Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 25
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 20 | ← | Archive 23 | Archive 24 | Archive 25 |
Dispute at Jordan Love
Hello, Yankees10 and I are having a dispute at Jordan Love. Seeing as there is some history here considering accusations of me "owning" the article, I'm bringing it here for input. Basically, the dispute revolves around a second source from Packers.com being added to a statement regarding him signing his new contract extension. I had added a source from ESPN.com to verify the signing, which is a reputable, third party source. Another editor added a second citation after the sentence to Packers.com, which is technically a self-published primary source. I removed it as excessive, Yankees10 reverted to add it back in. I reverted and explained myself a bit more in the edit summary, they reverted again accusing me of article ownership and edit warring (noting I have only reverted once, they have reverted twice). So basically the issue is whether his signing needs to be supported by the primary Packers.com source in addition to the ESPN.com source. I'll also note that the current placement of the Packers.com source is confusing, because it does not support the facts in the preceding sentence (rather it supports the facts in the sentence before the one it is attached at the end of).
I think WP:V and WP:CITATION supports the basic premise that the minimum number of sources to support a fact is most appropriate, and that third party sources are much more preferred over self-published primary sources like Packers.com. WP:OVERCITE provides a good essay on how too many citations can hinder readers and editors. I will also note, since this is early in Love's career, I am trying real hard to avoid what happened with Aaron Rodgers and his 512 inclined citations. It is so much easier to avoid early instead of having to clean up later.
- Links to the sources in question: ESPN.com and Packers.com
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Accusations of ownership are better handled 1-on-1 on user talk pages, taking it to a noticeboard if needed (WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE). Diffs should be provided to justify such claims.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, I am not sure who this was directed to, but I just wanted to note that one of the reasons I moved the discussion to here so quickly is because I wanted to avoid further accusations of ownership. I am, and always have been, happy to go along with the consensus of the SMEs here at WP:NFL. I also wanted to avoid starting an edit war, as I had only reverted once. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: It was intended to be a generic statement toward accusers of ownership, but it could also apply if the accused is subject to persistent, seemingly unfounded accusations from an accuser. —Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, I am not sure who this was directed to, but I just wanted to note that one of the reasons I moved the discussion to here so quickly is because I wanted to avoid further accusations of ownership. I am, and always have been, happy to go along with the consensus of the SMEs here at WP:NFL. I also wanted to avoid starting an edit war, as I had only reverted once. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- As for the content dispute, it's probably better if the other involved parties state their perspective. Kante4 originally added the aforementioned Packers.com source.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, i added the packers.com source as the ESPN article relies(d) on "Sources" ("sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter"). That was the only reason and the packers made if official with their article. Kante4 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that background Kante4! My only desire is to try to limit the number of references necessary in Love's article. I always regretted not doing Aaron Rodgers, and his article has ballooned up to an unmanageable 512 references. Would you and Yankees10 support the replacement of those two with the following:
- Hey, i added the packers.com source as the ESPN article relies(d) on "Sources" ("sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter"). That was the only reason and the packers made if official with their article. Kante4 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- "It's official: Packers QB Jordan Love signs record extension". Reuters. July 27, 2024. Archived from the original on August 2, 2024. Retrieved August 2, 2024.
I think for such a straightforward, non-controversial piece of info, we should be able to support it with just one citation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me Gonzo fan2007. Kante4 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- My $.02 may not be needed here, Gonzo fan2007, but yeah, as long as the Packers have announced the extension, there doesn't seem to be a need for the additional ref. Yankees10 maybe was considering that we don't post breaking news with these signings/trades based on rumors or reports, until one of the teams officially announces it, but that's usually for article leads and infobox changes. We don't need sentences being broken up with several refs between random words. Your original ESPN reference is sufficient especially in this case. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made this change, adding the Reuters reference in place of the Packers.com and ESPN citations. I used the citation bot to format the reference, but it doesn't appear to have worked. Can someone give me a hand with that? SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Spf121188, here you go:
{{Cite news | url = https://www.reuters.com/sports/its-official-packers-qb-jordan-love-signs-record-extension-2024-07-27/ | title = It's official: Packers QB Jordan Love signs record extension | date = July 27, 2024 | access-date = August 2, 2024 | newspaper = [[Reuters]] | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240802150607/https://www.reuters.com/sports/its-official-packers-qb-jordan-love-signs-record-extension-2024-07-27/ | archive-date = August 2, 2024 | url-status = live}}« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)- Perfect, Gonzo fan2007, thank you! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Spf121188, here you go:
- I went ahead and made this change, adding the Reuters reference in place of the Packers.com and ESPN citations. I used the citation bot to format the reference, but it doesn't appear to have worked. Can someone give me a hand with that? SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- My $.02 may not be needed here, Gonzo fan2007, but yeah, as long as the Packers have announced the extension, there doesn't seem to be a need for the additional ref. Yankees10 maybe was considering that we don't post breaking news with these signings/trades based on rumors or reports, until one of the teams officially announces it, but that's usually for article leads and infobox changes. We don't need sentences being broken up with several refs between random words. Your original ESPN reference is sufficient especially in this case. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Pro Football Archives
If I recall correctly. I saw a post here that https://www.profootballarchives.com/ was down. It appears to be up again. @BeanieFan11:- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware. It was down for awhile, the owner told me that he was never bringing it back up again, and now its somehow back up (but I'm glad that its back). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
All-Time Rosters
As many of you know, I am working towards WP:FL for all WP:PACKERS lists. The ones I have left to end to complete are Green Bay Packers All-Time Roster. However, the more I think about it, I really struggle with whether they are worthwhile for Wikipedia. The quality and consistency in Category:Lists of players by National Football League team is so low and bad. With the sheer number of roster moves these days and the size of NFL rosters, updating these lists that are "All-Time Roster" style seems borderline impossible.
I know other WikiProjects have FLs for All-Time Rosters, like Portland Trail Blazers all-time roster, but I guess I wonder if the dynamics of the NFL justify not having these types of articles. I mentioned in an earlier post converting over the "list of players" to a different style, which had support and I implemented at Lists of Green Bay Packers players. I wonder if this is enough. I guess I am asking what everyone's thoughts would be with abandoning the idea of maintaining all-time rosters for NFL teams on Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: I would caution against getting the all-time roster to FA status. Especially once the list goes into disrepair, ie with Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster once @Killervogel5: left, it is a pain to de-list everything. Maybe if they're worthy, we can have some bot just update the stats? But even then I don't support their inclusion on WP. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer size and monotonous nature of the updates, it seems better suited for automation, but I'm not sure if there is community precedent for such types of automated edits. In the meantime, {{Dynamic list}} seems relevant for any such incomplete lists. Nobody is required to maintain these lists. Is the question whether they should be deleted (WP:THEREISNODEADLINE comes to mind)?—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, yes I think that's the question. Basically, is maintaining a badly outdated list preferential to deletion? Does categorization better fit this type of need? Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range? Just straw polling the community before I put effort into updating or reworking the lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Does categorization better fit this type of need?
I'm not endorsing one way or another, but the WP:NOTDUP guideline says:
—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect.
Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range?
As those Packers lists only have seasons and number of games played, which are pretty basic and self-explanatory, NOTSTATS doesn't seem applicable. —Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, yes I think that's the question. Basically, is maintaining a badly outdated list preferential to deletion? Does categorization better fit this type of need? Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range? Just straw polling the community before I put effort into updating or reworking the lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources noticeboard discussion
There is a discussion at WP:RSN#profootballarchives.com that may be of interest to members of this project. Left guide (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)