Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject National Football League (Rated 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.
 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:

Broadcaster Lists in NFL pages[edit]

Bringing this here for common discussion separate from individual deletion discussions that are going on. BornonJune8 has a passion for broadcaster information. In some cases, this information is relevant and notable to the topic at hand. However, in most cases, in my opinion, listing out the broadcasters for various games falls under WP:INDISCRIMINATE. It isn't intrusive when added to an existing table, such as Bills Toronto Series. However, it's addition to articles like Green Bay Packers home games in Milwaukee (see this version before I reverted its addition) is definitely inappropriate, especially when we are talking about hundreds of entries for normal regular season games. I ask that there be some consensus here on the appropriateness of broadcaster information in NFL articles, as well as some assistance in enforcing whatever is decided here. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:16, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

In my mind, an article on a team's season has information about it's performance on the field and as a business. Broadcasters, aside from those employed by the team, are tangential and should be excluded. Since we're already discussing this, I'll raise the bar and say that "isn't intrusive" must not be mistaken for useful. Most of the time, the broadcaster info is not even sourced. Even assuming that it's at least verifiable, WP:ONUS says: ... all verifiable information need not be included in an article. Consensus may determine that certain information does not improve an article, and that it should be omitted ... As far as standalone broadcast team lists, an argument might be made that each networks historical #1 team might meet WP:LISTN, but I can't imagine that a network's entire roster of play-by-play/color pairings meets the guideline. But a general all-time list of a network's notable personnel is probably ok.—Bagumba (talk) 17:04, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Bagumba, well said and agree with you fully. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:14, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Ed Neal[edit]

A new editor is trying to add height and weight, and some flowery language. The infobox is currently showing an error for the height because they entered the units instead of just the numbers. Would someone understanding this topic please do a quick cleanup or a revert if bad sources. Johnuniq (talk) 22:55, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks like a bunch of test edits, I've reverted their changes and updated the infobox with other changes. Thanks for the notice. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:43, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Category for discussion notification[edit]

Hello, there is a category for discussion started for Category:American football dual-threat quarterbacks that you may be interested in here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:41, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Number of Pro Bowls as a means for importance assessment[edit]

Currently, this is how the number of Pro Bowls corresponds with importance assessment:

0-1: At least Low

2: At least Mid

3-6: At least High

7+: At least Top

PFR gives the following distribution of players:

0-1: 24680

2: 523

3-6: 815

7+: 193

Note that less people are in the "at least Mid" category than in the "at least High" category. In order to balance this out, I propose moving 1-time pro bowlers to mid-importance. This would result in the following distribution:

0: 23,570

1-2: 1633

3-6: 815

7+: 193

Further balance could be achieved by shifting 3s to mid-importance and 7s to high-importance. This would result in the following distribution:

0: 23,570

1-3: 2116

4-7: 546

8+: 130

Thoughts? 400spartans (talk) 18:08, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

  • We should avoid having any system that automatically qualifies an article for higher importance just based on stats alone, in my opinion. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:20, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    I dont see a problem using number of honors as a guideline. WP:IAR can always be used for exceptions. At any rate, it's just a rough grouping for a rating which probably doesnt have much widespread ramifications.—Bagumba (talk) 15:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    I generally agree, but it shouldn't be automatic. Other factors, such as the article's overall quality overall, should be in consideration too. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:54, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
    Dissident93, importance shouldn't be based on the quality of the article (that's why we have a separate quality rating). If an article is a stub, that doesn't change it's importance to a project. The first version of the article National Football League was probably a start-class quality rating, but that wouldn't change it's top-importance rating for WP:NFL.
All that said, I would be opposed to any large scale editing to talk pages to change importance levels. If the proposal is just to change the criteria itself, allowing for editors to naturally update the importance as articles are improved, I would think tenure would be a better indicator of importance, as Pro Bowls are so subjective and a poor litmus test for a player's importance. Don Hutson had only one more pro bowl than Fred Carr, however their importance to this WikiProject is significantly different. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
That's true, but generally one should expect a high importance stub article to not remain one for lengthy period of time. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 01:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Volunteers will write about what they want. Just look at the "importance" range among FA and GAs.—Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
Isn't that kind of the entire point of assessing article importance? It's to make it easier to find important articles that need improvement, in other words to ensure that high importance articles do not remain stubs. Surachit (talk) 23:39, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

PFF All-Rookie/Pro Teams[edit]

CatcherStorm (talk · contribs) has been adding Pro Football Focus All-Rookie honors to player's infoboxes, but I don't think this should not count for a proper award per WP:NFLINFOBOX. It's just a formatted list of their top rated players disguised as some real honor; we wouldn't add "PFF Top Rated Quarterback" to infoboxes, right? I just thought I'd start a discussion here in case my thinking is entirely wrong. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 11:18, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

It looks like the de facto standard has been to list PFWA All-Rookie Team. It seems reasonable, as the PFWA seems to get more mainstream, independent coverage.15:31, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
I know. PFWA is actually a curated list by a notable organization with notable members. PFF's list is just their proprietary ranking system re-formatted to look like a real All-Pro list. Putting the fact that a player was the top rated one at their position in the infobox (as an award/honor) would be the exact same thing, and yet that would get removed on sight. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Template:Cleveland Browns staff[edit]

Hello, there is a discussion at Template talk:Cleveland Browns staff about which positions on the staff should be included in the template, and you are invited to participate. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:36, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Official announcement or no?[edit]

I wanna get a set in stone rule here because I feel like there’s might be some inconsistencies. When it comes to player signings, coach hirings, and trades, should we wait until the “official announcement, which is similar to what NBA pages do, or is it ok to go ahead and makes when multiple reliable sources are reporting the transactions. I’ve always handled it as when multiple reliable sources are reporting the transaction and I know others have done the same thing but then I’ve recently come across editors that don’t follow this, one editor in particular @TheBigMan720: that is insistent we always have waited until the official announcement. I’m of course talking about all transactions that aren’t ones that have wait until the new league year to be official, and specifically in-season transactions and coach hirings.--Rockchalk717 03:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Additionally I feel like the arguments typically used in favor of waiting for an official announcement is due to one off scenarios that are very rare, like Josh McDaniels backing out of going to the Colts or Emmanuel Sanders being announced as agreeing to a contract with Chiefs but then singing with the Broncos.--Rockchalk717 04:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Nobody is ever going to complain about an edit that cites an official announcement. Any other edit before that is likely premature per WP:RSBREAKING. Is your question because you want to edit that a report is a done deal, or you are asking what you should do with other people's "unofficial" edits?—Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Well other editors do it on multiple Major League Baseball players and managers pages and admins usually end up protecting it before the official announcement. TheBigMan720 (talk) 04:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
The official NFL website is reporting it [1]. That's good enough. Lepricavark (talk) 04:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Apparently that's not good enough for our self-appointed arbiter of truth [2]. Who would have though it of someone who chooses the name 'TheBigMan'? Seriously, this is disruption and it needs to be stopped. Lepricavark (talk) 05:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Not disrupting anything here. That felt like a personal attack to me. I haven’t done anything wrong other than remove information that isn’t confirmed by the team themselves. Plus, the question is that is the announcement official from the team themselves like the Panthers announced officially from their social media pages that the hiring of Matt Rhule is official. Thats what nobody gets here in my opinion. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

My question is if we have multiple sources considered reliable (my go to is and usually then I do a google search of the player or coach to see how many sources are reporting it) are reporting any transaction (excluding the ones that can’t be processed until the new league year) should we go ahead and edit. I get not waiting for the moment Ian Rapoport or Adam Schefter was reporting something to edit it, but once we see a consistency of the same information, editing the page.--Rockchalk717 05:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I’m with TheBigMan720 on that being a personal attack. That comment seems extremely unnecessary.--Rockchalk717 05:08, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
And I feel like it's a slap in the face to our community that the editor insists on reverting everyone who disagrees with him. It's extremely disrespectful to just revert, revert, revert and ignore what everyone else has to say. But in the interest of not letting the discussion get sidetracked, I'll strike the offending remark. Lepricavark (talk) 05:12, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I rely on the official team website or the social media pages. I already said this once and I'll say it again, but coaches can back out of a deal regardless is if its finalized by a team. I don't know why this is a big issue when I got away with this multiple times in the past with other coaches reports to a new team signing. This is getting ridiculous. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, just kind of a back story to what prompted this, I’ve had issues with TheBigMan720 regarding specifically Mike McCarthy to the Cowboys and Matt Judge to the Giants. I edited the pages as soon as I saw that multiple reliable sources were reporting the hiring, and then BigMan reverts the edits claiming waiting until an official announcement, which as far as I knew, waiting until the team announces any transaction has never been what we did.--Rockchalk717 05:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Thanks for the backgrund. Was there any discussion back then? Or is this here the first?—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Again your argument against doing it is based off something that is actually extremely rare. Sometimes they even back out after the official announcement (Bill Belichick). Other than Josh McDaniels and Bill Belichick I am having trouble coming up with a single other instance of a coach backing out.--Rockchalk717 05:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Maybe who knows. But look I'm being nice and cordial with you guys and I don't want to get mean with you as well but I revert for a good reason, I check the official website of the team and social media pages before stupid unregistered users starts messing with the page before the official announcement. One admin Muboshgu always waits for the official announcement on Major League Baseball players and coaches page and he protects it sometimes. Again I'm not here to slap anyone in the face but just to friendly edit here on wikipedia thats all. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:20, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I never had issues with other editors when I edited Ron Rivera to the Redskins until the official announcement has been made by the Redskins themselves. Now all the sudden it's a problem when I edit Mike McCarthy (Cowboys already announced the hiring earlier today) and Matt Judge pages. I clearly don't understand why some editors need to jump the gun to rely on some sources that aren't reliable? Help me understand here. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
You don't think the NFL's website is a reliable source? Lepricavark (talk) 05:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I believe the NFL's website is a reliable source when it says "official" off their page of the coaches hiring. Now, I don't know if you guys have Instagram or Facebook but I seen the post by the NFL that say Official when Matt Rhule and Mike McCarthy is hired by their respective teams that's what I go by. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
This is unbelievable. Lepricavark (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@TheBigMan720: Consider that even in the best case, consensus can change.—Bagumba (talk) 05:40, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I am to. And if anything I’ve said has made you think otherwise I sincerely apologize. It was not my intent. My view point may have its flaws and it isn’t perfect, but yours has its flaws too. I haven’t mentioned it yet but another reason why I handle it the way I do is because i prevents the never ending cycle with IPs and inexperienced editors. Here’s a compromise, and @Bagumba: tell me what you think about this. What if we go ahead and edit, but use {{Current sports transaction}} tag on it? Doing this is similar to the “recent death” tag. It goes ahead and allows the article to be updated, but let’s readers know “hey this info may change at any moment”.--Rockchalk717 05:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I can agree with that and if that apology was towards me, I accept it Rockchalk. I don't blame you about the inexperience editors thing it annoys me too. I am sorry about going off about the Mike McCarthy thing earlier in the week. Now when the official announcement has been made I'm gone I never edit that page again I move on with other stuff in real life or checking other pages to see if their is any vandalism sometimes. TheBigMan720 (talk) 05:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
It absolutely was directed at you.--Rockchalk717 05:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay and I'm sorry about the Mike McCarthy edits and Terrell Suggs edits in the past plus going off on you in the 2020 NFL season talk page. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:01, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(General cmt, and somewhat of a response to @Rockchalk717 ping) First of all, there is the essay WP:SPORTSTRANS. Have a look (or a reread). Regarding IP/new editors, the main problem is it's usually unsourced. If you don't think they've signed or it's unreliable, you can revert and warn them with {{uw-sportstrans}}. Ask for page protection at WP:RPP if it's widespread.—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I sure did that Bagumba, I requested a page protection on 2020 New York Giants season and the editor who insulted my user name said ( this) for no apparently reason. I haven't done anything wrong on Wikipedia to get me banned or something I just want to edit that's all. Some editors don't get the point. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:15, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I was providing context with regards to your conduct and the inaccuracy contained within your report. And yes, you have done something wrong. You have violated WP:3RR repeatedly. Also, nobody is trying to get you banned. Lepricavark (talk) 06:23, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of {{Current sports transaction}}: In NBA, I generally only see it added when reverting unofficial news, or unofficial news was already in article. I can't recall the same person changing the lead and inbox and also adding the tag. Basically, the tag says "other people might add unreliable stuff, or this article might be out of date", not "I've added stuff that's not 100%".—Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Okay I seen you on the NBA pages you are a good editor. I will take your advice sir or ma'am. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Bagumba: So just to be clear, in the instance Joe Judge for example, if we have multiple reliable sources reporting that (in this example) he will be the next head coach of the New York Giants, are we ok to make the page reflect this. Additionally, does the same apply to player signings (again, excluding those that can’t be completed until the new league year)?--Rockchalk717 06:25, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
If you go to the Giants website, You can see as of right now, they say on the front page that "Giants interview Patriots' Joe Judge for head coach position". Nothing else says that he is hired by the Giants. Here is the proof if you want to see at TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:31, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: See my cmts below.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I guess the page you referred to somewhat answers that. @TheBigMan720: The essay Bagumba has referred us to says “A transaction can be considered official if sources report it as completed and attribute it to a reputable league or team official.“ Don’t take this the wrong way, but the pretty much echos what I’ve been saying all along. Look at Ian Rapoport’s tweet regarding it, he says a league source had informed of it. Adam Schefter used similar wording in his tweet announcing it. Based on what that essay says, it is ok to update the article.--Rockchalk717 06:34, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
If Belichick talks him out of it like he did Josh McDaniels then we can change the article back.--Rockchalk717 06:36, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I get your point but personally, I don't trust Rapaport after he reported the Antonio Brown trade to the Bills a year ago and Brown never ended up on the Bills and I don't know why. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Rockchalk717: WP:RSBREAKING alludes that anonymous sources (not specifically named e.g. generic "league source", "person with knowledge") are less reliable.—Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
You all can build your own local consensus within the project. My arguments are more what I see done in the NBA (and probably MLB). If you choose to be looser, however, it's a fair discussion if someone later comes in with a stricter view.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I looked at sources from the two diffs above. First of all, I'm not that active on NFL and dont plan to edit regarding this news on Judge. In this source on Judge, it says " Giants responded by agreeing to hire Patriots special teams coordinator and wide receivers coach Joe Judge" That doesn't say he's signed (past tense). I can agree to terms on buying a car, but it's different than saying I own the car yet. In this source, the text says "The Giants are in the process of hiring ...", while the headline is click-baity "Giants hire Patriots’ Joe Judge as head coach". Generally, the text is more reliable than the headline. Jounalism standards are changing. Lot's of online sources want to draw viewers, use amateur contributors and not paid staff, and tend to be looses and write things as done deals. There are still sources that are careful to say "agree to terms", "according to league sources" etc. to hint that it's not a signed deal yet. Likely, legacy newspapers, ESPN, or the team itself.—Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you @Bagumba. TheBigMan720 (talk) 06:50, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

So in the end, it appears the end result, if there are sources saying a contract is signed (Like with Mike McCarthy or Matt Rhule) that’s fine. But as with Judge, there is no report stating he’s signed or mentioning anything about a contract.--Rockchalk717 06:55, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Here's what I personally do. I don't add it unless I think the team (sometimes player) actually annouced it. I don't rely on SBNation, Bleacher Report and the like; if it's really a done deal, more reputable sources are out there. I delete/revert depending on my energy level.—Bagumba (talk) 07:04, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I rely on the team's Twitter account most of the time because it has a blue check mark meaning its verified account. TheBigMan720 (talk) 07:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

We all have personal opinions on it. I’ll be a little more careful as to what I take is reliable, instead of the first report, I’ll wait til I see contract info. If there’s contract info, it usually is legit. The only thing I ask of you BigMan going forward, when you see me doing this, don’t revert. Especially if it’s been sourced. That’s how this all began. I usually stay away from bleacher report and SB Nation as well. About the only time I use SB nation is under their Arrowhead Pride site (since I’m a Chiefs fan) if they’ve posted a practice squad transaction since those aren’t always announced by the team.--Rockchalk717 07:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

No what started all this, Rockchalk that you decided intervene with my edits (which you have the right to, you didn't have too). I never contacted you (Except the Terrell Suggs situation) nor never revert your edits at anytime. TheBigMan720 (talk) 09:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

@Rockchalk717 and TheBigMan720: This is the wrong site to be at if you don't want your edits changed by someone. It says it right there everytime we press edit: Work submitted to Wikipedia can be edited ... Maybe you really missed something, maybe the other person was misinformed. Assume good faith, discuss it, and reach an understanding. It's usually not a conduct issue. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 10:54, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Looks like he’s the one taking greater offense to it then me. I reached out to you on the Terrell Suggs situation to explain my side and why I was doing what I was doing. That’s what you’re supposed to do. I wasn’t intervening. With the Mike McCarthy situation you kept saying wait for the official announcement. I provided a source to you stating he had already signed a contract, which based on this discussion is ok. If you personally want to wait for an official announcement from the team that’s all on you, but if another editor provides proof the player or coach has signed a contract, just leave it alone. I’m out of this discussion and I hope you understand how to handle this going forward.--Rockchalk717 17:49, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I won't try to fight Bagumba with regard to the article content (although I respectfully disagree), but I do consider it very unfortunate that an editor was allowed to essentially win a content dispute by simply reverting until everyone else stopped out of respect for the three-revert rule. That's not okay and it better not happen again. And remarks like this one, even if they were reverted, suggest that TheBigMan720 simply refuses to get it and is going to be very difficult for any editor to work with in the future. This is a collaborative project and you cannot just endlessly revert other editors and then dismiss them as liars. Moreover, I am bothered by TBM720's assumption that he, a relatively new editor, knows more about how Wikipedia works than a long-term veteran like Rockchalk. None of this bodes well for the future. Lepricavark (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay well I owe Rockchalk and Lepricavark a sincere apology for my actions. I'm sorry this won't happen again. I know I'm a new editor but I'm just trying to help out Wikipedia the best I can. TheBigMan720 (talk) 22:00, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
I accept your apology and extend my own apology for the personal attack that I made above. Lepricavark (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
This was quite an interesting back and forth. It, however, is super simple (in my opinion, at least). If multiple, reliable sources are reporting something, than it should be added/updated on Wikipedia. Other than determining a source's reliability, Wikipedia editors aren't meant to decipher the underlying reality of a fact (i.e. when is a head coach actually a head coach). Even in the Josh McDaniels case, he was widely reported as the new coach of the Colts, but then backed out. It wasn't misleading and didn't hurt our readers for McDaniels' page to reflect the reported reality of the situation. It was then quickly reverted back once he backed out, again because reliable sources reported he had done so. That's how Wikipedia works! We are only as good as our reliable sources! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:21, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: If you missed it, take a look at analysis of some Judge sources at this diff. It boils down to the project agreeing on what sources are reliable, and avoiding WP:OR on those agreed upon sources. It would be more efficient if members here could come to a rough consensus on the general ground rules, instead of clashing and rehashing at every transaction. At no point is edit warring, incivility, or assuming bad faith acceptable. There also seems to be an unnecessary debate over who started it, or who was worse. It's more important to agree going forward than to harp on the blame game. —Bagumba (talk) 01:35, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Bagumba, thanks. I was mostly commenting on how a relatively simple situation got overly complicated. If posts something, it will assuredly become widely reported by others sources. The idea that Joe Judge was hired by the Giants was clearly supported by numerous reliable sources. The dispute seemed to center on waiting for an "official" announcement from the team, with the claim that without this announcement (even in the face of reliable sources saying otherwise), the coach hadn't technically been hired. This isn't true. If, for example, Fox, NBC, and ESPN all report something independently of each other, we must take that at face value and make the necessary changes on Wikipedia, regardless of whether there has been an "official" announcement. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:43, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: I don't get caught up in "official" so much as 1) being aware of WP:RSBREAKING 2) is source saying "signed"—past tense—as opposed to "agreed to terms", "will sign", "in the process of signing" etc., and 3) has a named source—not anonymous "team source", "person with knowledge", etc—spoken on the record. Most people might say "official" because it's concrete and not subjective re: which source is reliable, how many is enough, did we wait long enough, etc.—Bagumba (talk) 17:20, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind with unconfirmed reporting based on anonymous sources: generally speaking, people don't leak to just one media outlet—they leak to all of them. So reports from multiple media sources might all trace back to one leak. Back in the day, the press would look for multiple sources before publishing, but in today's instant news world, they'll often run with just one source. Waiting for official reports or at least non-anonymous sources is a safer bet, particularly since English Wikipedia is not a place for breaking news. isaacl (talk) 06:19, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
And this is different than relying on anonymous sources on some issue in Congress, which may be accepted as truth over time. All transactions in the NFL will be announced, and there should be no rush here.—Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
@Lepricavark: You and I never fight. I'm not a regular NFL editor, esp w/ transactions, so it's more important that the active editors agree on how to handle this. Rockchalk asked for my opinion on his proposal, so I threw out an essay, guideline WP:RSBREAKING, and advice on how NBA (and probably MLB) do it, along with my own personal practices. It's up to the project to come to their own common understanding. But if a new person comes along and questions something that might not conform to general WP policies and guidelines, that local consensus needs to be discussed again. Reverts aren't how disputes should be solved; discuss and reach a consensus ((WP:DR). Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 04:32, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Edge rusher[edit]

I came across this redirect recently. With the expansion of the EDGE position into a full-time position on the same scale as DL and DE, this seems like a good opportunity for an article. Just wanted to bring it up here to see if anyone would want to work on it. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:47, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

  • I wish we could somehow use this as an official position for players, especially because of 3-4/4-3 roles misleading people. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:26, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
    • Dissident93, it's already used as such, see Chase Young. That's one of the reasons I thought it would be good to separate this position out from its current redirect to defensive end. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:06, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
      • @Gonzo fan2007: I'm aware, but I meant for here on Wiki. It's not an official position, but it's being used more and more by sources to describe the pure pass rushing role regardless of defensive scheme. DE and OLB in 3-4 and 4-3 are two different things, and thus a reader who isn't already aware of this is likely to be confused or mislead. The only issue I have with this is how do we actually implement this? We can't just override official positions (I.E., Chase Young is an American football edge rusher/EDGE for the Ohio State Buckeyes), so where exactly would it go? I have zero opposition to it being its own article though. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 22:38, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Use of "present" in coach and executive navboxes[edit]

User:Dissident93 has recently made a series of edits to introduce the use of "present" in navboxes for NFL coaches and executives, e.g. Template:Pittsburgh Steelers coach navbox and Template:Pittsburgh Steelers general manager navbox. The standard that has prevailed for the past several years—not only for such NFL navboxes, but for over 1,000 such navboxes across pro and college sports in North America and beyond—is to omit such usage of "present" in the current title-holder's tenure. This formatting goes back to the origination of such navboxes with parenthetical years of tenure developed first for college football coaches, circa 2010 at Wikipedia:WikiProject College football. On my talk page, Dissident93 has argued that this standard for sports navboxes contravenes such standards elsewhere across the encyclopedia, e.g. business and politics. However, I haven't found any analogous examples of navboxes displaying chronological series of office holders with parenthetical years, where "present" is used. Template:Boris Johnson and Template:Donald Trump do use "present", but are a bit of a different animal. Analogous navoxes for political office holders appear to omit years of tenure entirely, e.g. Template:Governors of New York, Template:Heads of state of France. Navboxes for university presidents do contain years, but omit "present" in line with the sports navboxes, e.g. Template:Harvard University presidents. For the sake of consistency, the NFL navboxes should align with other sports navboxes, whether "present" is used for all of them or not. With simplicity and required workload in mind, I recommend we remove "present" from the 60 or so NFL navboxes in question rather than convert the other 1,000+. I tried to do as much with the NFL coach navboxes last night, but was reverted by Dissident93. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

MOS:DATETOPRES says: Do not use incomplete-looking constructions such as 1982– and 1982–... .Bagumba (talk) 00:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I agree with that point of style for articles. But does this apply to navboxes? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:58, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That MOS calls out tables and infoboxes as well. How are navboxes inherently different?—Bagumba (talk) 01:12, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
That MOS is generally aimed at "articles" of which tables and specific instances of an infobox are a constituent part. A navbox is a bit of different animal, in that is a separate structure that appears on many articles. That MOS often calls out tables and infoboxes to allow for space-saving exceptions to the general style used for prose. I believe that the main rationale for omitting "present" in these navboxes back when they were first developed was a concern about space/clutter. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:25, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
The MOS offers ... where space is limited, pres. may be used (1982–pres.).Bagumba (talk) 01:44, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
I wasn't even aware of MOS:DATETOPRES, so now there's a MOS guideline for why we should be using this. And I don't even see how seven extra digits could really cause any more clutter. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:52, 15 January 2020 (UTC)