Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 69.118.230.235 (talk) at 20:08, 13 March 2024 (→‎Article for the cowboys-lions game?). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconNational Football League Project‑class
WikiProject iconThis 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
ProjectThis page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Formulas for adding total league titles in infobox

Hello,

There has been some discussion about how to add total pre-merger AFL-NFL titles in the infobox for NFL teams. @Kj1595: notes that it does not make sense to include pre-merger titles in the total titles, as the Las Vegas Raiders page does. However, most AFL teams such as the Buffalo Bills, San Diego Chargers, New York Jets, and Houston Oilers include these wins as part of their total league titles. Similar to how NFL teams include pre-merger titles. The Kansas City Chiefs page also included this information but user Kj1595 does not think it should be included and only NFL titles should be. KC's history certainly makes it more complicated with Super Bowls won and lost, and titles won pre-Super Bowl. Is there a consensus one way or another how these are added? It should be clear about how we add these up.

For my part I am okay with what has been the status quo to include the AFL titles pre-merger, though it can make the math unclear for some readers. This has been the way it has been calculated on that page for over 15 years with some revision histories linked version history 2021, version history 2019, version history 2016, version history 2011, version history 2008

Thanks for your input on this! Users who this may be of interest to @Happyman22:, @Rockchalk717:, @Zzyzx11: and of course any others who may have input. Thanks! Words in the Wind(talk) 04:13, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a problem with their inclusion. When the AFL–NFL merger happened the NFL absorbed all their records and statistics as well. The teams won a league which was fundamentally viewed as an equal to the NFL. They're called out differently as well, so I say include if it's before the 1966 season (start of the Super Bowl era). I don't see a good reason not to. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Include all, as those teams started out in the AFL & are now in the NFL. GoodDay (talk) 04:22, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am not against the idea as I think it's unfair for AFL teams to not get any recognition by the league. The problem is with the root article History of the National Football League championship which lists teams by NFL championship as recognized by the league. Unless that article is modified, the title configuration will look confusingly flawed. Kj1595 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would creating History of the American Football League championship help? GoodDay (talk) 04:45, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The solution would be to include the AFL titles in the existing article. It's the only feasible way for it to work. Kj1595 (talk) 04:54, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So the existing article, needs to be re-named. GoodDay (talk) 05:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. This section of the article needs to be rewritten. Kj1595 (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Go by how reliable sources treat these championships in tables or inboxes. If possible, go with the common treatment. Looking at Official Encyclopedia of Football (1989), it lists the Raiders' Super Bowl and AFL titles separately [1] and the Giant's SB and NFL (pre-1970) titles separately.[2]. The 2005 Pro Football Guide lists the NFL (pre-1970) titles with the NFC, separately from the Super Bowl results.[3] The 2023 Official NFL Reord & Fact Book lists the NFL titles (pre-1970) with the NFC titles,[4] separate from the Super Bowl listings. —Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An even better idea is to remove "League championships" altogether and list NFC team championships as simply "NFL championships (prior to the merger)". Same logic being used to list the AFL titles should apply to NFC teams prior to the merger. But, again, the "League championships" line needs to be removed from the infobox. Kj1595 (talk) 06:40, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see the header "League championships" itself as the problem. It seems that choosing to total pre-70 NFL titles with SB titles is possbily WP:UNDUE. If we're going to sum them up, I don't see a reason to not add AFL also. Otherwise, don't sum them together, unless we see sources regularly doing that too. —Bagumba (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not summing them together becomes an issue if we leave the League championships line intact. What constitutes a League championship in this case? Just a SB title? So, adding AFL titles to League championships becomes the only viable option. But the root article which lists all the league champions needs to be rewritten, to include AFL champions as well. The league doesn't recognize AFL titles so we are in a dilemma. Which is why rewritting the article is the only path forward. I am of the opinion that AFL titles should count just as the AFL division titles count. Kj1595 (talk) 07:00, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another option is to rephrase the wording from "League championships" to "Total championships". Kj1595 (talk) 07:07, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Does "Total" include conference and division titles? For "League": it should be actual leagues like NFL (pre-1970 included) and AFL, or just SBs. There's no basis for excluding AFL if pre-SB NFL is in there. —Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By Total I meant only league championships. But that might not work, as confusion arises from division titles. Again, I personally think AFL titles should be included in the League championships total. But this should be done conjointly, by modifying the root article that lists all NFL championship teams. Kj1595 (talk) 09:58, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, the current "League championships" is more descriptive than changing to "Total championships". —Bagumba (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts haven't changed. It should include pre-Super Bowl AFL and NFL championships (1965 and earlier) and Super Bowl championships, while excluding AFL/NFL Championship won in 1966, 1967, 1968, and 1969. For the Chiefs, for example, this would be listing 5: 1962 AFL Championship, Super Bowl IV, Super Bowl LIV, Super Bowl LVII, and Super Bowl LVIII and specifically omitting the 1966 and 1969 AFL Championships.--Rockchalk717 16:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even though the Chiefs' AFL titles of 1966 and 1969 coincide with their SB era participation, they were still Championships won by the team in a tournament where they competed in. And thus, should be included. That's where the confusion comes into view. Those championships should not be excluded. Kj1595 (talk) 21:48, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
They are equivalent to conference championships. The NFL did do tournament style playoffs to determine the champion beginning in 1967, but the AFL did not do a true playoff format until 1969. 1968 only had an additional postseason game because the Chiefs and Raiders tied and that's how they settled a tie.--Rockchalk717 16:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is semantics, though. What really truly matters is if those Championships are recognized as such. Not how they were attained. All AFL titles are recognized the same, despite the formula being different from year to year. Kj1595 (talk) 05:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find anything on NFL.com about it. However, Pro Football reference counts AFL Championships from 1966-1969 as conference championships see here. Same thing with NFL Championships see here. In both cases, however, they just say Super Bowl and pre-1966 championships.--Rockchalk717 21:59, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Pro Football Hall of Fame, the official source of the NFL, lists all AFL Championship games here. Statmuse lists all AFL champions in its website. Even the AFL article here on wiki lists league champions accordingly. Kj1595 (talk) 02:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no other rationale way to put this other than to include all AFL titles for each respective team in the League titles line. It makes little to no sense for the Buffalo Bills to have 2 League championships whereas the Chiefs only have 1 added when they have clearly won 3. It's basic math that needs not to be complicated. Kj1595 (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can we just eliminate that parameter altogether so we can quit having this debate every couple of years? I'm not really sure it needs to even exist. Just have separate parameters for Super Bowl wins, conference championships, AFL Championships, and NFL Championships. What does everyone think?--Rockchalk717 08:09, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I proposed but @Bagumba: didn't think removing the League championships line was a problem. It clearly seems to be a problem. SBs and NFL championships for the NFC teams and SBs and AFL championships for the AFC ones. No need to total them up, given the complexity of the merger. Kj1595 (talk) 01:54, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It most certainly is a problem. This entire discussion happened because it is a problem. There is seriously no reason it needs to exist. It should be "Super Bowl Championships" "Pre-Merger League Championships" or in place of AFL or NFL championships (maybe a separate for parameter for each$ and "Conference championships".--Rockchalk717 05:54, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Chiefs League championship total is reverted back to 5 and this excludes the 2 AFL titles the team has own. Either all AFL titles are included for each team or the parameter be removed altogether. Chiefs have clearly won a total of 7 Championships -> 3 AFL + 4 SBs. Kj1595 (talk) 21:28, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense @Kj1595, it's not all or nothing. The top tier game that determined the champion in the AFL, from 1960–1960, played in the AFL Championship Game whereas from 1967 onwards they played in the Super Bowl. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
AFL titles are all recognized the same. Are they not? So, how do we cherrypick and reason which team has earned a title and which has not, based on semantics that have no bearing on the total number of the official titles? If you exclude those AFL championship teams that participated in the SB, you are in essence erasing 1/3 of AFL history. Yes, those teams did participate in the SB. But at the same time they competed in their own seperate league. How do you erase that? If the argument to be made is that not only SBs count as League championships, then it shouldn't matter if the teams that competed in the SB simultaneously competed in another league. Kj1595 (talk) 22:46, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I proposed but @Bagumba: didn't think removing the League championships line was a problem: I wasn't demanding that "League championships" must stay. I was saying that the problem was inconsistently excluding AFL titles when the NFL counterparts were already there, and then summing the SB and non-SB league titles was WP:UNDUE, when no reliable sources were summing the different titles. —Bagumba (talk) 02:18, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I happened to just find two past discussions on this issue while looking for a discussion for someone else. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 18#Consensus on what constitutes a "league championship" is a discussion from July, 2020, and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 18#Consensus on what constitutes a "league championship" is a discussion from February, 2021.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hey man im josh (talk • contribs) 17:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Question on Player Team Categories

I have always wondered this but never asked. Has there been some past discussion or consensus regarding the placement of "TEAM" player categories to players who never actually played a game for the team. There are two examples that come to mind:

Is there some standard or further sub-categorization needed? As an example, Category:Green Bay Packers practice squad players and Category:Green Bay Packers draft picks could be sub-categories to Category:Green Bay Packers players, which would then be reserved to players who are officially on the Packers all-time roster and would simplify/standardize categorization. I will admit my primary thought process on this is weeding out of WP:PACKERS those players who never suited up for the team, to prevent excessive scope creep for the WikiProject. However I am sure there would be other benefits to this type of clarity. Thoughts? Am I just overthinking this whole thing? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding, or at least what I've noticed over time, is that anybody who has signed for a team or been on their practice squad ends up in these categories, whether right or wrong and whether they've played or not. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:27, 16 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Worse yet, I see players included in team cats who have done nothing more than have a brief tryout with a team during the preseason. I'd favor narrowing the rules for who gets put in these cats. Cbl62 (talk) 18:33, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gonzo, I agree and am totally on board with trying to further refine who gets added to these categories. In particular, I think that a draft pick category structure would be helpful for players who were drafted by a team, but never wound up actually playing in games for that team. FWIW, both the NBA and the NHL use category structures for draft picks (i.e. Category:Golden State Warriors draft picks, Category:Edmonton Oilers draft picks, etc.). Practice squad players present a trickier problem, particularly so with the modern rules that allow practice squad players to be temporarily elevated and actually play in games without being added to the 53-man roster. In general, though, I would generally support restricting player categories (i.e. Category:Green Bay Packers players) to players who actually appeared in games for the Green Bay Packers. Ejgreen77 (talk) 19:21, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's where I'm not sure about things. I don't necessarily think that practice squad players shouldn't be included. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's the technicality of "just" being a practice squad player. But if they played in a game, it's not like stats sites flag it with an asterisk, and I don't foresee "but they were only a practice squad player" being mentioned in an obit when they say they "played" in the league. —Bagumba (talk) 02:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this was a formal proposal, I would have to oppose it. People can look at Category:Lists of players by National Football League team if they want to see who actually "played". If this change was actually implemented, it would create tons of additional busywork with people adding cats whenever someone is signed and others having to remove them until they actually play. However, no one is actually going to go through and add the player cats systematically as the lists of NFL players by team are always outdated. If readers want to know the playing status of someone, they can look at the infobox or read the article. That's what the asterisk is for.
Category:Green Bay Packers offseason/practice squad members might not be a terrible idea but it's kinda clunky and would probably be deleted. Category:Green Bay Packers practice squad players was already deleted. This practice squad cat also wouldn't include players who were on the active roster or injured reserve but didn't play.
This change would also trickle over to CFL and other leagues but in this case, the cats would just never be added. Our NFL articles are poorly tended to as it is, other leagues wouldn't stand a chance.
MLB and NBA only include people who played but those leagues don't really have offseason or practice squad members. Their rosters are also far smaller, so there's less upkeep. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:06, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But NFL proj seem to be only one that packs training camp invites into its ibx. Not even clear if mere OTAs are included. —Bagumba (talk) 01:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMO, it should be consistent with the team info in the infobox, but I've never been a fan of the practice squad and tryout minutiae we put there. Most of it tends to be unsourced, and not readily verifiable. And it overloads the infobox with non-key info, defeating its purpose. But infoboxes are too often just a dumping ground for trivia for prose-averse editors. —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Some people like backup QBs can be on the active roster all season but not play. D. J. Shockley was on the Falcons roster for four seasons but never played in a game. I used to use him as my backup QB on Madden. It would be near impossible for an MLB or NBA player to be on the roster all year and not play in a game. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:58, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But that's not a justification for including training camp, and active players are in a different class than practice squad players. —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What do you think about players who play in a preseason game? It doesn't feel right to say they didn't play for the team. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:19, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we include preseason games we'd have to consider veterans who only played preseason in their final year. E.g.Kellen Winslow featured in one 1988 preseason game and then retired, but sources always list his career as 1979-87. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh, Harper J. Cole, Bagumba, Ejgreen77, and WikiOriginal-9: my only other thought would be creating an all-time roster category within the player category, e.g. Category:Green Bay Packers all-time roster would be a sub-category to Category:Green Bay Packers players (we could also have Category:Green Bay Packers draft picks as a sub-category as well). This would be provide categories that could easily be audited against reliable sources (the all-time roster, i.e. played at least 1 regular season/post season game) and leave the "players" category for all those ambiguous practice squad/pre-season/offseason/workout type situations. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A long-term task finally finished!

With my recent creations of John Holahan, Francis Fogarty, Arch Wolfe, Fran Foley and John Blackinger, it appears that every person to have served as a general manager in the NFL among current teams now has an article!!! This was one of my earliest goals I set at Wikipedia BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:58, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Now its time for all the managers of defunct teams – does anyone know where to find those? BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fantastic, congratulations @BeanieFan11! What is your list based off? Is it by chance Category:National Football League general manager navigational boxes? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's what I was going off of – it seems pretty accurate (PFR also has just about all the same info). Defunct teams will be another challenge, since it doesn't seem there's anything online listing them. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the navboxes again; interestingly, a few of the current team navboxes are missing dates. The Cardinals is missing 1920–35; Bears 1920–35; Lions 1930–35; Packers 1919–20; Rams 1936; Giants 1925–36; Eagles 1933–35; Steelers 1933–35; and Commanders 1932. @Hirolovesswords: I know you've done a lot of work on NFL GMs, do you know why there's no managers listed for the teams in those years, and who served in the positions during the times? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking at the season pages on Pro-Football-Reference, as they usually list a GM in the top part of the page. A few of these that I've spot checked are indeed missing a listing for the GM. There's also pages for executives for each team, which I'm noticing do often stop at 1936. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Just replaced part at the Giants' GM template based on this. Looks like you have Ray Walsh to create now @BeanieFan11 ;) Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BeanieFan11: According to page 694 of the 49ers' media guide, it looks like Spadia wasn't GM as long as listed and I can't find an appropriate "Jack White" to add to Template:San Francisco 49ers general manager navbox. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh: Thanks for the info! I'm also keeping a list of NFL GMs for defunct teams if you're interested in trying to figure out some of those as well. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Walsh done; just White left, unless we find another missing GM :) BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Finished up White; @Hey man im josh: we're done unless you can find another missing GM! BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

An interesting challenge

As part of my general manager quest, I started up in my userspace a list of general managers for defunct teams, with the goal of finding who managed every team in every year in NFL history (also AAFC). Currently have 15 teams complete (in knowing who served as general manager), 2 partially complete, whereas I have not yet found the general managers for 34 franchises. Help in finding these would be appreciated. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Green Bay Packers draft history - some thoughts please

I am starting to work on Green Bay Packers draft history. Some questions:

Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1966) and Green Bay Packers draft picks (1967–present) to coincide with the first common draft in 1967? Hey man im josh (talk) 19:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fine. It's kind of funny, as I was writing the lead for Green Bay Packers draft history, it's kind of a finnicky thing. 1967 NFL/AFL draft was the first common draft, but it was still two leagues who just agreed to draft together. 1970 NFL draft was the first real thing: one league, one draft. But yeah, I'm up for whatever break. Any thoughts on the individual tables vs one sortable table Hey man im josh? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:35, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've had that problem too with regards to the 1967 vs 1970 start point. I'm leaning towards a combined table personally. I think it gives more utility to be able to sort by round, pick, position, etc. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:37, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh, I took a look at how many people were drafted by the Packers and maybe understand why the tables are split out by draft:
  • 1930s: 50 players drafted
  • 1940s: 262
  • 1950s: 311
  • 1960s: 215
  • 1970s: 148
  • 1980s: 122
  • 1990s: 104
  • 2000s: 91
  • 2010s: 90
  • 2020s: 42
Seeing this, what are your thoughts? Based on the current break-up (1969/1970), the first article would have a table of 838 players, and the second article would have a table of 597 players. Are those both too massive to actually benefit from sortability, or do you think it still is worth it? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey man im josh want to make sre you saw this. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:05, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, there were a ton of notifications over the weekend for me and I seem to have missed a couple times. I'm just wrapping up for the day but I'll get back to this. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No rush, thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former team names: Separate "history" article or redirect to current team name?

I just noticed something that is strange to me. Why are former team names (Baltimore Colts, Oakland Raiders, Houston Oilers) completely separate articles? This doesn't make any sense. These should redirect to the current team name. There's no reason for these to be separate articles. It makes it seem like these franchises folded when all they did was move and/or change names.--Rockchalk717 06:10, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've never been a big fan of this for the same reason. Every team has a history of article and I'm of the belief that the articles for old names should be merged to those articles then retargeted to the current team's names. Hey man im josh (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Anyone reading the history of the Chargers starts on History of the Los Angeles Chargers, gets diverted to San Diego Chargers after only one season, then returns to the original article in 2017. The two articles duplicate a fair amount of material detailing the venue switches. Then the San Diego Chargers article has lists of seasons, hall of famers and retired numbers that exclude Los Angeles seasons, and a list of records that chops off Rivers' numbers after 2016.
There's a lot of other problems with the articles (a lack of citations and numerous errors). If I get around to reworking them, I'd like to make them one history article, split in the middle for length if necessary. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:03, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. I'll just bluntly propose it: I propose we redirect all these pages to the current team name and add information on these articles that aren't in the current team name articles.--Rockchalk717 15:20, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same thing in MLB where there's the standalone Philadelphia Athletics article & the re-direct Kansas City Athletics, which goes to History of the Oakland Athletics. A few years ago, there was a big RFC over how to handle re-located teams, in North America's major sports leagues. I can't remember where that discussion took place. Suffice it to say, there's inconsistencies in how these re-located franchises are handled. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support proposal. I'm not sure whether it has to be proposed individually at the pages in question, though - it is quite a big move. Assuming that we're taking the Browns and Ravens as an exception, it looks like seven franchises would be affected.
Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Might be unnecessary, but I found this formatting was a bit easier on my eyes to understand the request:
But to be clear, I would also support this. I think it may be easier if someone (@Rockchalk717?) writes it up as a neutral proposal and starts it in the section under here. We can then add notices to the relevant pages. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:16, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad I'm not the only one who has had a problem with this. It's annoyed me for years!!! (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 22:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My only concern, and it is minor, is that someone typing out Chicago Cardinals, let's say in an infobox, is likely trying to point the reader to that specific team, not its related "History" article. As a counterproposal, what would be the thoughts on pointing the redirects to specific sections in the team article. As an example, Chicago Cardinals would redirect to Arizona Cardinals#Chicago Cardinals (1920–1959). That way the reader ends up in the article they were expecting (the team itself) while still providing the necessary insight on the difference in team name. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That works for me and it makes sense generally. I think we should however consider how long a team has been named something different. For instance, I think St. Louis Rams and San Diego Chargers should redirect to the current team names but anybody searching Chicago Cardinals is not looking for a team that they've known during their lifetime (usually). But I understand that complicates the merge proposal, so I'm not super dead set on that. I just think we need a proper proposal to list at the articles if we're going to merge them. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Merge proposals

I think this what Hey man im josh was looking for

I'm ok with "History of ____" pages remaining without a merge.--Rockchalk717 06:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Strong oppose The Seattle Pilots were a baseball team playing in Seattle, sadly only for the 1969 MLB season. Information about that team is the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC for "Seattle Pilots". It would be nonsensical to redirect Seattle Pilots to Milwaukee Brewers. People searching for that term obviously want to read about the history of the team in Seattle and likely don't even care about the team in Milwaukee. Links at the beginning or end of each article are enough to make the connection.
It really doesn't matter that they were "the same team"; the franchise's history in each city is the demarcation line for what people want to read about in the articles. This can surely be cited with reliable sources that they are treated as "different teams" by the media and fanbases despite being the "same franchise" and sharing history/records.
There might be counterexamples where a single article makes the most sense; those should be handled on a one-off basis. This has surely been discussed in this wikiproject before, or elsewhere in sports wikipedia, resulting in the current consensus. Strongly opposed to changing it. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:08, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PK-WIKI: Based on the Seattle Pilots article you've shared that's a different situation than what's happened with these NFL teams. In all of the above examples the team moved elsewhere and changed their name, whereas the Seattle Pilots situation is a bit more unique given the bankruptcy stuff that forced the team to be sold just before the season started. Never the less, I don't see why it wouldn't make sense to have a significant section in a History of the Milwaukee Brewers article (if it existed) instead of having this as a standalone article.
A key difference between your MLB scenario and the one on NFL teams is that each NFL team has a "History of the..." article that exists, meaning we have a meaningful target to merge to. Additionally, much of the content at the "History of the..." articles duplicates the content at the old team name because, after all, why wouldn't it? That's still part of the team's history so it's relevant to include. Even if you wanted to argue that the redirects left behind from a merge should target the history of articles instead of the current team's names, I'm not sure it's useful or helpful to have the history of the team unnecessarily split. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It wouldn't make sense to redirect Seattle Pilots to History of the Milwaukee Brewers because the team in Seattle continues to be a stand-alone notable subject 50 years later, and people searching for "Seattle Pilots" want to read about the baseball team in Seattle, not a completely different baseball team in the midwest that happens to share some franchise history.
That's going to be the prevailing sentiment shown in the coverage for many of the NFL teams in this merge request and for various other moved teams across sport leagues. Stand-alone notability and fandom (as established by citations in reliable third-party sources) is highly dependent on the geographical location of the team and the team name, and not necessarily at all by the continuous franchise ownership.
Strongly opposed to Portsmouth Spartans, Houston Oilers, or Baltimore Colts being merged/redirected. (Double-plus strongly opposed to the Seattle SuperSonics being redirected to Oklahoma.)
There is perhaps an argument to combining the Raiders and Chargers articles due to much smaller geographic moves within California, and in the Raiders case also a very strong prevailing "franchise" brand. That's why these should be handled on a one-off basis.
PK-WIKI (talk) 16:51, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PK-WIKI: No one is trying to say that the team wasn't notable when it was there, and no one is trying to say that the Oakland Raiders were not notable. This is not a discussion based on notability. This is a discussion based on how it makes sense to organize relevant information. Also, this is NOT the baseball WikiProject, we aren't proposing (or care) about the Seattle SuperSonics article. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:20, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand the merge process correctly, I think the merge should be with the history article, e.g. San Diego Chargers→History of the Los Angeles Chargers, as San Diego Chargers is primarily a history article (despite not being called that). Harper J. Cole (talk) 12:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there may be some exceptions (such as a team moving back and forth) but generally a team move provides a natural break, and people interested in Houston sports, for example, are not necessarily interested in the Tennessee Titans. Rlendog (talk) 15:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Rockchalk717 & @Harper J. Cole: This is what I had in mind:

Propose merge and redirect targets for past names of existing franchises
Previous name of franchise Proposed merge target Proposed redirect target after merge
Chicago Cardinals History of the Arizona Cardinals Arizona Cardinals
St. Louis Cardinals (NFL) History of the Arizona Cardinals Arizona Cardinals
Cleveland Rams History of the Los Angeles Rams Los Angeles Rams
St. Louis Rams History of the Los Angeles Rams Los Angeles Rams
Portsmouth Spartans History of the Detroit Lions Detroit Lions
San Diego Chargers History of the Los Angeles Chargers Los Angeles Chargers
Oakland Raiders History of the Las Vegas Raiders Las Vegas Raiders
Los Angeles Raiders History of the Las Vegas Raiders Las Vegas Raiders
Baltimore Colts History of the Indianapolis Colts Indianapolis Colts
Houston Oilers History of the Tennessee Titans Tennessee Titans

How's this look for a formal proposal? If Rockchalk wants to change the name of this section I'll start a proposed merge discussion under it. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would the redirects be to sections within the article, as Gonzo fan2007 suggested? Harper J. Cole (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we do this the redirect target should be to the "History of..." article since that is where the information on the former team location will be. Rlendog (talk) 15:48, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm open to that, but I almost feel like we should default any team name change after 2000 to the team's article instead of the history article. This would include, and please note that brackets indicate the last season they were named this, the St. Louis Rams (2015), San Diego Chargers (2017), Washington Redskins (2019), Washington Football Team (2021), and Oakland Raiders (2021). The last rename before that was the Houston Oilers (1998). Hey man im josh (talk) 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of past team names

Past names of current NFL teams
Past franchise name Operated Associated team Status Current target
Racine Cardinals 1919–1921 Arizona Cardinals Redirect Chicago Cardinals
Chicago Cardinals 1920–1943, 1945–1959 Arizona Cardinals Article
St. Louis Cardinals (NFL) 1960–1987 Arizona Cardinals Article
Phoenix Cardinals 1988–1993 Arizona Cardinals Redirect Arizona Cardinals
Decatur Staleys 1920 Chicago Bears Redirect History of the Chicago Bears
Chicago Staleys 1921 Chicago Bears Redirect History of the Chicago Bears
Portsmouth Spartans 1928–1933 Detroit Lions Article
Baltimore Colts 1953–1983 Indianapolis Colts Article
Dallas Texans (AFL) 1960–1962 Kansas City Chiefs Redirect History of the Kansas City Chiefs#Early years in Dallas
Oakland Raiders 1960–1981, 1995–2019 Las Vegas Raiders Article
Los Angeles Raiders 1982–1994 Las Vegas Raiders Article
San Diego Chargers 1961–2017 Los Angeles Chargers Article
Cleveland Rams 1936–1942, 1944–1945 Los Angeles Rams Article
St. Louis Rams 1995–2015 Los Angeles Rams Article
Boston Patriots 1960–1970 New England Patriots Redirect New England Patriots
Titans of New York 1960–1962 New York Jets Redirect History of the New York Jets
Pittsburgh Pirates (NFL) 1933–1939 Pittsburgh Steelers Redirect Pittsburgh Steelers
Houston Oilers 1960–1996 Tennessee Titans Article
Tennessee Oilers 1997–1998 Tennessee Titans Redirect History of the Tennessee Titans#Tennessee Oilers era (1997–1998)
Boston Braves (NFL) 1932 Washington Commanders Redirect History of the Washington Commanders#Establishment in Boston (1932–1936)
Boston Redskins 1933–1936 Washington Commanders Redirect History of the Washington Commanders#Establishment in Boston (1932–1936)
Washington Redskins 1937–2019 Washington Commanders Redirect Washington Commanders
Washington Football Team 2020–2021 Washington Commanders Redirect Washington Commanders

I think we could use a little more of a discussion before putting this to a vote, so I thought I'd share this table I just worked on. Went through all NFL team articles to make sure I included all of the team's past names. My personal problem with this is that it implies the current franchises are not a continuation of the old, when they clearly all. Everything that a past iteration of a franchise has in their split off history is duplicated or should be at the primary history article anyways, so we're essentially having an unnecessary split / duplication of content. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:17, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those who have been involved in the discussion so that they can review the table: @Rockchalk717, @GoodDay, @Harper J. Cole, @Crash Underride, @Gonzo fan2007, @PK-WIKI, @Rlendog. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • My opinion is that each one of the now defunct names should redirect to the current iteration of the team. "Old team name" should direct to "New team name". Ideally, during the merge, the redirect should be directed to a subsection in the "History" section of each current team that covers the time period when the team was called the now defunct. That way the period gets pointed to the expected article (on the team itself) but has clarity on why the name is now defunct. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:32, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd agree with this from Gonzo fan2007.
    Will there be one poll for all affected teams, or one for each team? Based on the two oppose votes above, people may vote yes for some moves and no for others. Harper J. Cole (talk) 20:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
WP:HOCKEY tends to keep separate articles in these situations - see Quebec Nordiques & Colorado Avalanche. Where's WP:BASEBALL uses two methods (depending on how long the franchise spent in previous location), see above, the Athletics examples. I'm content, if this WikiProject wants to change former located team pages into re-directs to current located team pages. Example - making the San Diego Chargers page a redirect to the appropriate section of the History of the Los Angeles Chargers page. GoodDay (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@GoodDay: NFL team articles have become a bit bloated, so it's ended up that each of the 32 teams have their own "History of the..." articles, which I don't think happens with other major leagues. The existence of these "History of the..." articles is what I think complicates the decision about where to target these if we do decide to merge. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll accept whatever the rest of you (plural) decide. GoodDay (talk) 17:40, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm of the mindset that the former name (San Diego Chargers --> Los Angeles Chargers section on the San Diego years). Then if you want to have an article for the history of the team in those years, have it linked in the subsection so you don't have to overfill the article. But to use the Seattle Pilots as an example, I don't think we need articles for defunct teams that lasted only a few seasons. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:41, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Seattle Pilots article is one of the most important articles on Wikipedia for professional sports in Seattle, with hundreds of sources written about the team in Seattle and nothing whatsoever to do with the team that moved to Milwaukee. Articles like that absolutely must be kept separate. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PK-WIKI: Please stop focusing on a specific MLB article. The focus of this discussion is on the NFL articles and whether content is best managed in one place or repeated in multiple articles instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd oppose any bulk move. I think it's possible to do this on a case by case basis, but doesn't need to be standardised per the Pilots. SportingFlyer T·C 21:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @SportingFlyer: To be clear, this isn't a proposed move. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Link to college football team article instead of college article

Is anyone aware of a discussion about linking a college's football team article instead of the college itself in a table on football players? As an example, in Green Bay Packers draft picks (1936–1969), Russ Letlow's college is linked as San Francisco ([[San Francisco Dons football|San Francisco]]) and not San Francisco ([[University of San Francisco|San Francisco]]). I have always felt like this borders on an WP:EASTEREGG link. From a draft perspective, a player is drafted from the college/university, not from their football team. Any insight or reasoning on why we have it the way we do today? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:19, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's definitely been discussions about it in the past. If I remember correctly, I think @Bagumba and @Bluerules are users who would know more about this, but I may be misremembering, so sorry if I pinged the wrong folks! Hey man im josh (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, for me it makes sense to link the football program. I personally rarely click the page link to go read about the school, but instead the team. Heck, I personally would link to the final season they played college football (if the article exists). But, as it stands, I think the linking to program should be the way to go. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 21:27, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Holy cow, a @Crash Underride: appearance. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've had discussions about which should be linked in the lead of a player's article, but I'm not aware of any previous discussions about which should be linked in a table. I feel either can work, but the football program is probably more appropriate because these articles are about football. Bluerules (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: Yeah, I don't join when I'm on my phone, but I'm back. :D (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 21:39, 22 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how you do it! Bluerules (talk) 23:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions on the lead have occurred multiple times, most recently at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 22 § Revisit: College links in bios' lead, with the rough consensus that the football program is most relevant. —Bagumba (talk) 00:47, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From a draft perspective, a player is drafted from the college/university...: Regarding the concept of being "drafted from", it's not like either the university or football program is actively involved in the draft process. Their permission is not needed. As far as promotion, it's typically the athletic program with press releases and what not about draftees, not the academic administration. It's not like a diploma or their major has much correlation with an athlete's pro career. A reader would be most interested in a player's college football program's stature or past stars as a possible indicator of their training, readiness and pro prospects. —Bagumba (talk) 01:10, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Football program strikes me as the more relevant link in a table like this. As for the more general (philosophical?) question of from where (school or program) a player is drafted, Bagumba summed it up well. Consider also that we have lists like List of Michigan Wolverines in the NFL draft not "List of University of Michigan alumni in the NFL draft". Wait, shouldn't the D in draft be capitalized? JK :) The only caveat here would be for an NFL player who attended college, but did not play college football, yet was still drafted, if there are any such cases. Renaldo Nehemiah ran track at Maryland and did not play football there. He played with the 49ers for three seasons, but was not drafted. Jweiss11 (talk) 07:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks everyone. I don't feel strongly either way about it. Appreciate the insight. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maps added to NFL season articles

This is regarding a conversation taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Recent maps added to MLB season articles. Someone removed all of the MLB maps from the season articles (1920-2023). Do you think it should remain up for each NFL season, as shown at 1978 NFL season. Please join the conversation. Thank you for your guidance. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:05, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably missed

Okays, so as it's been made clear by @WikiOriginal-9: (lol) that I'm hardly on this talk page, I may have missed this, but, was there anything agreed to about infoboxes of

College
(Years attended) ??? (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 16:29, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Crash Underride: Are you referring to something like the example under the college parameter at Template:Infobox NFL biography#Parameters and instructions? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:25, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I never saw that far down.....oops. lmfao. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Crash Underride: I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page :P Anyways, the doc page was updated with instructions to include the year on March 22, 2021, by Dissident93 following this discussion. The example was added by Dissident93 on May 16, 2021. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:49, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No wonder I never saw it. lol. I was using my phone at the time. lol (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:57, 23 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Historical team color errors

Since when did the New England Patriots wear orange like the 1962 Boston Patriots season page has it? I think someone vandalized it.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:11, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Color data is at Module:Gridiron color/data. —Bagumba (talk) 02:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: I gathered that, but I don't see how in the world the Boston Patriots have Denver Broncos colors. I cannot edit the page. I wonder what (if any) reliable source has that info?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:17, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's no references there, unlike at Module:College color. —Bagumba (talk) 03:24, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that Boston was changed here by Charlesaaronthompson.—Bagumba (talk) 03:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now it makes perfect sense.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why does it render as orange though? The Youtube video also doesn't have hard dates.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:33, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@UCO2009bluejay: The reason why I used those HTML color codes is because of this YouTube video titled "Evolution of EVERY Team's Logo and Helmet | NFL Explained!" (found here). I know it looks like it's orange, but it's not. It's red. However, I'll change it. What would you like me to change it to? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there's color codes for specfic eras at that clip. I'll leave it to color experts to hash it out. —Bagumba (talk) 03:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't about what I would like. What should be shown is what is factual. The Patriots never wore orange. Whatever shade of red and blue they wore in those years should be used.UCO2009bluejay (talk) 03:53, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba and UCO2009bluejay: I have now reverted back the historical HTML color codes for the Boston/New England Patriots for the time period from 1960–1992, per this edit diff. My source for the changes is per the team's current logo slick hosted at NFLCommunications.com (I can't give out the exact URL). I hope that this helps solve this problem. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 03:59, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Atlanta Falcons retired numbers

I'm having a bit of a disagreement with @Ringerfan23 on whether the Atlanta Falcons retire numbers or not. I'd appreciate some input on the subject from uninvolved editors.

Sources from Hey man im josh (to oppose the notion that the Falcons retire number)

  1. Atlanta Falcons: Ring of Honor ("The Atlanta Falcons organization doesn't officially retire jersey numbers, but considers certain player's jerseys worthy of being honored. The Falcons Ring of Honor honors individual players and not jerseys.")
  2. ESPN: Deion Sanders was 'joking' in telling Todd Gurley to not use No. 21
  3. CBS Sports: Falcons block Russell Gage from switching to jersey number formerly worn by an Atlanta legend
  4. Bleacher Report: Todd Gurley Says Deion Sanders Told Him Not to Wear His No. 21 Falcons Jersey
  5. Atlanta Falcons: Why Bijan Robinson chose to wear No. 7 with Falcons
  6. Atlanta Falcons: Falcons fans ask about Greg Knapp, drafting a QB, Tevin Coleman, Deion Sanders' No. 21, more

Sources from Ringerfan23 (to support the notion that the Falcons retire numbers)

  1. ESPN: According to the team, six players have had their jerseys retired (note the ‘’according to the team’’)
  2. Pro Football Hall of Fame lists retired QB numbers by team and includes Bartkowski’s #10
  3. Sports Illustrated: The Falcons retired his number in 1986 during his final home game of the season
  4. TampaBay.com: Atlanta retired the number of five-time Pro Bowl player Jessie Tuggle during a halftime ceremony that included commissioner Paul Tagliabue
  5. ESPN lists the falcons numbers in their list of every retired number

I will make my argument in a separate comment under this to keep the start of the discussion as neutral as I can. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:51, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recently there was a discussion about the status of Brady's jersey and whether it was retired or not. That discussion can be found here and the consensus was that the Pro Football Hall of Fame was incorrect in listing Brady's number as retired, meaning they may have issues with other numbers listed as retired.
I believe, similar to the Brady situation, some sources misinterpret the ceremony and the act of honoring player jerseys (which the Falcons do) as retiring a player's number. A factor that some might use to support the notion of the numbers being retired is that these numbers have not been re-issued. A number of teams (such as the Steelers) do not re-issue specific jersey numbers but have not retired them and these should not be treated as the same thing. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not consider SI's Fan Nation to be a reliable source. Pretty amateurish work. (The same might be said of SI of late also).—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Another no retire source 100 Things Falcons Fans Should Know and Do Before They Die —Bagumba (talk) 15:54, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Atlanta Falcons website source is pretty clear than the organization does not retire numbers. The Falcons, like many other organizations, have moved to this model where numbers are "honored" but not fully 100% "retired". Perhaps they are honored and some are never reissued, but not officially retired.
To me that would indicate that our articles like List of National Football League retired numbers should be potentially changed to List of National Football League honored and retired numbers or the article List of National Football League Ring of Honor members created or etc.
The highest honors an organization grants to players should be recognized. If teams have stopped retiring numbers, and secondary sources are treating "honoring" and "retiring" numbers in the same manor and/or confusing them, we should update our articles.
PK-WIKI (talk) 19:09, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PK-WIKI: Can you provide a source of some kind that states that other teams, aside from the Falcons, honor jerseys now and don't retire them? If teams have stopped retiring numbers, and secondary sources are treating "honoring" and "retiring" numbers in the same manor and/or confusing them, we should update our articles. – I do not support updating Wikipedia to reflect the mistakes that are being made by sources when those who determine whether a jersey is retired (Atlanta Falcons) state that it's not. I'd be against a move to include honored jerseys, as the scope of the article is clear at its current location. It does not and should not take into account "unofficial" retired numbers that are no longer issued, such as those by the Pittsburgh Steelers, as this can change at any point.
If you take a look at Category:National Football League halls, museums, and rings of fame navigational boxes you might notice that some teams actually have a ring of honor and something else (Saints, Browns) while others don't have anything (Bears and Raiders). In addition, some teams have halls of some kind instead.
  • Bills – Wall of Fame
  • Panthers – Hall of Honor
  • Browns – Cleveland Brown Legends and Ring of Honor
  • Saints – Hall of Fame and Ring of Honor
  • LA Rams – Had a ring in St. Louis, not in LA
And so on and so forth. As such, I think it'd be too difficult to combine the different types of honors into a single list such as List of National Football League Ring of Honor members. In case you're curious, since I like to share information, the Cowboys and Raiders are the only other two teams that do not retire numbers. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:36, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The main examples I'm aware of are in college football. Have not fully researched the NFL. But across football it does seem like expanded rosters are causing teams to bump up against the 100 available 2-digit jersey numbers. Teams are responding to this jersey barrier by un-retiring numbers, switching to mainly using a Ring of Honor rather than retiring numbers, and/or increasing the jersey retirement requirements to make new ones in the future more rare.
Colorado brought "three hallowed football numbers out of retirement at the growing requests from recruits" in 2020. The un-retired jerseys will have patches on them honoring the formerly "retired" player.
The Washington Huskies have three numbers that have gone through various phases of being "retired", being a special number given as an award to a player, and since 2021 now "honored" with an accompanying stadium sign equivalent in size and stature to most "retired" numbers.
That change from "retired" to "honored" got the Huskies numbers taken off the list at List of NCAA football retired numbers, which seems wrong to me, but I haven't had the time to propose re-adding (with a note to indicate the distinction). The Colorado numbers are still included in the "retired" list.
Albert Breer of the NFL Network is quoted as saying "Plenty of teams don't retire numbers and some have even un-retired numbers. Just not practical in football. Sometimes, numbers even get passed down like #88 with the Dallas Cowboys -- Drew Pearson, Michael Irvin, and now Dez Bryant. Perhaps a Ring of Honor or Hall of Fame is the solution."
There may have also been NFL-wide guidance against retiring numbers: "the league adopted a rule prohibiting teams from retiring numbers, the ostensible reason for which was that teams could ‘run out of numbers.’ That rule was in place through the time I left the league (in 2013). I do not know whether it still is and whether exceptions are granted or whether teams simply ignore the rule."
The broad groupings here seem to be Retired Numbers (Tier 1), in-stadium Ring of Honor (Tier 2), and Hall of Fame (Tier 3). Not all teams have all three tiers. It would be nice if there was some kind of list on Wikipedia that displayed all tiers of honor for each team.
PK-WIKI (talk) 00:33, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The league definitely allows number retirements, as some have happened since 2013. I don't think this is a problem that the NFL is facing as they don't have the roster sizes that college teams too. As for off-season, it happens all the time where players wear the same number until rosters are cut down. Do you have any examples of NFL numbers being unretired except to allow an exception player the chance to wear their number? A couple examples are JJ Watt and Peyton Manning who used retired numbers, but those numbers were put back into retirements afterwards. In regards to the Cowboys, they just straight up don't retire numbers.
As for the tiers, they don't exist and I don't think it's fair for us to try to assign values to how teams choose to honor their players. Just because some teams choose not to have a ring of honor doesn't mean their hall of whatever is a tier lower in terms of value. I don't think the Packers or Steelers, who both don't have rings of honor, should have their halls viewed as less prestigious. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes but by the same token the Falcons, who don't retire numbers, shouldn't have their Ring of Honor viewed as less prestigious than other teams' Retired Numbers. That was kind of my point to begin with, that List of National Football League retired numbers is a de facto "top tier honor" list that doesn't include the Falcons' top honors.
"Retired Numbers" are a specific thing and natural grouping so that list's inclusion criteria makes sense, but the article is a less informative view of the honor system(s) in Football than the equivalent List of Major League Baseball retired numbers where all teams retire numbers in a very similar manner.
The Athletic — Why the 49ers aren’t retiring Terrell Owens’ jersey — or any other numbers anytime soon
Per source above, NFL teams are definitely recognizing the roster problem of retiring too many numbers. Would expect the pace to slow down and for the Ring of Honor system to spread.
PK-WIKI (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a tier or prestige system of any kind, it's just a collection of related and relevant information that is clear and relevant. To expand it to jerseys that are simply "honored" is changing the scope entirely and honestly shouldn't be the focus of this discussion.
As for why the 49ers aren't retiring Owens' number, it's because they have 12 numbers retired already. They also took 9 years to retire Steve Young's number after he retired, so for all we know it could still be coming. It's just a matter of number management for teams. Based on List of National Football League retired numbers, 9 numbers have been retired since 2020 and 22 have been since 2013. If the teams wanted to they could start re-issuing numbers. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:54, 28 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There hasn't been a compelling reason why we should ignore the Falcons if they say that they don't retire numbers. They are the ones doing the retiring, which appears to makes them the most reliable authority on the topic, short of them having made contradicting statements on the record. The quality of journalism has declined over the years, and reporters now often carelessly use the term retired when a player is merely honored in some way. —Bagumba (talk) 07:18, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this. I really do think there was a bunch of people who misinterpreted the honoring of the players/jerseys and then others said the same thing based on those sources, just like the Brady number situation. I'll probably remove the mention of numbers being retired from former Falcons players info boxes. The navbox for Falcons retired numbers is at TfD and on pace for deletion as well. Just bothers me that the PFHOF is mistakenly reporting numbers as retired when they're not in multiple instances now... Hey man im josh (talk) 14:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, going to send a follow up ping to @Ringerfan23 in case they want to object further or weigh in in the next couple of days before I do so. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:12, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll concede to your position in the presence of the additional sources mentioning they do not retire numbers. Although to me it seems a matter of semantics "we don't retire numbers, we 'honor jerseys' and then nobody uses that number again" certainly seems the same as "we retire numbers", but we'll stick with what the sources say. RF23 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
...we 'honor jerseys' and then nobody uses that number again: No, players have worn #21 even after it was honored for Deion in 2010.[5]. —Bagumba (talk) 23:40, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The edit summary message for the September 2023‎ article creation of Template:Atlanta Falcons retired numbers is "The current ownership doesn't retire numbers, but Rankin Smith did." Is that true, that the numbers used to be "retired"? PK-WIKI (talk) 06:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that, but figured the creator was already notified about the TfD —Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
should numbers that were retired then unretired be included in the page? It seems the Saints also did the same. RF23 (talk) 05:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There should be reliable sources that state that it was retired and then unretired. See Ron Mix at Los Angeles Chargers retired numbers. —Bagumba (talk) 06:17, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Was the number officially retired with an announcement and/or a jersey in the rafters? Or just never reissued? PK-WIKI (talk) 06:19, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Chargers equipment manager once said he tried to avoid using certain numbers, even though they weren't retired. ("In the absence of specific orders from his superiors, equipment manager Bob Wick has taken the initiative, 'to keep that number safe for now.'"[6]) For example, they did not re-issue Charlie Joiner's #18 after he stopped playing in 1986,[7] but it wasn't retired until 2023.[8] —Bagumba (talk) 07:20, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Seraphimblade#Closure of the NFL Draft RfC and Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment#Text added to RFCNOT

Please see these discussions for an update and needed clarifications on the decision to uphold the close of the RfC, although I still don't know if the close ordained page moves or not. The closers of the discussions seem to think so. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:18, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, Wordsmith did say that their expectation for the close was to result in relevant page moves. There's really no way we can determine that "Draft" should be downcased and then not apply it to titles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:14, 2 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:National Football League#Requested move 3 March 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:National Football League#Requested move 3 March 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 13:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Former American football players

This is a pretty minor thing, but I wonder if we could find consensus against preserving in articles the use of the phrase "former American football [position]". Rockchalk717 recently disputed a change to "American former football center" contra MOS:NATIONALITY, which says bios should usually begin with a person's nationality, rather than omit nationality and use "American" to modify the sport. As Bagumba has previously written, they did not renounce their citizenship, they are not former Americans, but rather American former football players. Rockchalk argues that "American football" should be written as one in order to not confuse non-American English speakers. I don't share this concern; as Bagumba writes, Per MOS:TIES, use American English, as it's just called "football". All the other non-U.S. soccer players just use "football" as per British English. Most NFL FAs use just "football", not "American football". I hope others agree "former American" isn't a desirable phrasing. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:56, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Similar problem in Canadian football. For example, Darren Flutie's lead sentence (since modified[9]) has "is a former Canadian", but he's always been an American.—Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Usually doesn't mean you must. Active players say "is an American football (position) with American specifically identifying the sport (as is evident by it being linked with football). For years this was the case with retired players as well then all of sudden it started changing. I don't see how WP:TIES applies here. I see ties as things (for an example) like using color for articles tied to the US and colour to articles tied to the UK. That entire policy page mentions nothing about the American football/football or football/soccer thing. With other sports, they have a substantial non-American participation in their leagues, while the NFL has only a 3% international players so I don't see how identifying nationality is necessary, unless they were born outside of the US.--Rockchalk717 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The result we get for foreign players is something like "Australian professional American football punter" (as in the case of Michael Dickson (American football)). If he's American, we probably write "American football punter"; and rely on the reader understanding that "American football" means the sport and not his nationality. It's pretty standard on articles to start with the lead with Person is a <nationality> <occupation> or some such. This goes against the grain. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This came up prior to the FAC for Bob Mann (American football) and was discussed there. What we decided on was the following:
Robert Mann (April 8, 1924 – October 21, 2006) was an American professional football player in the National Football League (NFL).
This includes a link to American football via the "football" link but drops the adjective noun adjunct "American" and just uses the noun "football". "American" can more naturally be moved to the beginning to establish his nationality. This provides a smoother sounding sentence, while still providing a link to American football for clarity for those who may not be aware of what type of football is being discussed (noting that "NFL" at the end of the sentence provides a helpful hint, as the NFL is continuing to grow as an internationally recognized national sports league). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two thoughts. Firstly, the sport is American football, named to distinguish it from other codes such as association football (soccer), Rugby football, and other. And since Wikipedia is written for an international audience, the full name of the sport should be used on first mention, which means "American" should not be separated from "football", even if the players' nationality is American.

Secondly, the current guidance is ungrammatical, based on overthinking and a failure to grasp context, and should be rewritten. Adjectives in English always go in the order opinion-size-age-shape-color-origin-material-purpose. "Former" is a relative age. Nationality is an origin. "Former American X" is grammatically correct. "American former X" is not. And it in no way can correctly be read as meaning someone's nationality changed.

The first phrasing cannot be properly read as "former" applying to "American" because "American" in this construct is an adjective, not a noun, and only adverbs modify adjectives. If it were saying the person's nationality had changed it would be written as "formerly American", with the adverb form. Instead "former" and "American" are two distinct and independent adjective both applying to the same noun. The current guidance is bad English based on a failure to actually understand parts of speech and should be tossed out.

As for the applicability when American football is being discussed, since the "American" shouldn't be dropped for clarity to the international readership, rephrasing to say "former American football player from the United States" is preferable. oknazevad (talk) 19:32, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, former is not age; it's a modifier. There's a stark difference between a "former child actress" and "child former actress". Refer to "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order" for more about former—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Still doesn't address misreading of two separate adjectives for the same noun as being an adjective and a noun, as interpreting "former American X" as someone renouncing their citizenship would supposedly be. "Former American", where American is a noun, sure. But the placement of both in front of a separate noun renders the phrase clearly a case of two adjectives, where any modification of the nationality adjective would require an adverb. The guidance is unidiomatic and poor English. oknazevad (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
the full name of the sport should be used on first mention: The sport name is "football". We use natural disambiguation because each page must have a different name. That page title is preferable to football (American). But just because we have a long page title like quarterback sack, doesn't mean that plain sack isn't the consise term once the context is established. Or that we must use placekicker instead of piping to kicker. Non-American soccer bios generally don't show association football due to MOS:TIES. It's football played by a footballer, strange as that is to an American. —Bagumba (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
International Federation of American Football. The internationally recognized name is indeed American football. Just that it's usually simply called "football" for short in its originating country. But Wikipedia isn't written for Americans solely. We need to keep that in mind. oknazevad (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Per MOS:TIES:

An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation should use the (formal, not colloquial) English of that nation.

—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That just means we wouldn't be using "colour" or "defence" in an article about a player born in the US. Here we are talking about a player born in Canada, though, so Canadian usage is actually the correct one per WP:TIES. And that would include specifying American football because it's not Canadian football. And it's not like the term "American football" is not used in American English when specificity is needed. oknazevad (talk) 06:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just spelling. It's footballer vs soccer player, footballer vs. football player, pitch vs. field, etc. —Bagumba (talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And what about the term "American football" being used in American English to name the sport when specificity is needed? Because that's the real crux here: does writing for an international readership mean using longer formal names that one might not use when writing for a specific audience? It's a relatively minor thing, but keeping that in mind does help counter systemic bias. oknazevad (talk) 07:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The soccer bios have footballer and not association footballer or association football player. It seems we have a blend of TIES with conciseness. —Bagumba (talk) 07:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No opinion as of now, but then there are always odd cases of players who played both American football and Canadian football, like Joe Theismann, Warren Moon, and Doug Flutie. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Steve Christie: is a former Canadian American football placekickerin the National Football League (NFL) Who can understand what his real situation is without knowing his actual bio? —Bagumba (talk) 20:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oknazevad, the term "American football" is a noun by itself. I have modified my comment above a bit because it comes across as confusing. "American" in this construct is a noun adjunct. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, in this case it's a straight adjective. Using "United States football" would be a noun adjunct, as "United States" is only a noun. But "American" is both a noun and an adjective. [10]. American cheese isn't cheese that is a US citizen. oknazevad (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your comparison is absurd. You are making my exact point. "American" in "American football" has nothing to do with citizenry. Looking at your own dictionary source, every example used in the adjective form of the word is related to things that America calls its own (American people, soldiers, states and culture). American cheese and American football are not owned by America. They are more appropriately understood as "American style football" and "American style cheese". Since Webster is your preferred source, American football is one term defined and listed as a noun and so is American cheese. Quiet literally every compound noun using American as a modifier is a noun on Webster. So, as I stated, when used as the complete phrasing referring to the style of football, "American football" is one compound noun. This is important though because in bios, "American" can be confused to refer to nationality. Thus, "former American" can be confusing to readers. Also important to note, all the examples in WP:NATIONALITY establish nationality before discussing what makes the person notable. Being "former anything" should not come before nationality. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "American football" is a single noun phrase. But that is a phrase composed of an adjective (American) and a noun (football). The first word is an adjective indicating national origin that modifies the name of the sport (a noun) to indicate the particular code. My point is that parsing "former American football player" to read as saying the person has changed nationality is a clear misreading because it assigns the "former" modification to the wrong word in the following phrase. Basing out word order on that incorrect reading has made so many of our articles read unidiomatically. oknazevad (talk) 07:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's where rephrasing comes in. "Steve Christie is a former American football placekicker from Canada". It's clear and not awkward. And this is a case where using the full "American football" for the sport is a good choice, as it's unambiguous, whereas as just putting "football" could easily be misinterpreted as him having played Canadian football because of his nationality. (I'm sure at some point he played Canadian football, perhaps in high school, but not collegiately or professionally.) oknazevad (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Geoffrey Stephen Christie (born November 13, 1967) is a Canadian former professional football player in the National Football League (NFL) and Canadian Football League (CFL)... sounds real good to me. Don't support "former American" in any way. Just sounds like poor English. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He didn't play in the CFL. His pro career was entirely in the NFL, after playing collegiately at the College of William and Mary. oknazevad (talk) 20:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
He did play in the CFL.[11][12] And even if he didn't, there's plenty of other Canadians that have played in both. —Bagumba (talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not that it is relevant to this discussion: On July 2, 2007, Christie joined the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League by signing a practice roster agreement with the team. On the signing, Christie pointed out that one reason for joining the team was "basically doing Michael (Clemons) a favour" as a former college teammate and that it was tentatively for one game. The other reason was that as a Canadian citizen, playing one game in the CFL, would be great way to finish his career.[3] Christie was activated to play on July 7, 2007 against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

I would propose that the standard for an NFL bio of a retired player should be:

PLAYER NAME (BIRTHDATE – DEATHDATE) is a[n] NATIONALITY former professional football player in the National Football League (NFL).

Some addenda:

  • If they are active, simply drop "former"
  • If they played in other leagues and it is relevant, add those before or after the NFL depending on notability/length of service (i.e. primarily CFL, then CFL goes first, etc)
  • I prefer "player" instead of the exact position they played, primarily because I deal more with historic bios from players who played many positions. I can typically weave in position later in the lead when referencing their college days. That said, no prejudice to replacing player with the exact position.

This meets WP:NATIONALITY, is grammatically correct, sounds encyclopedic, and per Bagumba's earlier comment, "American football" isn't necessary to understand the person's notability. The fact they are a "professional" (for bios that relate to professionals and not just college players) is typically what makes them notable. The exact sport they played, assuming the reader is a complete novice, will be made evident in the bio or can be easily understood by clicking on the football link. As an aside, college football isn't college American football, because "college football" is a collective noun. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:02, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support as a base that is consistent with MOS and generally followed by all other bios on Wikipedia.—Bagumba (talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I second that, it does follow other bios. Also, unless someone out there removed what he did already, Bagumba added the majority of the 'nationalities' that you see in the lead. Glad there's finally a vote on this matter! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    People like Dirtlawyer1 back in the day were doing this long before.[13] Other recent editors as well. —Bagumba (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And he's modest also. Hope some votes come in! Bringingthewood (talk) 22:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How do we deal with players who were notable for their college career but not for their professional career? Should the lead focus on perhabs a one game career in the NFL if it didnt gather any significant coverage? Alvaldi (talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's more related to MOS:ROLEBIO for the lead sentence and paragraph and more generally MOS:LEADBIO for what's WP:DUE —Bagumba (talk) 04:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alvaldi, I think that is left to editor discretion. Oftentimes, making it to the NFL, even for just one game, is still the primary notability for the subject. This isn't a hard and fast rule anyways, just a style guide that should apply fairly well to most articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support with two exceptions Drop the professional. Flat unnecessary as identifying they played in the NFL establishes they were professional. Instead of player, identify the position. We already do this for active players, makes no sense to drop it when they retire. I get the Sea of Blue concerns Bagumba has with this, but back to back links is hardly a sea of blue. This may seem odd as I've defended identifying the sport as American football and not identifying nationality, in the end I wanted a consensus. It annoyed me former players were having ledes changed at a massive level without a consensus. And to address the multiple positions concern, maybe only use player if they played more than two positions.--Rockchalk717 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can see dropping the 'professional' part of it. Haven't seen too many 'amateur' listings out there. Besides, having NFL listed in the same sentence answers any professional doubt. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
identifying they played in the NFL establishes they were professional: Not to readers unfamiliar with the NFL or American football. "professional" is fairly common in the lead sentence of other sports' bios.—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that. Again, I was giving the reader too much credit. I figured that if the (NFL), (CFL), etc, followed quickly enough, they might click on it and see professional listed there. My thinking went back to not seeing amateur listed for many players. If I could only get myself to remember that some need a seeing eye dog to function. I learned a lot from Wikipedia over the years just by being curious and clicking on a link. Like not having to link Germany to know where Frankfurt is. Amazing. My mind is still recuperating from last night. I'll wait for the vote. Bringingthewood (talk) 05:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clicking: "professional" is just one additional word, so MOS:NOFORCELINK seems relevant:

Use a link when appropriate, but as far as possible do not force a reader to use that link to understand the sentence.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's a MOS for everything, lol. My original support was just for the 'nationality' part, I'm sticking with that. --- T. J. Watt is an American football linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). That has a nice ring to it. So professional has to be added due to the fact he's an American playing American football. Or else it would look the same, the nationality wouldn't be understood. Looks like professional can't be removed. It would be the new buffer. Correct? Bringingthewood (talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So professional has to be added due to the fact he's an American playing American football: No, there's thousands of English soccer players with professional in their lead sentence.[14] —Bagumba (talk) 06:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, English, Australian, Canadian. Add professional to all pages .. but Americans would definitely need it by default. See T. J. Watt's line up there. Here's Reggie White's page: was an American professional football defensive end in the National Football League (NFL). Now take professional out. It would look like an American football player. Not an American playing American football. That's all I meant. Of course this one is simple: "Le Démon Blond", was a Canadian professional ice hockey player. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So I'm having trouble understanding the logic behind the idea that we have to assume the reader doesn't know NFL is professional football but we can't assume the reader knows we're referring to this sport and not this sport?? That doesn't make sense too me. Either we treat the reader like they are totally ignorant about the player we treat them like an expert. We can't treat them like they don't know it when it proves our point but like the do know it when it doesn't.--Rockchalk717 08:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rockchalk717, the whole point of the proposal was to construct a lead sentence that did not put "American" next to "football". Any change that brings back "American football" basically brings us back to the status quo. In America, NFL players are called "professional football players". That wording is common and long-lasting, helping to differentiate "college football players". If it wasn't for the other types of football, it would be the standard wording across all bios. My proposal is grammatically correct, is Encyclopedic in tone, factually correct and the common naming for the sport. The link to football, the statement of the "NFL" and the general feel of the article compared to other types of football bios provides the reader with sufficient evidence to realize we aren't talking about soccer or some other form of football. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article for the cowboys-lions game?

Should an article be made for the referee debacle in the cowboys-Lions game? It could be called Decker Reported Eligible, similar to the Dez Caught It article, or the Fail Mary article. It did receive coverage 8 days after the incident, and while the NFL didn’t change the rules it did prompt a reaction from them. Plus, this play is why Dallas earned the #2 seed and the Lions were stuck in seed #3, so this did have significant playoff implications. This explains that. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Too early to say if this game is to have a WP:LASTING impact (e.g. a rule change or some other newsworthy development, like the Fail Mary you mentioned basically being the end of the officials strike). But now, two months after the game took place, the game is basically not talked about at all on a national level and every hit on a Google News search was from within two weeks of the game, clearly not a lasting impact now, but could possibly change when we get into the 2024 season (I think it is unlikely to ever have a lasting impact). Frank Anchor 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that absent a rule change there's no lasting impact. Part of that comes down to Detroit hosting two home playoff games and advancing to the NFC Championship game anyway, while Dallas lost early. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree that it's too early to tell if it will have any lasting impact. We can already say it will not. It's really hard for regular season games to have a long lasting impact.--Rockchalk717 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That statement is fallacious. Already, we saw Lunatic Lateral, a play with minimal playoff impact, get an article, that was even kept at AFD. Dez Caught It, which I will concede is a playoff game, prompted rule changes four years later. The Fail Mary regular season article is also similar to this. That being said, I will admit that an article is unlikely unless either the NFL changes their rules or explicitly votes to keep this rule and that will also give it sustained coverage. --69.118.230.235 (talk) 14:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not whatsoever. Those were instance where there was discussion about a rule change being necessary was immediate. I don't recall with this people immediately discussing any rules being changed. Nothing has been reported to being discussed by the competition committee this spring either regarding eligible receiver rules.--Rockchalk717 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
again, you’re speculating that it won’t receive coverage. Please stop as this isn’t the first time we’ve had issues. 69.118.230.235 (talk) 17:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would want to see more coverage than just 8 days after. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE:

Events that are only covered in sources published during or immediately after an event, without further analysis or discussion, are likely not suitable for an encyclopedia article.

—Bagumba (talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:RECENT. This was a minor penalty controversy, with no long-lasting impact on the rules of the game. Comparing this to Fail Mary, which had immediate, notable impacts to the NFL, or Dez Caught It, which is still discussed today, is farfetched. Regarding Lunatic Lateral, I am on the fence with that one, but I will note that in my many years of closely following the NFL, I have never once seen a play like that one. It was shocking, both for its absurdity, as well as its shocking flip to the outcome of the game. But this is why people often quote WP:WHATABOUT when editors try to make comparisons to other articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to sidetrack, but the Hell Mary play was also a shocking result. The jets would’ve lost anyway, but they went from having a potential lead at halftime to being down two possessions.69.118.230.235 (talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Martz offspring?

Do we know if Mike Martz has any notable offspring? The life chronology of Jennifer Martz would match up with his as an offspring. She was born when he was 26. She was an All-metro performer as a junior when he was a coach in St. Louis for a year. Then she went to his alma mater for college. Also, at 6'1", she is the size of a football player offspring. Just guessing.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jennifer Martz does not seem to be his daughter. I found this: "Wife Julie, four children (sons Chris, David, and Tim, and daughter Emily)." ~ Orlando Sentinel. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  00:43, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think was looking at this again and I realize I had the years wrong, but she did go to his alma mater. Maybe she is a niece or something. Does he have brothers?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:34, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Washington Commanders seasons at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Washington Commanders seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of Cleveland Browns seasons at WP:FLRC

I have nominated List of Cleveland Browns seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:46, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&oldid=1213563549"