Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 →

(untitled)

I have just started this WikiProject based on the standards that I myself have followed when contributing to the NFL articles. However, it is definitely not complete since I have not really been focusing on the playes, coaches, defunct teams, or the Pro Bowl. Feel free to contribute. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Good idea for a Wikiproject. Flag of the United States.svg Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:56 (UTC)
Eventually I hope to write season-by-season franchise histories for every team. I got the AFC East done several months ago, and just finished the Pittsburgh Steelers tonight. I probably left out some details here and there (and put too many in in other places), but this should be good enough as a base to work with. Kirjtc2 6 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

format for team pages

I am very glad this wikiproject is underway. One of the first issues I want to bring up is a feature of the current format for team pages posted on the wikiproject page. This is something I noticed and spurred me to want to create some sort of standard for NFL articles. One of the sections is for "Current players". It used to be called "Current stars" but I changed it because I felt it was too subjective - there were plenty of players listed who were definitely not stars (just-drafted rookies for instance). The problem now is that there seems to be no standard for who is listed under current players. The Packers article, for instance, lists every player on the team roster, including all sorts of undrafted free agents and CFL retreads, even though only a fraction of this bunch have their own articles. The Browns article, on the other hand, lists 11 players in this section.

I propose a general guideline for this section in team articles.

  • All players that have articles in wikipedia should be listed
  • All players who are starters (24 including kicker and punter) should be listed
  • Any players who are not "official" starters but get significant playing time should be listed - for example, most defensive lines employ a heavy rotation that can often lead to seven or eight linemen getting playing time on the field.
  • Any notable rookies (first round draft choices for the most part) should be listed.

These are quite broad guidelines that should satisfy all while keeping the list of "current players" encyclopedic. I am guessing that with such criteria about 30-35 players from each team will be listed among "current players."--Sophitus July 5, 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Yes, the formats are quite broad because there are so many users making various additions that I did not decide on a specific format yet. I do think we should have a seperate list for the just the starters.
Another idea I have based on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format is to have a table of each team's season-by-season record. In fact, I have been working on some tables at User:Zzyzx11/Sandbox/A and User:Zzyzx11/Sandbox/N. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)
There is also an ongoing issue for listing team stars that did not make the NFL Hall of Fame or the team's Hall of Fame. I personally feel that if a person didn't even make their own team's Hall of Fame, they are of little note. But, referring to them as "Not to be Forgotten" sounds very dreary to me. I prefer something along the lines of "Past Stars". Kainaw 5 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)
Season-by-season record tables is a fantastic idea and I agree that "Past Stars" is better than "not to be forgotten". Ultimately, which players make such lists as "past stars" or "current players" will be somewhat POV. I don't think there is any way to avoid this without just including everyone, which is clearly not encyclopedic. I think that as long as we assume good faith edits and make sure there are no obviously not notable players, we can maintain good lists. If there are no objections, I will begin editing the "current players" sections of team articles according to the criteria I have listed above.--Sophitus July 5, 2005 21:15 (UTC)
I think season-by-season records should either be in sub-pages of main articles or not included at all. My two reasons for this are: 1 - Some teams (like the Bears) have been around for more than 80 years. A grid of year-by-year records would just be too unwieldy. 2 - Such a list already exists on the excellent http://www.pro-football-reference.com/. --Cholmes75 15:56, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

"Main rivals" list

  • An anonymous user has entered a "Main rivals" list on all of the team articles. Personally, I find such a list a little POV. But should we keep it or not? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
    • I saw we should keep it. It is POV, but the entries are mainly accurate and the information is relevant.--Sophitus July 5, 2005 21:19 (UTC)
I disagree. It is POV, and rivals change over time. Perhaps it it was called "historic rivals" or "traditional rivals" that would make a little more sense. --mtz206 July 5, 2005 23:44 (UTC)
Yes, it is POV. I say get rid of it. For example on the Kansas City Chiefs, "Main Rivals: Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers" I can somewhat understand you have to list their AFC West division rivals but that is redundant information. In addition, the NFC competitors Rams and the 49ers are hardly their main rivals consider they only play them every 4 years or so. And why are the 49ers listed? Because of Joe Montana? --Krystyn Dominik 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)
I agree with removing it. My first guess would be that 99% of the 'rivals' are the other 3 division teams. Beyond that, there are minor rivals that are brought out to give the announcers something to talk about - or just to try and sound cool, like "The battle of the Bays". Since when has Green Bay been all that worried about Tampa Bay? I agree that there are some bitter rivals. Using the KC example above, the primary rival was the Raiders for many years. In the 80s, it became the Broncos. Currently, I think there is more bad blood with the Broncos than any other team, but it isn't like it was when Elway was there and KC had, who... Elvis? Kainaw 6 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)
Team rivals change so often, based on who's hot at the moment. I'm a Patriots fan, and if you asked me ten years ago who our biggest rival was I'd say the Dolphins. Five years ago I'd probably say the Jets. Now? Probably the Colts or Steelers. I feel people would overlook editing a list like this when rivals change like that. I say remove it. Kirjtc2 6 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)
Alright, I've been convinced. "Main Rivals" is a subject too fleeting to properly include in articles. But how about "traditional rivals" as suggested by Mtz206 above. Taking a cue from Significant rivalries in the NFL, "traditional rivals" would include rivalries that are constant and unchanging. Thus, the Packers traditional rivals would be Chicago and Dallas, while the Washington's would be the Cowboys and Giants. This may not be the best proposal, but I put it out there for consideration before we go about deleting the "rivals" section from each team page.--Sophitus July 6, 2005 04:35 (UTC)
  • So, umm ... is there any consensus on this issue? May I go around deleting the rivals section, or are we keeping them, or do we need more debate?--Sophitus 22:07, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
I think it is clear here that there is one 'vote' for keeping it and five 'votes' for deleting it. So, I feel it is safe to delete. Also, since this is Wiki, it can easily be reverted if there's a massive wave of complaints. Kainaw 22:53, 14 July 2005 (UTC)
Mark me the first to complain. I agree it is fairly POV, but surely there is room for Historic rivalries. Chicago and Green Bay, for instance. Also, wouldn't a head coach list be appropriate to fit somewhere in the standard structure, like I added (before seeing this initiative) to Chicago Bears? --Gunmetal 18:47, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
I feel that we are discussing two topics. I am all for deleting the "Main Rivals" section listed on all the NFL pages. The section consists mainly of the teams that in the same division. So, it is merely a division list and possibly another team.
As you point out, some teams have history rivals. There are two words there "historic" and "rivals". It could go under a "rivals" section, or under the "history" section. I personally feel it fits well in the history section. For example, if I were to add the 70's to the Chiefs page, I would have to add a lot about the Chiefs/Raider rivalry. Then, in the 80's, it is all about Chiefs/Broncos. By adding it to the history, you get the side benefit of putting the history rivalries in context. Kainaw 18:57, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
It took a while, but I was convinced, and the main rivals sections are now gone. For the record, despite my earlier comments, I agree with kainaw above that these sections were basically listings of division rivals. Gunmetal does make a separate point, however, regarding coaches. I think all team pages should have a list of head coaches.--Sophitus 19:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

Head coach list

Pulled from comments from Gunmetal and Sophitus above, a Head Coach list is a good idea. It goes along with mentioning the past players. There is the option of simply making a list of coaches or breaking up the history section by coaching eras. It is normal in NFL terms to refer to a team's history by the eras of each coach. Kainaw 19:18, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I like the idea of a coach list, as some coaches have had short or unnoteable tenures that could unnecesarilly bloat the history section, should they need to be included. Perhaps a simple list, with the years in the position, and maybe overall W/L? --Gunmetal 19:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Agreed. I don't think the history section should be divided by coaches' tenures for the reason Gunmetal mentions above and also because some eras are notable for other people - for example, the Favre era, not the Holmgren/Rhodes/Sherman era. One more question, if we mention the coaches' overall W/L, will this include playoff games or just regular season?--Sophitus 21:11, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • I'd recommend doing the regular season W/L after the coaches name, and the playoffs in parentheses, as not all coaches have coached a playoff team, nor have all teams done well in the playoffs. Anthony 23:34, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
      • However, on all of the sources I know, both online and offline, they only list overall W-L records. Unless you can find a source that list both regular season and playoff records seperately, I guess we are stuck. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 03:00, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Team names

I agree with the 20xx-yy format for playoff games. Also, I feel that there should a format for team names. Over time, teams change cities and names. Because the team page is listed under the current name, it is often easier to use the current name instead of the name of the team when an event occured. For example, the KC Chiefs played their first game at Arrowhead against the StL Cardinals. If you used Arizona Cardinals, it would lose the information that both teams were from Missouri. If you just used St. Louis, someone might think it was the StL Rams. So, I feel that whenever a team name is used, it should be the team name at the time of the event, but link to the current team page (unless there are pages for the team in earlier forms). Kainaw 5 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

  • Oops, I forgot to mention that in the naming conventions because that is what I have been doing all along. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Player numbers

What about player numbers? Player names are often tied to specific numbers, especially active players. Knowing the player's numbers makes it easy to pick out players on a field. At least on the 'current players' list, the players could be listed as: Priest Holmes (31) RB. On a completely different topic, the NFL page doesn't explain the player numbering system and I can't fill it in because I don't know the exact cutoffs. I do know that a player number of 12 or less is a quarterback or kicker and a number higher than 90 is a lineman. That's about it. I've always wanted to know the exact number ranges for all positions. Kainaw 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

The number ranges would be a good thing to add to the NFL article. I don't know it all off the top of my head, but I can remember some numbers. For example, all offensive linemen wear numbers between 50 and 79. However, I don't think we should list numbers alongside players (with the exception of retired numbers). Players' numbers change all the time and it would be difficult to continually update lists, not to mention that for the most part such information is not encyclopedic.--Sophitus July 7, 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Per NFL Rule 5, Section 1, Article 4:

  • "...numerals must be by playing position as follows: quarterbacks, punters, and placekickers, 1-19 (and 10-19 for wide receivers if 80-89 are all otherwise assigned); running backs and defensive backs, 20-49; centers, 50-59 (60-79 if 50-59 unavailable); offensive guards and tackles, 60-79; wide receivers and tight ends, 80-89; defensive lineman, 60-79 (90-99 if 60-79 unavailable); and linebackers 50-59 (90-99 if 50-59 unavailable)."

Is it the consensus that this is includeable in the NFL article? --Gunmetal 19:05, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Sounds good to me, this deserves a small place in the NFL article.--Sophitus 19:12, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that is needed. I looked at the NFL article, and I think that this will fit best by taking the "Rules named after players" section and making it a subsection of "NFL Rules". Also under "NFL Rules", add the official numbering system, rules about challenging a play, and other NFL-specific football rules. That will allow us to put NFL rules on the NFL page instead of putting them on the American Football page with a note that they only apply to the NFL. Kainaw 19:14, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Antwaan Randle ...?

Does anybody know the correct spelling of Antwaan Randle El's name. The title of the wikipedia article on him is Antwaan Randle-El, but he is referred to in that article as Antwaan Randle El, without a hyphen. Anybody know the correct way?--Sophitus July 7, 2005 22:11 (UTC)

  • NFL.com lists it as "Antwaan Randle El". [1] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
    • Therefore, I moved it to that title. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 7 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Template:NFL

I was thinking about changing Template:NFL to sort the teams by divisions similar to what Template:NBAteams does (except without the logos). Any thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm on....a dial-up Internet connection and it takes a while to load those PNG images. I'm against it. :-P There's nothing wrong with the current Template:NFL setup. It loads fast and easily viewable. --Krystyn Dominik 00:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Argh, I didn't read carefully. I don't mind if you change the look of the tables similar to the NBA's. --Krystyn Dominik 00:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

player articles

I have finished editing the "current players" section for all team articles. I listed all starters as well as other significant contributors, and famous rookies and veterans. Most teams have around 25-35 players listed under this section, which I believe is comprehensive without straying far from what information is encyclopedic.

One thing I noticed while going through the team articles is the abyssmal state of many article on specific players. Many of them are poorly constructed, contain irrelevant information, have terrible grammar and construction, are far too short, and generally represent a poor side of wikipedia.

I have done some editing and revising of these, but it is an immense task. I hope that others will join me. The best strategy is to just go to team pages, look for the "current players" section and go through the blue links until you find an article that is in urgent need of editing. You can also choose some significant players who are redlinked and need to have an article started about them. --Sophitus 22:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

  • I agree with your suggestions. Is there like an "official" infobox or template for the Player Pages? It seems like some people have already started their own infobox on Wikipedia's NFL bio articles e.g., John Elway, Joe Montana, etc., It would be nice if there is consensus what the infobox should look like and contain. --Krystyn Dominik 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Maybe we should just pick an existing infobox template that looks good and go with that. I have some Oakland Raiders player pages I'd like to start. --Cholmes75 03:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
    • On second thought, a new template might be in order. The one used for Marino and Elway has a listing for Hall of Fame. That certainly doesn't apply to most players. We need a more generic one, and one that can be used for older players. --Cholmes75 13:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
      • If I can make a suggestion as a somewhat interested onlooker, checkout the WikiProject Beer's brewery box. It lets a template have consistent look and feel, while being flexable enough to account for the fact that not all breweries have the same information to present in a box (number of beers being produced, etc.). Gentgeen 00:37, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro Bowl

Well, Rick Block and I have been working on the 2005 Pro Bowl article, so if you're looking for a Pro Bowl template, I think Rick's got one on his user page. I overhauled the Carolina Panthers article, and any player who was, is, or will be on the Panthers is within my coverage, and I'll be more than helpful to assist in any way possible. Lemme know what I can do, I'll help lead the way, since I've already done quite a bit of work on the football section myself. Anthony 01:17, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

2005 Pro Bowl looks good, now maybe we can get a little bit more about the game in the opening section and the logo, or maybe just a picture of the stadium. Phoenix2 16:54, July 15, 2005 (UTC)
I added a logo to the page, feel free to manipulate as you see fit. --Cholmes75 17:43, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Thanks for the logo, I was wondering if there was any way to do an Infobox like there is for the Super Bowl... I tried using the Super Bowl one, but it's got more things than we'd have use for. Is there any way to slightly alter the Super Bowl one and save it for use on all the Pro Bowl pages? Also, I'll get around to adding a more detailed summary of the game in a few days (I've been majorly busy with work and haven't had a lot of time to contribute). Anthony 18:16, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Photos and graphics

Before I had seen this project I was adding photos to the Oakland Raiders page. I think they just make the page look nicer and not so dry. I can, however, see the inherent dangers of allowing photos. So is this acceptable? Are graphics allowed, with guidelines and standards, or not? --Cholmes75 15:50, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Looking at the photos you added on Oakland Raiders, they are borderline fair use and thus it would be better if you put them on the articles of those respective players. Remember to follow the image use policy. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 16:30, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
  • OK, I'll take them off the main page. --Cholmes75 17:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

NFL champions

Has anyone started the list of pre-Super Bowl NFL champions? If not I'd like to "tackle" it.  : ) --Cholmes75 17:35, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Since I'm impatient I went ahead and started one anyway. All I've done so far is to modify the existing page for Super Bowl champions. Once the tables are filled in the rest should come easily. I haven't really touched much else on the page yet. Please let me know what you think so far. Here's the link - User:Cholmes75/SandboxA --Cholmes75 20:21, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Looks good thus far, I'll be making edits to it. Phoenix2 23:18, July 18, 2005 (UTC)
Yeah, great work. Go ahead and launch it as a new article.--Sophitus 00:16, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

OK, the article has been launched. It's at List_of_NFL_champions. As mentioned before, this is basically the same thing as the Super Bowl champions list. I retooled the tables to fit the appropriate categories, and replaced the existing pictures with different ones. No sense reinventing the wheel.  ; ) --Cholmes75 14:20, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Fantastic work, I am very impressed. I have one important thought, though. I know that this list was created as a sort of companion piece to List of Super Bowl champions, but since the term "NFL champions" refers to all champions in the league's history, shouldn't List of NFL champions also include the winners of all the Super Bowls? Wouldn't that be the most comprehensive option? Or is it too redundant in light of the other list? --Sophitus 15:42, July 19, 2005 (UTC)
I'm torn on that. I, as a purist, like to see NFL champions reckoned in one long line going back to the '20s. But it seems that the NFL, the media and most fans are content to treat the pre-Super Bowl era as something totally different. For instance, you never hear a sportscaster talk about the championships the Browns or Lions have won, just that they never made it to the Super Bowl. It's as if the old championships don't exist or something. I think having two separate lists caters to that, even if I wish people felt differently. --Cholmes75 16:51, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
If the List of NFL champions only goes to 1969, perhaps it should be retitled List of NFL champions before AFL-NFL merger. It's a bit of an unwieldy title, but far more accurate. The other option is to include Super Bowl champions in the list. --Sophitus 17:14, July 25, 2005 (UTC)
I'd lean towards renaming it. I think adding it to the SB list would make it way too big. --Cholmes75 18:32, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Re: The suggestion that all Super Bowl champions should be listed as NFL champions: The New York Jets and Kansas City Chiefs were American Football League Champions and World Champions. They were never NFL champions, nor should they be called such. RemembertheAFL 19 August 2005

You're completely right. The Jets and Chiefs were AFL and Super Bowl champions, not NFL champions. And I agree with Cholmes75, it's time this list was renamed List of NFL champions before the AFL-NFL merger (or is it the NFL-AFL merger?). I also think it might be good to have a List of AFL champions. And heck, there could also be a list of CFL champions, Arena Football League champions, AAFC champions. --Sophitus 05:42, August 20, 2005 (UTC)

Championship Games format (1933-1966)

I took a stab at a format for the single-game NFL championship. It's at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Cholmes75/SandboxA. Let me know what you think.

Looks good, no suggestions yet. Phoenix2 19:41, July 21, 2005 (UTC)

OK, it's been published. I see that there was a previous page but it was deleted. I'll wait to see what happens with this one before doing any more. --Cholmes75 03:45, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Pro Bowl players

I moved the Category:AFC and NFC Pro Bowl players to the Category:National Football League players, rather than their old category of American football players, since it's an NFL thing first & foremost. Also, I created Eastern & Western Division Pro Bowl players categories for the players who were in the Pro Bowl from '54 to '70. Hope that helps some people out. Anthony 15:29, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

Help

I tried making some minor formatting changes and the end of the NFL article disappeared. I tried reverting, but it made no difference. Maybe wikipedia is just messed up right now or my browser is once again on the fritz, but would somebody check it out and make sure everything is okay since I can't accomplish it myself for some reason. --Sophitus 18:01, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

  • I fixed it. It was probably your browser. And remember that you can always revert the page back to a previous version. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:08, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
    • I tried reverting, didn't work. And yes, this browser is absolutely terrible. Anyway, thanks for fixing that. It's highly appreciated. --Sophitus 18:49, July 22, 2005 (UTC)

NFL seasons

I would like your comments on the following articles I created: 2004 NFL season and 2005 NFL season. They are based on a number of other sports articles such as the NHL seasons and the Football World Cup articles. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 22:55, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Looks good! --Cholmes75 03:34, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I've got two comments on the 2004 NFL season article. First, I'm a bit confused about the last of the major rule changes, the one concerning a dead ball after a kick or punt. You wrote: "Previously, a member of the kicking team could pick up an untouched punt or missed field goal in the end zone and run the other way." Isn't it actually the defensive team that can pick up an untouched punt or missed field goal? If the kicking team picked up such a ball, it would become dead and they couldn't run with it. Or maybe I'm just incredibly confused and during this long, tedious offseason I've forgotten the rulebook. Second, though it was not technically a rule change, there should be mention in the Major Rule Changes section about the reemphasis on illegal contact, pass interference, and defensive holding. Besides that, great work. --Sophitus 15:34, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Now that you mentioned it, good point. Even if a kicking team could pick up a ball and run the other way I'm sure they wouldn't want too. (See: Jim Marshall - not exactly the same, but you get the idea) --Cholmes75 15:42, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
    • Sorry, wrong team. I have corrected it. And I have added the rule emphasis. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:00, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Career statistics tables

I took the table used for NHL career stats and modified it for NFL purposes. Different positions will require different tables. The first one I did can be used for QBs. Here is the career stats table for Don Majkowski. I picked him because it's a good example of how I think a table should be formatted.

Career statistics

Regular season

    Passing   Rushing
Season Team League GP Comp Att Pct Yds TD INT Att Yds TD
1987 Green Bay NFL 7 55 127 43.3 875 5 3 15 127 0
1988 Green Bay NFL 13 178 336 53.0 2119 9 11 47 225 1
1989 Green Bay NFL 7 55 127 43.3 875 5 3 15 127 0
1990 Green Bay NFL 13 178 336 53.0 2119 9 11 47 225 1
1991 Green Bay NFL 7 55 127 43.3 875 5 3 15 127 0
1992 Green Bay NFL 13 178 336 53.0 2119 9 11 47 225 1
1993 Indianapolis NFL 7 55 127 43.3 875 5 3 15 127 0
1994 Indianapolis NFL 13 178 336 53.0 2119 9 11 47 225 1
1995 Detroit NFL 7 55 127 43.3 875 5 3 15 127 0
1996 Detroit NFL 13 178 336 53.0 2119 9 11 47 225 1
Regular season totals 93 1056 1905 55.4 12700 66 67 248 1114 12

Playoffs

    Passing   Rushing
Season Team League GP Comp Att Pct Yds TD INT Att Yds TD
1995 Detroit NFL 1 14 23 60.9 206 3 2 3 16 0
Playoff totals 1 14 23 60.9 206 3 2 3 16 0


  1. The first time a team is listed, it should be linked. Same for the league.
  2. In the playoffs section (if applicable), the year should link to the appropriate Wiki article on that season's playoffs. This helps to avoid confusion as to what season the playoff run is associated with.
  3. My source for these stats is http://www.pro-football-reference.com/.


Let me know how this looks. If this is acceptable, we can start populating articles with it. I will then design ones for other positions. --Cholmes75 18:19, 24 July 2005 (UTC)


  • I like it, and I've already used it on Jake Delhomme. I think we should maybe include a category for passer rating as well for QBs, but since I don't know how to do that, I'll wait until Cholmes or someone else adds that in HTML before I add it to pages. As for the other categories, here's what I think should go on their pages (aside from the obvious Season/Team/League/Games played cats):
    • WR/TE: Receptions, Yards, YAC, Avg., TD (I realize YAC isn't kept everywhere, and is a recent stat)
    • RB/FB: Rushing attempts, Yds, YPC, TD, Receptions, Yards, TD
    • DE/DT/LB/DB (FS/SS/CB): Tackles, Sacks, INT, Yds, FF, FR, Defensive TDs
    • KR/PR: Returns, Yds, TDs (Separate for Kick returns & Punt returns)

I figure you already knew that, I just thought I'd spell it out so anyone can comment on which categories should be included in addition to or subtract from these. Anthony 20:52, July 24, 2005 (UTC)


  • I'm OK with passer rating as a category. Do you have a source that lists it for various QBs? I'm wondering if they have that cateogry available for older QBs (Daryle Lamonica, for instance)? Also, as for the KR/PR stats - I'm not aware of too many players who served in this role primarily, so it'd be tough to get those stats I would think. For players who were WRs or RBs and had good returning numbers I think a writeup of that in their bio would be more appropriate. --Cholmes75 20:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
  • A couple of notes on the statistical categories for each position. Wide Receivers should also have stats for carries and rushing yards because some of them often get rushing attempts on reverses and laterals. All offensive players should have statistics for fumbles. Defensive players should have statistics for safety, even though this is rather rare. --Sophitus 22:37, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Another thought: is it best to have these extensive tables? Would it be better perhaps to simply provide the link to career statistics at pro football reference? Or should we put that amount of data in player articles. I have not formed my own opinion on this yet, I'd like to hear what the rest of you think. --Sophitus 22:46, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
    • I could go either way. They are labor-intensive, so perhaps leaving them as optional is best. But at least if we have a standard format set, the people who do choose to use them can make sure they look the same. I'm not too worried about duplicating other sites. Besides, if you have a Wiki page on a player that has a bio AND stats, it seems that much more complete than a pure stats page. --Cholmes75 14:14, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

AFL Hall of Fame?

I noticed this article tonight - American_Football_League_Hall_of_Fame. Does this article really belong on Wikipedia? Granted, it is a very good website and a great resource for AFL fans, but it really is just a fan website. There is no real AFL Hall of Fame. Not only does it have its own article, but a number of articles on players who played in the AFL have links and mentions of the site. Obviously the author of this and another AFL website have done a lot on Wikipedia, and they are to be commended. But does that mean we have to plug a fan site? I wanted to get your thoughts before doing anything drastic like recommending the article for deletion. --Cholmes75 02:25, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

  • I'm torn on this one. The first thing that I noticed is that the site is wrong on several key points - there are plenty of players from the AFL who are in the real hall of fame. Nick Buoniconti and O.J. Simpson, for example. But beyond that, it does strike me as somewhat odd to have an article for a hall that does not actually exist by any official or material standards. I suggest the best course is to edit the article so that it is obvious that it concerns a website and is not a hall of fame along the lines of the well-known ones for the major sports. --Sophitus 05:50, July 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • The more I think about it, the more I think this just doesn't belong. Basically the article is a few paragraphs and then a list of players. This is stuff that is already on the person's site. I'm OK with having a link to the site on individual player/team articles, but I really do think that the main article is totally unneccessary. Not only that, but in going through various articles on Wikipedia using information based on this site, I've seen a lot of gross errors (for instance, they had the totally wrong birthplace for Al Davis). Unless someone here has a major objection I think I'm going to nominate the article for deletion. --Cholmes75 13:52, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
    • That sounds reasonable to me. Just make sure to post the link to the vfd here. And I think it would be wise to put a link for the website on the AFL article. --Sophitus 14:33, July 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • Done. Here's the link. I will add a link to the actual site on the AFL page before too long. --Cholmes75 14:56, 29 July 2005 (UTC)