Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Football League (Rated Project-class)
WikiProject icon This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Project  This page does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League:

Season article consistency[edit]

I've started trying to instill some consistency in the team season articles, mostly in the game summary templates. I've seen about 10 different styles of recording scores/stats, and that's only counting the teams that actually have people who are willing to bother updating the articles properly. Check out the AFC East teams' articles to see what I've done (2016 New England Patriots season, 2016 Miami Dolphins season, 2016 Buffalo Bills season and 2016 New York Jets season). Ideally, these should all match with the overall league season articles (see 2015–16 NFL playoffs). I've also made a start on the 2016 Baltimore Ravens season article, but this is a pretty tough job and I could use some help with changing all the teams, so volunteers would be welcomed. Also, if anyone thinks the way I've done it isn't the best way to present the info, please comment here and we can see about implementing further changes across the board. – PeeJay 15:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I have been editing and adding information to the Ravens' article. I was not the one who created the article, which included "Top tacklers" in the game summary section which the previous editor has felt the compelling need to delete. Additionally, I have simply been copying the scoring summaries from the official gamebook. If that is not a valid authority on the correct format, I don't know what could possibly be. Such enormous changes to any Wikipedia article should not be made before a consensus has been reached. You can't simply change 3 or 4 other articles and make this into the standard. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:48, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
As I have pointed out, this has always been the standard, you've just chosen not to follow it (and by "you", I mean anyone who has ever edited the Ravens season articles, not just you specifically). I've not run into any opposition over this from editors of any other team article, so I don't know why you're trying to stand in the way of standardisation. If your only issue with this is that this season would be different from all the old Ravens season articles, I would point out that you can easily change that yourself. Standardisation across the entire league is more important than your one team. – PeeJay 22:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Furthermore, you ask why I deleted tacklers from the stats section? The reason is that tackles are not recorded on the "Quick takes" section of game recaps (see here), only passing, rushing and receiving are. I would agree that defense is important, but defense is about far more than just tackles. Why not record INTs? Or sacks? Or forced fumbles? But of course, if you can provide a good reason for including tackles (i.e. one that we can all reach a consensus over), then I guess we should include them. I just don't see any reliable sources that include tackles as part of the at-a-glance statistics for an NFL game. – PeeJay 22:50, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
Whether you are right or wrong will have to be decided. I'm just not comfortable with such vast changes being made "off the cuff" without having a discussion about it first. I have found articles other that the Ravens' that have used a variety of formats, including this one. Jdavi333 (talk) 23:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. We obviously have a standard to be followed, i.e. that of the central NFL playoffs articles. Regardless, I intend to continue to implement the standard format across the entire league. If you insist on resisting that for the Ravens, that's up to you, but it'll look pretty silly having the Ravens as the sole holdout among the 32 teams. – PeeJay 01:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The person/persons who originally edited the playoff articles are not the arbitrators of Wikipedia. a format consensus has to be reached among all users. Also, a look at the MLB team season articles shows different formats for different teams, and nobody has seemed to mind until you came along. Cheerio. Jdavi333 (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
The state of MLB season articles is of no concern to me. I simply don't care about baseball. You are right that those people are not the sole arbiters of Wikipedia formatting, but I'm yet to see any explanation from you of what you don't like about that formatting. Is it just because it's different and would mean a lot of work to fix all the other Ravens articles? I'm not denying it would be a lot of work, but one should never let the prospect of effort stand in the way of a better encyclopaedia. – PeeJay 14:28, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
How is it possible that no one but a disgruntled, stuck-in-the-mud Ravens fan has anything to say about this issue? Can I assume that everyone else is perfectly happy with my suggestion for standardisation? Is User:Jdavi333 really on his own in opposition to this? I don't want to step on anyone's toes by enforcing something that doesn't meet all the appropriate guidelines, but if no one has any objections, I'm going to go ahead and continue with my changes - including to the Ravens 2016 article. – PeeJay 17:39, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the compliment. Please read WP:Insult. Additionally, this is not the way Wikipedia works. As explained in WP:CON, major format changes and the like must be reached by consensus, not by one editor's whim. I have just been following what was done in several previous articles on the same subject. The fact that no one else has commented just means that they don't care either way. You have your opinion, while mine are based in the fundamental principles of Wikipedia. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:43, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Check out WP:SILENCE. I've implemented these changes on eight articles already (excluding the Vikings, which was already like this), and no one has complained except you. That implies consensus. The Ravens articles are not your sole domain, so if you are the only one complaining across the 32 teams in the league, I'm afraid consensus is already against you. – PeeJay 17:49, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay– From the fact that you had to change all those other articles, obviously the previous editors DID disagree with you. The fact that they havent changed it back might not be considered consensus if they previously disagreed with you.Jdavi333 (talk) 18:04, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Correct. As soon as a single editor voices dissent, WP:SILENCE is no longer applicable. Silence is a very weak form a consensus; if one person disagrees, and another 500 people remain silent, then the vote count is 1 disagree to 1 agree (assuming the one proposing the guideline is the 1 agree). Lizard (talk) 18:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Fair enough. But that's why this discussion is here. So far, User:Jdavi333 has not exactly explained his objection to my changes other than to say he simply prefers the original style of the Ravens article. Saying "I like the old ways" is not a valid argument. The only decent argument I've seen from him is, "it matches the official NFL gamebooks", which is fair enough, but we don't have to match the gamebooks verbatim. For example, the gamebooks list drive lengths in the format "8-74, 5:16"; how is a casual reader supposed to know that actually means "8 plays, 74 yards, 5:16"? Same goes for the stats lines in the Ravens article. How is a casual reader supposed to know that "BAL – Joe Flacco – 23–34–258–1–0" means Joe Flacco completed 23 of his 34 attempts for 258 yards and a touchdown? I know because I'm familiar with football and I have a reference to compare against, but we're supposed to be catering for people who don't necessarily have a clue about the sport. Tell me I'm wrong. – PeeJay 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
What exactly are you changing. They all look the same too me. Only difference I noticed was the top tacklers. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:53, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
Positioning of the time when the score was made, wording of the description of each score, the notation for the PAT/2PT conversion, the notation for the scoreline, and the notation for the drive length/duration. See above for arguments. – PeeJay 23:02, 2 December 2016 (UTC)
So am I to gather from the silence in this thread that everyone here is happy with the inconsistency between teams? If Jdavi333 is the only one opposing this and I'm the only one in support, what else is there to do? – PeeJay 16:29, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
See Warnock's dilemma. Personally, I would like if we had a standard way of doing it, but it's really not all that critical to me. Lizard (talk) 17:56, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
I wasn't aware until recent edits to the 2016 Jacksonville Jaguars season article. Reviewing the edits made by Jay and the discussion here I agree with him on some points but disagree on most. First of all, I understand the idea of bringing consistency across all NFL articles, however I disagree whether this is necessary, and like Lizard the Wizard it's not that critical to me especially considering a lot of articles don't have people to update the game summaries regularly. Additionally, I don't agree with the removal of the "Top tacklers" stat, PeeJay2K3 argues that this stat isn't included on the NFL quick take recap, but neither is the timestamp for each score, yet that was added in the drive info. On top of that, we don't have to follow to the letter, Wikipedia isn't bound by their style guide. DragonFury (talk) 19:41, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
True enough about the tacklers, but if you look at any game book, you'll see that the defensive stat that is actually given the most prominence is interceptions. Why not record those in our game boxes instead of tackles? Primarily, we follow the game books, which do include the times of each score – after all, if you're going to include drive lengths/durations, why not include the time when the points were scored too? But I'm not here to simply impose my will on you all, I just want to find a common style that we can all agree on. And yes, you're right, we don't have a lot of people here to update game summaries, but if at least some people are going to update them, we should at least be doing it all the same, not just in our own team's house style. Work with me, man. – PeeJay 22:20, 11 December 2016 (UTC)
I wonder, would User:DragonFury care to actually engage in a discussion here or does he simply intend to state his case and walk away? It would be nice to believe I'm not the only person trying to build a better encyclopaedia here. – PeeJay 17:09, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
I use tackles instead of interceptions because tackles are more evenly distributed and there's more of them as a whole so they make a more accurate representation of the contribution of a defensive player. Defenders rarely get more than 1 or 2 interceptions per game but they frequently hit double digits in tackles. As for the times; I consider the indication of the quarter in which a score was made to be sufficiently accurate for the information we're trying to convey. DragonFury (talk) 16:24, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
So we get to the crux of the issue: it's your personal opinion about what should be included. I was being facetious about the defensive stats anyway. The fact is that defensive stats are almost never given in box scores and so we shouldn't include them here. As for the times, your argument makes no sense, and you're literally the only person arguing against their inclusion; since your reasoning isn't particularly convincing, I see no reason to agree with you on that. – PeeJay 21:11, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you get to remove them. The argument is just fine: Defensive stats should be included and tackles are the best way of doing that. So stop removing good content willy-nilly when in fact you have multiple editors disagreeing with you unless you want to pretend Jdavi333's posts didn't happen. DragonFury (talk) 21:28, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Okay, so defensive stats are apparently fine (unless anyone else would like to comment). But what about score times? – PeeJay 23:25, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Score times and drive times should be included. Not sure about tackles, but why not. Kante4 (talk) 13:16, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
The whole league has been standardised now (aside from the holdouts in Baltimore and Jacksonville). Hopefully this minimum standard will be kept to for the remainder of this season and into the future, and if anyone fancies it, they could overhaul previous seasons for each team too. As for tackles, it seems like consensus here is for their inclusion, although I did notice that most teams didn't include them as I made my tour around the league. The question now is, what should we include under tackles? I assume we should only be listing the player who made the most tackles, but does that mean solo or combined? What else should we be listing? Interceptions? Forced fumbles? Sacks? – PeeJay 13:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
Anyone? Also, can I just point out that tackles were not officially recorded before 2001, and sacks were not officially recorded before 1982. The only defensive statistic that goes all the way back to the inception of the league is interceptions, and even then only the ones that were returned for touchdowns were recorded. – PeeJay 21:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The two point conversion as a career statistic[edit]

This question arises from a discussion that took place following a game on December 4, 2016 involving Eric Berry. Berry scored the first defensive two point conversion in NFL history by way of an interception return. Such plays were not legal before the 2015 season as before then the ball became dead if the defense got possession on the try, and the defense was not allowed to score by any means on the try. It became apparent that even for two point conversions on offense, that statistic is typically not included on players' Wikipedia pages. For example, Matt Forte is one of the all time leaders with 6 two point conversions in his career, but this wasn't shown on his Wikipedia page until I recently added it. This statistic, however, is included on Forte's stats page on ESPN: [1]. I would argue that any scoring statistic should be included in a player's stats. Omitting a scoring statistic simply because it is rare or a freak occurrence seems weird to me. It would be like not crediting Kareem Abdul-Jabbar with the 3 points the he scored on the one and only three pointer of his career since it was rare. Or not giving Babe Ruth credit for the home runs he hit in the early part of his career when he was primarily a pitcher because it is rare for pitchers to hit successfully. There seem to be several possible proposals here and I wanted to discuss the possibility of including the 2 point conversion as a career stat on NFL players' Wikipedia pages:

  • Do not include these because they occur so infrequently that to include them would be a waste of space (this seems to be the present practice, but I'd argue that they should be included, at least for some players)
  • Include this statistic only when a player has achieved some threshold number of 2 point conversions (maybe 3 or 4) in his career. This would have the benefit of giving the player credit when they've done this enough for it to be notable while not wasting space for the vast majority of players who haven't done this a significant number of times. My vote might be to include it with anyone with 3 or more 2 point conversions in their career. My reason would be that 3 two point conversions add up to 6 points--the equivalent of an additional touchdown--at which point I feels it ceases to be merely an asterisk and becomes a statistic.
  • Include it for all players on offense for whom rushing and receiving statistics are generally recorded (eg wide receivers, running backs, quarterbacks). This would be more complete but could be criticized as wasting space as many such players will only have 2, 1, or even zero such plays in their career.
  • Include it for all players, even on defense like Berry, because unusual plays like Berry's do occasionally happen. This is the most complete but would be even more criticized as wasting space.

Thoughts? My vote after thinking about it is that this statistic should be included for anyone with 3 or more two point conversions in their career on offense or defense (although unlikely anyone will ever do it 3 times on defense).Dash77 (talk) 20:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Erik Swoope[edit]

While watching the Colts–Jets game last night I heard that Erik Swoope never played football on any level prior to NFL. However, the infobox lists Miami football team as his college. Shouldn't we list the basketball team instead since various sources specifically state that he never been part of their football team? Or we should just list the university instead? – Sabbatino (talk) 15:09, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it should've and I've done it. Thanks for the heads up. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 15:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages[edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

Greetings WikiProject National Football League Members!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about a technical proposal to revive your Popular Pages list in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

If the above proposal gets in the Top 10 based on the votes, there is a high likelihood of this bot being restored so your project will again see monthly updates of popular pages.

Further, there are over 260 proposals in all to review and vote for, across many aspects of wikis.

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Best regards, SteviethemanDelivered: 18:04, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Watt shall we do[edit]

Requested move at Talk:J. J. Watt#Requested move 2 December 2016 to determine the ultimate fate of the universe. Lizard (talk) 04:47, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Recent change to player page[edit]

There is a discussion at Template talk:Infobox NFL biography in which you may be interested. UW Dawgs (talk) 13:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

List of NFL awards[edit]

I've started a draft for a list of NFL awards at User:Lizard the Wizard/NFL awards draft. I'm planning to base it off of List of Major League Baseball awards. If anyone would like to help in any way (especially by providing/suggesting sources), feel free. Lizard (talk) 19:33, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks good. Go for it man. Jdavi333 (talk) 22:31, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Requested move Infobox gridiron football person → Infobox CFL biography[edit]

See discussion at Template talk:Infobox gridiron football person#Requested move 17 December 2016. Lizard (talk) 04:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Ty Montgomery[edit]

Need some help here. Some IP has insanely spent the day removing running back from Ty Montgomery's article and intro.--Yankees10 00:32, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the page could use semi-protection. Lizard (talk) 00:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done for one month, which should last until his off-season unless they go deep in the playoffs. -- Tavix (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
@Tavix: Can you do Tom Savage (American football) as well? Needs protection ASAP and RFPP is running slow. Lizard (talk) 04:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
And Ezekiel Elliott as well. Pending changes is clearly insufficient, which shouldn't be a surprise considering the team he plays for. Lizard (talk) 04:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Speaking of Tavix, if you want something to do Lizard or anyone else, you can help with the User:Tavix/List of NFL players. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Category:Lists of players by National Football League team[edit]

Shouldn't theses list all be the same. Some of them different criteria. The most common criteria is at least one game played. Here are some examples of other criteria: the Panthers one says at least 32 games, the Redskins ones says at least five games and the Jets one doesn't include AFL. Also, some of them aren't formatted as an all-time list (Ex: List of Seattle Seahawks players). Thoughts? WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 04:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Why not just go by category? Oh yeh that's right, because we put players in team categories as soon as they're drafted, and they may never even play for the team. Oops. Lizard (talk) 05:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Do you think we should change the requirements for the player category. Some people might think its appropriate for football because some people could spent a good number of games on the active roster and never play in a game (53 man roster + practice squad). A backup QB could spend years with one team without playing. This would be pretty much impossible in NBA (13 man roster), MLB (25 man roster) or NHL (23 man roster), where probably every person whose on the roster during the season appears in at least one game. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
No, it's too late now. It wouldn't be worth the trouble of constantly reverting and explaining to people on draft day. Lizard (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, NBA teams have draft pick categories. Category:Atlanta Hawks draft picks. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:39, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Not replying to Lizard here, just showing more of the different criteria. The Bucs one includes active roster players that didn't play in a game. Also this from the Panthers one: "A player is considered to have played a game if they have been part of the team's 53-man active roster for that game". WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 21:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • This was a huge problem for me when I created User:Tavix/List of NFL players. I had created the list from those categories, and I had mistakenly assumed those categories only contained those who actually played a game. A solution I wanted to propose when that list is completed is to split those categories in two: one category for those who have played in at least one regular or post-season game and another category for those who have been on a roster but never played a game. A good example is McLeod Bethel-Thompson. He's been on several NFL rosters, but has never played a game. Nevertheless, he's categorized as a "player" for several teams, even though that's technically inaccurate. -- Tavix (talk) 21:44, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes. The only problem is there are players who don't fit in either of those categories. We add players to team categories immediately once they're drafted, before they're even signed by the team. If Wikipedia were around in 1936, Abe Mickal would be in Category:Detroit Lions players. Lizard (talk) 02:15, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
  • I've always thought it was done by contract, and not by them actually playing for the team. So using this, Elway shouldn't have "Indianapolis Colts players" as a category, but some player who only appeared on their practice squad for two weeks would, because they had to have signed a contract with them in order to be there. I think the other sports (MLB, NBA) require them to actually play in a game, but it's probably too large of a task to change how we do it for NFL players now. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:22, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Alternates are NOT Pro Bowlers... yet[edit]

Probably preaching to the choir here, but Pro Bowl alternates are only considered Pro Bowlers if they actually make it onto the Pro Bowl roster. Conversely, if an alternate declines his invitation, he is NOT considered a Pro Bowler. Lizard (talk) 16:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you on this.Some sources will blur these designations. For example, Brian Urlacher was a Pro Bowl Alternate during his rookie year. Both Pro-Football Reference and will state this was one of his 'eight' Pro Bowl selections. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  17:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
It was one of his eight Pro Bowls. He was an alternate who ended up being selected to the game. I think Lizard is talking about alternates who aren't actually named to the game. They're alternates but they only make the roster if someone else drops out or doesn't play due to injury. In Urlacher's case, he is listed as making the team because someone who was a starter or reserve didn't end up playing. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 01:44, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Yes, I should have specified I meant this year's Pro Bowl. The players who are currently listed as alternates for this upcoming Pro Bowl are not yet Pro Bowlers, and thus they shouldn't have it added to their infobox. Lizard (talk) 02:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Score format[edit]

Can we make it clear to everyone that the proper format for scores, regardless of win or loss is the same? It's winning score-losing score (i.e. 47-22). Lately I've been finding on some player articles that when it mentions a loss it lists it a (for example) 17-27 loss, which isn't the proper format. Not just here, but anywhere. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:17, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

Support winning score listed first. It's how it usually listed in most sources.—Bagumba (talk) 20:02, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Support I'll take your word for it, but I'll be honest, I usually do losing–winning if the subject of the article is on the losing side. Guess I've just been ignorant. Lizard (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Support Winning score is almost always listed first in sources. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  20:24, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Is there such a thing as Indifferent? Because aside from the the impact on season articles I'm fine with any change/consistency. In season articles I prefer the "relevant team first" format that is used. For example; in the Jaguars 2016 season article the scores of the Jaguars are always listed first, with the opposing score second. So if the Jags lose 20 points to 27 the score is 20-27. If they win 27 to 20 the score is 27-20. DragonFury (talk) 21:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@DragonFury: In season articles, I don't think any changes would be made to the schedule tables, but in prose, the winning score should always be written first, no exceptions. – PeeJay 21:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm a big stickler for consistency and standardization, but I probably won't go around flipping scores according to the outcome of this discussion. There's bigger dolphins to fry. Lizard (talk) 21:41, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I am not a big stickler for consistency and standardization, but I absolutely hate the 20-27 format, even in season article charts. If the proposal passes, I will gladly make the change in all Big Ten season article charts. Cbl62 (talk) 22:40, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard: "dolphins to fry"? You sick freak! lol. But seriously, I've never seen it written losing team first-winning team, anywhere. I've always seen winning-losing. But I also like how User:PeeJay2K3 said it below. lol. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 06:46, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't know why I ever did it, but I know I heard it from somewhere, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. I can tell you that there are definitely more than a few people who believe this is the correct way of doing it, so it isn't just a random error. Lizard (talk) 07:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, they're wrong. lol. :D Besides, it doesn't even roll off the tongue well. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 07:32, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I always just assumed it was an American thing, but perhaps it's more from continental Europe. – PeeJay 10:24, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: well if you watch ESPN, TSN, NFL Network, etc. you'll see the scores listed as winning score-losing score. Honestly, I've never seen it listed the opposite, ever in my life. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 10:59, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: It's not an European thing. For example, here they list as it is proposed. I assume it's an English-speaking world thing to list "team X lost 10–5 to team Y", because in other cultures it varies on the purpose of article (it can be the opposite that in my example). However, it can also be the way a reporter prefers and both variations are acceptable. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I said "continental Europe" for a reason, Sabbatino ;) I'm from the UK, so I'm familiar with Sky Sports, I just wondered if it was a thing that was more common in Germany or Italy. – PeeJay 13:49, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Oops. I somehow missed that part. Looked at German sources and looks like it's varying by the reporter's style. – Sabbatino (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Well, being here in the States, I've never seen it change. I figured since it's an American league, it would be common sense to list them the American way. lol. I mean, I know common sense is hard to come by in the world today, well that and the fact people so many times just assume and put them British, etc. date format for so many American articles. lol. :D (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 17:31, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Since I'm actually European I'd add some first hand experience: In soccer the standard is usually to list the home team first if there is no direct reference to who won the game. So if you see the sentence "Arsenal hosted Manchester United today. The score was 0-2." It's understood that Man U won by 2 goals to 0. Outside of that there is no real standard or agreement as long as is clear which score belonged to which team. So you could easily see the phrase "Manchester United went on the road, beating Arsenal 2-0" or "Arsenal lost their home game Manchester United, 2-0." The latter is somewhat rarer but still acceptable. DragonFury (talk) 21:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
That's what I expected. However, in the English-speaking world, we don't give scores in this way. We would always say, "Team X were away to Team Y today; the score was 2-0 to Team X" (emphasis added for clarity). Alternatively, we would construct the sentence some other way to avoid such ambiguity, but regardless of how the sentence is constructed, we always put the winning team's score first. – PeeJay 22:27, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm also European and in my country results are written in any way. It is related to the reporter and his POV. If his team lost then he'll write "Team X lost 10–15 to Team Y". If it's the other way around then it would be the opposite. Neutral person can write either way. – Sabbatino (talk) 12:53, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
1,000% support. I thought I was in the minority and have recently given in to what I consider heresy. I am pleased to support Underride's proposal. Cbl62 (talk) 22:37, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - It's simply not possible to win 20–27, or to lose 16–23. – PeeJay 23:00, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support per nomination. – Sabbatino (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment How would this format handle articles like 1993 Alabama Crimson Tide football team, where (due to forfeit rules in place at the time) Alabama actually is considered to have lost several games despite scoring more points? Even with the (forfeit) note I can see that getting confusing. TheCatalyst31 ReactionCreation 00:16, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    • Why would it be any different? The higher score would still be first. Lizard (talk) 00:36, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
      • It wouldn't be any different, but not for the reason Lizard mentioned. In results tables on team season articles, we always put that team's score first. The change proposed by this thread should only affect scorelines mentioned in prose, not tables. – PeeJay 09:59, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
        • Exactly. The tables would remain the same, visiting team on top, home team on bottom (for horizontal ones that is). In prose it would be winning score-losing score. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 10:35, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
          • When I say tables, I'm talking about the schedule tables that list all 17 games, not the box scores, but you're right, those wouldn't change either. – PeeJay 12:57, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
            • Of course I'm right, I'm always right. :D lmfao (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 13:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Support I'm pretty sure this is standard MOS for most (American) sports articles and websites, and it should also be enforced on Wikipedia. The only problem I have is that this will have to be manually maintained and fixed for all the incorrect uses, unless a bot is created (or exists already) that can assist with it. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 10:50, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
I have been correcting it where I can. I think I've identified the user that's been adding the incorrect format. I posted on their talk page about it and they ignored and removed my post, simply because of a disagreement we had previously. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 11:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
  • Comment Which is preferred, an endash, a hyphen, or "to", such as "a 17–14 score"; "a 17-14 score"; or "a 17 to 14 score"? Cake (talk) 18:02, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
    • An endash, per our (and any other) MOS. Lizard (talk) 18:07, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Personally, I wouldn't say "an X–Y score"; I would prefer the construction "a score of X–Y". But either way, an endash is preferred. – PeeJay 19:37, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
      • Specific MOS: MOS:ENDASHBagumba (talk) 19:47, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Support In any US newspaper, it will be listed as higher score first. Therefore, I think it should be higher score first in prose as well as tables. I can't believe there are so many NCAA football and basketball individual season articles that put lower score first in the schedule tables. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:42, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@X96lee15: well, in tables, (horizontal ones at least) the home team is on the bottom and visitors on top. I think in vertical ones it's guest on the left and home on the right. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 14:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
I guess these are the tables I'm referencing: 2015 UCF Knights football team#Schedule. These hurt me to look at. — X96lee15 (talk) 14:36, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, those are in the improper format. The ones I was referring too are below that one, for individual games, and the info box ones for single game articles. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 15:34, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
Support I, too, have never seen losing score first but on wikipedia. I admit I do it that way because I have had original changes corrected to that way, but I would happily reverse it. Lincolning (talk) 19:03, 5 January 2017 (UTC)


I'm an ignorant Limey with a taste for US Football. I know there's a great tradition for fake plays (that might be the wrong term) some of which go spectacularly wrong. I wondered if (m)any kickers had scored touchdowns or passed for touchdowns (I don't even know if either of these are/were once permitted under the rules). And if so, do we have an article on the subject? --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 10:53, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Occasionally it happens, but not often. Also, no, I don't think there's an article for it. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 12:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Trick play is what you're looking for. See the fake punt and fake field goal sections. Not sure trick plays by kickers warrants its own article though. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:52, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeh I don't think a list of touchdowns scored by kickers would be appropriate. Here is a specific one that occurred in a college game last year. As you can see, the holder passed the ball to the kicker who ran it in for a touchdown. Note how many times he bobbled it before he finally caught it; that's why plays like these are relatively rare. They come with a high risk since the players are asked to do things they normally don't do. Lizard (talk) 18:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
And what would the criteria for that list be? Would it have to come from a kicking formation or only list people who were primarily kickers. Because George Blanda was a kicker too. But yh, that list would have no chance of surviving, I'm just humoring myself. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I think it would have to be plays from a kicking formation where the kicker either passes or runs for the TD (or makes the reception in the exceedingly rare case where he catches a pass from the holder!). Also, I don't think it would include botched kicking plays, e.g. if Tony Romo had made it into the end zone on the play where he fumbled the hold against the Seahawks (although that was a PAT). – PeeJay 19:07, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
@PeeJay2K3: or Garo Yepremian. lol (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 19:44, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Los Angeles Chargers[edit]

So now that it's been made official, when do we start making changes here? I've already seen editors doing things like this. Isn't it a little too early? Lizard (talk) 16:31, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

The article is now at Los Angeles Chargers. If the move isn't approved by the NFL, it can always be moved back. - BilCat (talk) 16:36, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
That's not how Wikipedia works. Has the move actually happened? All I see is that it was announced. Lizard (talk) 16:38, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
At what point do you consider them "moved"? - BilCat (talk) 16:43, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Lizard (talk) 16:47, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
What are we gonna do with the player categories now. Is it gonna be called Category:Los Angeles Chargers (NFL) players. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 16:49, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
  • Yh, and the colors are wrong right now. On Rivers page, that is not the current team's colors, that's 1960. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:04, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Don't categories go by primary topic as well? If someone types in "Category:Los Angeles Chargers players" from now on they'll most likely be looking for the NFL Chargers, not the Chargers from back when they were in LA in the AFL for a year. Lizard (talk) 17:06, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
Yh, you're right. The current LA Chargers cat used to be at Los Angeles Chargers (AFL), so we could just move it back. Also, the current San Diego Chargers one doesn't say (NFL) and they played in the AFL too. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to add the San Diego Chargers' infobox to History of the San Diego Chargers (same thing as the Rams'), but someone removed the colors. Any idea where they can be re-added? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:42, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

No, but that article is atrocious (as are most team history articles). Lizard (talk) 17:45, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

50th anniversary of Super Bowl I[edit]

It's probably obvious and I'm just dumb, but how can this year be the 50th anniversary of the first Super Bowl when the upcoming Super Bowl is SB 51? I'm almost positive there wasn't a year that had 2 Super Bowls, so how are we a number ahead? Lizard (talk) 19:36, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Super Bowl I (1967) to Super Bowl II (1968), that's one year but two games played. People don't count the beginning. Using numbers as an example, Super Bowl I would be like 0 and Super Bowl II would be 1. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
Exactly. This year is Super Bowl 51, so 50 years ago would have been Super Bowl 1. Elementary, dear Lizard. – PeeJay 21:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I knew there was a reason, I was just too lazy to figure it out myself. It's Sunday. Lizard (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Chargers navbox[edit]

How should we handle navboxes of relocated franchises? Template:San Diego Chargers was recreated when Template:Los Angeles Chargers already exists. Presumably this is because things like the song "San Diego Super Chargers" are not considered relevant to the LA team now. There seems to be a lot of duplication. Thoughts on how to handle this?—Bagumba (talk) 18:29, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

There should only be one navbox, that song is still a part of the franchise's history. I'm boldly redirecting the San Diego one for now. WikiOriginal-9 (talk) 18:30, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, trash the San Diego navbox. Lizard (talk) 18:33, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Also might I suggest merging History of Los Angeles Chargers head coaches into List of Los Angeles Chargers head coaches. It's a very short article and I don't think we have any like it for other teams (but if we do, I'd suggest merging those as well). Lizard (talk) 18:37, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
@Lizard the Wizard: Agreed. WP:PRESERVE whatever is relevant (if anything) and redirect to the list.—Bagumba (talk) 10:31, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team has been nominated for discussion[edit]

Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team, which is within the scope of this WikiProject, has been nominated for renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Grondemar 07:22, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Bennie Fowler[edit]

Can we please get a shorter image or can someone re-size it so it's not so tall it goes down half the page? lol (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 18:21, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Is changing the parameter in the infobox not enough? – Sabbatino (talk) 18:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Yeah it is. I just wasn't sure what size to use. I always have trouble with that with images in infoboxes. (talk page stalker) CrashUnderride 19:08, 20 January 2017 (UTC)