has been caught in the crossfire of this opposition. The soccer guideline had a ridiculous list of leagues (including third and fourth-tier minor leagues granting 1-game auto-notability), and the cricket guideline was deliberately written as an end-run around GNG. As a result of the refusal of those two projects to clean up their acts, the current version of NGRIDIRON now faces the likely prospect of being wiped off the map completely. The flavor of the month for the anti-sports editors is currently railing against "participation only" notability criteria (i.e. "1 game=notable"), which led directly to the attempted demise of the current version of NGIRDIRON.

With that said, I have a few ideas for further development of a new gridiron football notability criteria. First, I think any new gridiron notability criteria needs to include the NFL Draft as an element in it (i.e. "Selected in one of the first seven rounds of the National Football League Draft"). The draft system is unique to Anglophone North American sports leagues (NFL, MLB, NHL, NBA), and sports leagues in other parts of the world do not have any type of system remotely close to it. Therefore, if international sports like soccer and cricket continue to refuse to clan up their act moving forward, a draft-based gridiron notability criteria should manage to avoid being caught up in sweeping changes that are aimed primarily at international sports.

The other option I can think of would involve granting notability on statistical based achievements (in terms of recording touchdowns, completions, receptions, rushing yardage, sacks, tackles, interceptions, etc.) Obviously, we should include significant NFL honors as well (Pro Bowl and All-Pro selections, Coach of the Year, Player of the Year, election to the Pro Football Hall of Fame, College Football Hall of Fame, etc.) One obvious problem with statistical based achievements would involve offensive lineman, most of whom don't record any significant statistics other than games started. Another would involve historical defensive players, as I know that the NFL did not officially keep many defensive statistics (like sacks) until relatively recently in NFL history. Ultimately, I think that a guideline that includes both draft-based, statistics-based, and honors-based notability measures is probably the way to go moving forward for any potential new gridiron football notability criteria. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:44, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• What are everyone's thoughts on the NGRIDIRON I designed here? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:08, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

This is not the time to propose expanding NGRIDIRON to include GMs and coordinators (particularly without a statistical showing that > 90% pass GNG). We should keep it simple. Your proposed five-game threshold (roughly half a season in early years) for leagues below the NFL sounds good, but it should also govern the AAFC and early NFL. I agree that a one-game threshold should remain for the modern NFL/AFL. Your intro re-inserts presumption of notability language which would likely be shot down in light of the RfC close. A more sell-able NGRIDIRON would be along these lines:

Significant coverage is likely to exist for gridiron football players and head coaches (excluding interim head coaches) if they:

1. Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in the National Football League (1935–present) or American Football League (1960–1969).
2. Have appeared in at least five regular season or post-season games in the National Football League (1920–1934), All-America Football Conference (1944–1949), Canadian Football League (1956–present), or United States Football League (1983–1985).
3. Interim head coaches, assistant coaches, players, and others who do not meet the above criteria may still be notable if they meet WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or another notability criteria.

Cbl62 (talk) 15:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The strictest I could support I list below:

Gridiron football players and head coaches are presumed notable (saying "Significant coverage is likely to exist" is worthless IMO) if they:

1. Have appeared in at least one game in the National Football League (1930–present), All-America Football Conference (1946–1949), or American Football League (1960–1969).
2. Have appeared in at least two games in the National Football League (1920–1929).
3. Have appeared in at least five games in the Canadian Football League (1956–present) or United States Football League (1983–1985)
4. Have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame or Canadian Football Hall of Fame.
5. Players and coaches who do not meet the above may still be notable through WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH, or another notability criteria.

Anything stricter I will oppose. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:05, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Does #4 need to be included in your list? It stands to reason that if they make either the Canadian or or Pro Football Hall of Fame that they should be considered notable. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:22, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't need to, but I think it should be part of NGRIDIRON as probably 99-100% of inductees pass GNG and I thought NSPORT was supposed to have criteria where a high percentage of those meeting it are GNG passes. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:32, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't help, at all, for one editor to lay down lines in the sand like, "Anything stricter I will oppose." Any proposal needs to be approved by a broader audience beyond football fans. And the reality is that I've encountered plenty of two-, three- and four-gamers in the 1920s NFL that don't pass GNG. It's also totally out of whack to impose a two-game threshold for NFL players in the 1920s and five games for modern Canadian Football League players. If we want to get this approved by a broader audience (and not invite in-fighting between American and Canadian football fans), we should have two simple thresholds: one game for the tippy top tier (i.e., NFL from and after 1935 and AFL in the 1960s) and five games (perhaps even more) for the infant NFL, AAFC, CFL, and USFL. Also, the HOF mentions seem redundant and thus unnecessary. As for "presumed notable", you're just asking for your proposal to be defeated when presented to a broader audience given the RfC close explicitly says to strike all references to presumptions of notability. Cbl62 (talk) 17:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I selected 1935 as the NFL cutoff per Etzedek's suggestion that 1935 was the year when the NFL went to a standardized schedule. It also makes senses as the NFL continued to include small-city teams until at least 1933. E.g., Providence Steamrollers, Staten Island Stapletons, Portsmouth Spartans (Portsmouth had population of 42,560 in 1930). Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Based on what has gone on over the past couple of months, I don't think having any type of new criteria that is based on games played is a good idea right now. I think we need to get creative and find other ways to say essentially the same thing (see my comment above) or else we'll end up having to fight this same battle over and over again at some point in the future. I do like prong #5 of BeanieFan11's new criteria, and I think that it should be included in any future new NGRIDIRON guideline. Also, I'd include the Halls of Fame in the guideline, too. One thing I've learned in 10+ years of editing Wikipedia is that you can't possibly be too obvious. Ejgreen77 (talk) 12:42, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

NGRIDIRON is back!

At least temporarily :) After it was restored, reverted, restored, reverted, restored, reverted, restored, reverted, and restored again, NSPORT has been protected from editing. So as of 23:48, 9 March 2022 (UTC), it is still standing. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Closure review

A review of the close has been opened at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#NSPORTS closure review. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:52, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Referencing teams with new locations or names

Is there a preference for handling references to teams that have since moved or have new names e.g. Washington Commanders. For example, The New York Times referenced the San Diego Chargers as:

James used his speed and darting moves with the San Diego (now Los Angeles) Chargers during the 1985 season...[1]

Pinging Pyrofromtf2, who had been editing in this area.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Personally I disagree with the edits being made, in which they're removing the "(now Los Angeles)" part of articles for players or pages that have to do with the Chargers. Wikipedia is for casual readers as well, and when that note is only mentioned once in an article I don't see an issue with it. I think it's helpful and it doesn't make the articles any better to remove it. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:07, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The fact that the Chargers moved to Los Angeles has nothing to do with the James article, who exclusively played for them while they were in San Diego. If a reader is confused, it's the first sentence in the History of the San Diego Chargers article, which I feel does the job just as well as the parentheses. Pyrofromtf2 (talk) 14:53, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The new team's name should be referenced for casual readers who don't keep up with the NFL, so I'd say it is relevant to the James article. I also disagree with your assessment of it doing the job "just as well", one requires you to navigate to another page to learn that information whereas the other is a quick note in parenthesis. A reader may just assume that the team still goes by San Diego Changers, which is why the parentheses are beneficial to include. What would make them follow the link to a separate page if they aren't aware that the team's name has changed? Hey man im josh (talk) 15:20, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the spirit is captured by MOS:LINK:

Do not unnecessarily make a reader chase links: if a highly technical term can be simply explained with very few words, do so.

Sure, it's not a technical science term, but the editorial decision is whether a casual fan should have to click a link for this.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

I was today years old when I learned the Commanders were now such. (I'd missed the memo that "RedWolves" had been name-squatted.) And I get a little dizzy trying to recall the actual details of the history of the Paul Brown Division of the AFC. So I likely qualify as the casual and/or confused reader for this purpose (with too many tabs open already). I think such parentheticals are generally helpful. Clearly we should avoid them being themselves unduly tortuous, and certainly they shouldn't be repeated in the same article. Other than that, good thing. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:27, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Is there specific edit diffs that are involved that can be presented? At this point getting rid of "the (now Los Angeles)" portion just makes sense when discussing the 1985 season. Why not link 1985 San Diego Chargers season?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Any of Pyrofromtf2's "deleted unnecessary info" edits. In some cases they're rather shortly before the franchise move concerned: for example on 2016 Houston Texans season. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 06:35, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In that instance it's especially relevant to include the (now Los Angeles) part. The trade happened when the team was named St. Louis, but the pick that was traded occurred when the team was named Los Angeles. I reverted that one because it felt too egregious. I do still believe the rest should be reverted, but I'm not chasing those down to do the same without further discussion. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Okay, on the 2016 Houston Texans article I agree. However, on articles such as Louie Kelcher I would strongly argue that it is unneccessary to include (now Los Angeles). It just clutters the article. Is it really necessary to note that they are now in LA? They are not separate franchises. Do we change all instances of head coach to "then head coach" "then current." President XXX (now Joe Biden)?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

In some cases, is it even worth mentioning the team's location? Sometimes you just need to mention the franchise's name, especially when franchises are known to move around a bit. – PeeJay 16:59, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

UCO2009bluejay, I don't follow the logic of your examples at all. Those seem wildly different. If President XXX had changed their name and was currently better-known under the new one, then you'd supply that, sure. A different entity filling the same office is an entirely incomparable case. The very fact that they're not different franchises is what argues for mentioning the rename. PeeJay, it's pretty standard to mention the location, as it's part of the franchise name. In a way it's the "most official" part of the name, as officials only ever refer to them by location, not by "nickname". (When they're not just saying "Offense", "Defense", "Kicking Team", etc. Someone must have decided it has superior Seriousness, or something.) Plus in some cases the "theme" part of the name changes too. There's been deletion of those too. (For example from "Houston Oilers (now the Tennessee Titans)".) 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

My point is that location is that we should call things as they are at the time. To do anything else would just make things convoluted and silly. The president line mention was just to express how absurd I find the whole situation. In CFB articles (of which I made the majority of my energy on WP.) I cannot off the top of my head think of many uses of things like Oklahoma A&M (now Oklahoma State), Northeast Louisiana State (now Louisiana–Monroe), or Memphis State (now Memphis). I am sure that they occur in some instance but a link to the modern program would suffice. I suppose a link to the LA Chargers would too. But I prefer the specific seasons if applicable.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 05:28, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

But the absurdity isn't in any way comparable. If you see a reference to a past president of some country, and find yourself wondering, "but who's president now?", that's a bit of a tangent, and you can reasonably be expected to do so on your own initiative. But if an article refers to "Cassius Clay" or "the Decatur Staleys", the reader might not necessarily or instantly realize what entity is being referred to, or even that they later existed under some other title. Omitting such information is rather contrary to the very purpose of an encyclopedia, especially an online one. The 'they can chase the link if they need to' option is preferable to offering no such information, but as Bagumba points out, is expressly contrary to the MOS on this. Such links might also be criticised as easter-egging, and they're rather fragile solution, as the 'overlinking' police might swoop by at any moment and remove them, much as these textual clarifications were mass-removed. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 05:30, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning players' bios? I'd stick with using only the team location at the time of the players' tenure. GoodDay (talk) 16:29, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Concerning any and all of these edits. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 19:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Fragment.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:18, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargers–Rams rivalry

For those interested in participating, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chargers–Rams rivalry. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry

For those interested in participating, please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Giants–Jets rivalry. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:20, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Listing NFL players as "former"

Hey! I have been editing on Wikipedia for quite a long time on both baseball and football articles mainly baseball but also help out over here as well. I have noticed that there seems to be a disagreement on the time frame to list a player as retired. For baseball articles we typically use a 2 year rule of thumb as I would say form my experience 95% of players that have not been turned up in any sort of league in 2 years don't return again. Plenty of players sit a year out whether it is for personal reasons, rehabbing, just not a lot of interest at the time but then turn back up later on just using one example Eli Harold turned up in the CFL after sitting out a whole season. I believe one year just is not enough time to judge as there are plenty of leagues a player could hold out hoping to get an NFL opportunity then realize that isn't coming and jump ship into another league after a season. I believe two years makes for the most effective and time saving move for everyone as that rule of thumb has worked very well in baseball articles I think would work just as well over here. These guys are 25-30 years old most of these guys have plenty of time to get another chance. Please let me know your opinions below and see if we can't come to an agreement so that everyone can be referenced to this spot. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It's becoming increasingly common for players to sit out a season to get healthy or train and make a comeback. For what it's worth, most major websites (such as Pro Football Reference) still consider players "active" even if they're inactive for one year. There are exceptions, but I would agree that 2 years would be a good starting point. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I do see the argument for there being one year but like I said you can go through multiple players pages I just used one as an example of a player who last played in 2019, sat out 2020 then played in 21 credited that 2020 was a covid year but the two year rule in baseball articles is working well I just feel that is the most reasonable option as I feel a lot of factors can keep a player from signing for a year that isn't public. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd just keep it simple and leave it as "former". They may be retired from playing, but most are likely still working in some other field. I don't think you'd be able to reliably source for many that they are truly just living off savings and playing golf everyday.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Well it's not about the wording former is totally fine it's just about the timeframe to list a player as a "former" player some believe after not playing for one season should be listed as a "former" player and myself believe it should be 2 years like with baseball players on here Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I have noticed that there seems to be a disagreement on the time frame to list a player as retired: Oops, i was too focused on "retired" there instead of "former" in the section header.—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

All good! Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I think if a player says they're retiring, there's no reason to assume they're going to come back. We obviously shouldn't be surprised if they unretire, it's not uncommon, but if they retire, there's nothing wrong with describing them as "former" immediately. – PeeJay 10:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

This is more about the players that don't say anything. If they announce it then yeah list it right away but this is more about the players that have nothing new about them for a season or two what is the best time frame to list them as a former player after either one year or two years of inactivity. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 18:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

• I've said this several times and will continue to do so. We should just be skipping "is a free agent" and just say "is an American football quarterback". No more and no less unless they have died, officially retired (in which case we'd add former), or are under contract with a professional team. "is a free agent" is fancruft from the early days of Wikipedia that we've somehow kept as a standard. I've yet to hear any argument for this that is convincing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  Agree, not to mention there is a window where they are on the waiver wire and not free agents yet.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

  I would definitely support this. Free agent should be called out in infobox (team history + current team fields) but not in the lead. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

  I think we could say it if there's SIGCOV banging on repeatedly about someone's free agency. Presumably this will generally be a very temporary thing though, so is rarely going to be of long-term value to document on a 'this just in' basis. If we're using it as a polite term for "they're looking for a new gig" or "actually we have not the slightest idea", then no, let's not say that. On sourcing retirement, I in principle agree: after all, we're supposed to be sourcing any claim of fact. But this gets awkward when someone's pretty obviously not an active player, but we have no actual announcement. We can't say "was a football player" (makes it sound like they're dead), can't really say "is a football player" if they're 70, so "former" might be the least-worst option, even if we only have very low-grade sources or some degree of inference. (Like they didn't make the news for being the oldest ever pro, etc.) If there's any reasonable doubt then certainly, just "is a professional football player" or similar is fine. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  If they are 70 then we should just apply WP:COMMONSENSE and could easily say they were a former player... ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Having started with this high bid of 70, I'm now going to propose radically lowering it to 48. Or maybe a little higher in a few years. Granted this isn't a completely water-tight test either, as we have tons of coverage of practice-squad players that are technically "professional football players", but that we shouldn't be ordinarily be regarding them as notably so, IMO. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

• While this doesn't help with the opening sentence -- "[Entity] is/was a [descriptor]" -- one thing that I think would be helpful on this is adequate career summaries in lead sections. No, 'two sentence paragraph and done, next section', should not be any sort of "standard"! Shorter articles may not merit especially long opening paras, but it'd not be excessive on even the most marginally post-stub to mention the teams they've been contracted to, including when the most recent such was. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

  Basically, MOS:OPENPARABIO.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  Moreso WP:SUMMARY. Unless I'm missing some subtle nuance in this detailed interjection. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

  WP:SUMMARY is more related to National Football League#Draft being a summary of the subtopic National Football League Draft.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

  From the lead sentence (teh irony!): "the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points". Though more to point still WP:LEAD, which says the same thing at greater length. A lot of articles suffer from not having an adequate such summary. I don't know if NFL articles are worse than average in this, but we have a lot of otherwise quite decent and substantial bios that have a "standard" lead section that's much too short, and is more like an infobox with some verbs and prepositions: "Hingle McCringleberry (born July 4, 1990) is an American football utility player for the City Franchisename of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football at Sporty Party College, and was drafted by the in the Nth round of Someyear's NFL Draft." Which is a great start and an essential minimum, and SOFIXIT very much applies, but I continue be bemused by evident opposition from some quarters to more appropriately informative lead, apparently according to the rationale that key information is better in infoboxes, or confined to later sections. Not good style at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposal: remove "free agent" from infoboxes permanently

Per the above discussion, I am proposing that we eliminate "free agent" from appearing in Template:Infobox NFL player. The coding on the template can be altered so that any time "free agent" is populated in the |current_team= parameter, it will show up the same as if there was nothing in the parameter. This will help eliminate the gray area for players who are on waivers, have not played in a long time but haven't officially announced their retirement, etc. This is a simple enough change that will help eliminate the endless "former or free agent" debates and future-proof these infoboxes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support as nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support – It's annoying to deal with and it very often doesn't last long. I'd love this change. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support - Per nom. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support, but would this also apply to the lead sentence? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Dissident93: Not for this specific proposal, but at a minimum I think removing "free agent" from the infoboxes will reduce the number of leads that include it as well. Maybe under a separate proposal/enactment we could have a bot change all articles tagged under the WP:NFL banner to replace the string "a former American football" with "an American football"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

  Fair enough but it would be inconsistent if we still write it in prose. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)

• Support Showing no team is sufficient. "Free agent" is pedantic.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
• Support removal as auto-populating. Candidly, we have a lot of box-creep on many of these articles, and sometimes something of a paucity of text in the lead paragraph that would put such (purported) facts in a more helpful contexts. Infoboxes are for summarising key features of the subject. If you cram every possible detail in there, it's progressively degraded both visually and in utility. Especially if you have to keep scrolling, and there's more and more infobox "below the fold". But for this in particular, given that it often seems to be poorly sourced, and has little significance or even meaning, especially so. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

WikiProject Watchlist

Is there anything available for a WikiProject watchlist? I noticed that the link from the main page (WikiProject Watchlist - WikiProject National Football League) comes up with "Not found". Looks like someone allowed their domain to expire. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)