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 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

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

Too early to say if this game is to have a WP:LASTING impact (e.g. a rule change or some other newsworthy development, like the Fail Mary you mentioned basically being the end of the officials strike). But now, two months after the game took place, the game is basically not talked about at all on a national level and every hit on a Google News search was from within two weeks of the game, clearly not a lasting impact now, but could possibly change when we get into the 2024 season (I think it is unlikely to ever have a lasting impact). Frank Anchor 17:09, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree that absent a rule change there's no lasting impact. Part of that comes down to Detroit hosting two home playoff games and advancing to the NFC Championship game anyway, while Dallas lost early. Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Disagree that it's too early to tell if it will have any lasting impact. We can already say it will not. It's really hard for regular season games to have a long lasting impact.--Rockchalk 7 17 23:18, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That statement is fallacious. Already, we saw Lunatic Lateral, a play with minimal playoff impact, get an article, that was even kept at AFD. Dez Caught It, which I will concede is a playoff game, prompted rule changes four years later. The Fail Mary regular season article is also similar to this. That being said, I will admit that an article is unlikely unless either the NFL changes their rules or explicitly votes to keep this rule and that will also give it sustained coverage. -- 69.118.230.235 ( talk) 14:04, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not whatsoever. Those were instance where there was discussion about a rule change being necessary was immediate. I don't recall with this people immediately discussing any rules being changed. Nothing has been reported to being discussed by the competition committee this spring either regarding eligible receiver rules.--Rockchalk 7 17 08:13, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

again, you’re speculating that it won’t receive coverage. Please stop as this isn’t the first time we’ve had issues. 69.118.230.235 ( talk) 17:34, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Would want to see more coverage than just 8 days after. Per WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE:

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

— Bagumba ( talk) 05:13, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose per WP:RECENT. This was a minor penalty controversy, with no long-lasting impact on the rules of the game. Comparing this to Fail Mary, which had immediate, notable impacts to the NFL, or Dez Caught It, which is still discussed today, is farfetched. Regarding Lunatic Lateral, I am on the fence with that one, but I will note that in my many years of closely following the NFL, I have never once seen a play like that one. It was shocking, both for its absurdity, as well as its shocking flip to the outcome of the game. But this is why people often quote WP:WHATABOUT when editors try to make comparisons to other articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:08, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Not to sidetrack, but the Hell Mary play was also a shocking result. The jets would’ve lost anyway, but they went from having a potential lead at halftime to being down two possessions. 69.118.230.235 ( talk) 20:08, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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

Similar problem in Canadian football. For example, Darren Flutie's lead sentence (since modified [1]) has "is a former Canadian", but he's always been an American.— Bagumba ( talk) 18:05, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Usually doesn't mean you must. Active players say "is an American football (position) with American specifically identifying the sport (as is evident by it being linked with football). For years this was the case with retired players as well then all of sudden it started changing. I don't see how WP:TIES applies here. I see ties as things (for an example) like using color for articles tied to the US and colour to articles tied to the UK. That entire policy page mentions nothing about the American football/football or football/soccer thing. With other sports, they have a substantial non-American participation in their leagues, while the NFL has only a 3% international players so I don't see how identifying nationality is necessary, unless they were born outside of the US.--Rockchalk 7 17 18:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

The result we get for foreign players is something like "Australian professional American football punter" (as in the case of Michael Dickson (American football)). If he's American, we probably write "American football punter"; and rely on the reader understanding that "American football" means the sport and not his nationality. It's pretty standard on articles to start with the lead with Person is a <nationality> <occupation> or some such. This goes against the grain. Mackensen (talk) 19:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

This came up prior to the FAC for Bob Mann (American football) and was discussed there. What we decided on was the following:

Robert Mann (April 8, 1924 – October 21, 2006) was an American professional football player in the National Football League (NFL).

This includes a link to American football via the " football" link but drops the adjective noun adjunct "American" and just uses the noun "football". "American" can more naturally be moved to the beginning to establish his nationality. This provides a smoother sounding sentence, while still providing a link to American football for clarity for those who may not be aware of what type of football is being discussed (noting that "NFL" at the end of the sentence provides a helpful hint, as the NFL is continuing to grow as an internationally recognized national sports league). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

No, former is not age; it's a modifier. There's a stark difference between a "former child actress" and "child former actress". Refer to "The Secret Rules of Adjective Order" for more about former— Bagumba ( talk) 19:43, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Still doesn't address misreading of two separate adjectives for the same noun as being an adjective and a noun, as interpreting "former American X" as someone renouncing their citizenship would supposedly be. "Former American", where American is a noun, sure. But the placement of both in front of a separate noun renders the phrase clearly a case of two adjectives, where any modification of the nationality adjective would require an adverb. The guidance is unidiomatic and poor English. oknazevad ( talk) 20:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

the full name of the sport should be used on first mention: The sport name is "football". We use natural disambiguation because each page must have a different name. That page title is preferable to football (American). But just because we have a long page title like quarterback sack, doesn't mean that plain sack isn't the consise term once the context is established. Or that we must use placekicker instead of piping to kicker. Non-American soccer bios generally don't show association football due to MOS:TIES. It's football played by a footballer, strange as that is to an American. — Bagumba ( talk) 19:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

International Federation of American Football. The internationally recognized name is indeed American football. Just that it's usually simply called "football" for short in its originating country. But Wikipedia isn't written for Americans solely. We need to keep that in mind. oknazevad ( talk) 20:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:TIES:

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

— Bagumba ( talk) 06:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That just means we wouldn't be using "colour" or "defence" in an article about a player born in the US. Here we are talking about a player born in Canada, though, so Canadian usage is actually the correct one per WP:TIES. And that would include specifying American football because it's not Canadian football. And it's not like the term "American football" is not used in American English when specificity is needed. oknazevad ( talk) 06:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

It's not just spelling. It's footballer vs soccer player, footballer vs. football player, pitch vs. field, etc. — Bagumba ( talk) 07:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

And what about the term "American football" being used in American English to name the sport when specificity is needed? Because that's the real crux here: does writing for an international readership mean using longer formal names that one might not use when writing for a specific audience? It's a relatively minor thing, but keeping that in mind does help counter systemic bias. oknazevad ( talk) 07:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

The soccer bios have footballer and not association footballer or association football player. It seems we have a blend of TIES with conciseness. — Bagumba ( talk) 07:52, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

No opinion as of now, but then there are always odd cases of players who played both American football and Canadian football, like Joe Theismann, Warren Moon, and Doug Flutie. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 20:00, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Steve Christie: is a former Canadian American football placekickerin the National Football League (NFL) Who can understand what his real situation is without knowing his actual bio? — Bagumba ( talk) 20:19, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Oknazevad, the term "American football" is a noun by itself. I have modified my comment above a bit because it comes across as confusing. "American" in this construct is a noun adjunct. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

No, in this case it's a straight adjective. Using "United States football" would be a noun adjunct, as "United States" is only a noun. But "American" is both a noun and an adjective. [2]. American cheese isn't cheese that is a US citizen. oknazevad ( talk) 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Your comparison is absurd. You are making my exact point. "American" in "American football" has nothing to do with citizenry. Looking at your own dictionary source, every example used in the adjective form of the word is related to things that America calls its own (American people, soldiers, states and culture). American cheese and American football are not owned by America. They are more appropriately understood as "American style football" and "American style cheese". Since Webster is your preferred source, American football is one term defined and listed as a noun and so is American cheese. Quiet literally every compound noun using American as a modifier is a noun on Webster. So, as I stated, when used as the complete phrasing referring to the style of football, "American football" is one compound noun. This is important though because in bios, "American" can be confused to refer to nationality. Thus, "former American" can be confusing to readers. Also important to note, all the examples in WP:NATIONALITY establish nationality before discussing what makes the person notable. Being "former anything" should not come before nationality. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, "American football" is a single noun phrase. But that is a phrase composed of an adjective (American) and a noun (football). The first word is an adjective indicating national origin that modifies the name of the sport (a noun) to indicate the particular code. My point is that parsing "former American football player" to read as saying the person has changed nationality is a clear misreading because it assigns the "former" modification to the wrong word in the following phrase. Basing out word order on that incorrect reading has made so many of our articles read unidiomatically. oknazevad ( talk) 07:01, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

That's where rephrasing comes in. "Steve Christie is a former American football placekicker from Canada". It's clear and not awkward. And this is a case where using the full "American football" for the sport is a good choice, as it's unambiguous, whereas as just putting "football" could easily be misinterpreted as him having played Canadian football because of his nationality. (I'm sure at some point he played Canadian football, perhaps in high school, but not collegiately or professionally.) oknazevad ( talk) 20:25, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Geoffrey Stephen Christie (born November 13, 1967) is a Canadian former professional football player in the National Football League (NFL) and Canadian Football League (CFL)... sounds real good to me. Don't support "former American" in any way. Just sounds like poor English. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:29, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

He didn't play in the CFL. His pro career was entirely in the NFL, after playing collegiately at the College of William and Mary. oknazevad ( talk) 20:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

He did play in the CFL. [3] [4] And even if he didn't, there's plenty of other Canadians that have played in both. — Bagumba ( talk) 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Not that it is relevant to this discussion: On July 2, 2007, Christie joined the Toronto Argonauts of the Canadian Football League by signing a practice roster agreement with the team. On the signing, Christie pointed out that one reason for joining the team was "basically doing Michael (Clemons) a favour" as a former college teammate and that it was tentatively for one game. The other reason was that as a Canadian citizen, playing one game in the CFL, would be great way to finish his career.[3] Christie was activated to play on July 7, 2007 against the Hamilton Tiger-Cats. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:49, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal

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

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

Some addenda:

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

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

• Support as a base that is consistent with MOS and generally followed by all other bios on Wikipedia.— Bagumba ( talk) 21:08, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
• Support I second that, it does follow other bios. Also, unless someone out there removed what he did already, Bagumba added the majority of the 'nationalities' that you see in the lead. Glad there's finally a vote on this matter! Bringingthewood ( talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

  People like Dirtlawyer1 back in the day were doing this long before. [5] Other recent editors as well. — Bagumba ( talk) 21:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

And he's modest also. Hope some votes come in! Bringingthewood ( talk) 22:36, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

How do we deal with players who were notable for their college career but not for their professional career? Should the lead focus on perhabs a one game career in the NFL if it didnt gather any significant coverage? Alvaldi ( talk) 23:35, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

That's more related to MOS:ROLEBIO for the lead sentence and paragraph and more generally MOS:LEADBIO for what's WP:DUE — Bagumba ( talk) 04:03, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Alvaldi, I think that is left to editor discretion. Oftentimes, making it to the NFL, even for just one game, is still the primary notability for the subject. This isn't a hard and fast rule anyways, just a style guide that should apply fairly well to most articles. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

• Support with two exceptions Drop the professional. Flat unnecessary as identifying they played in the NFL establishes they were professional. Instead of player, identify the position. We already do this for active players, makes no sense to drop it when they retire. I get the Sea of Blue concerns Bagumba has with this, but back to back links is hardly a sea of blue. This may seem odd as I've defended identifying the sport as American football and not identifying nationality, in the end I wanted a consensus. It annoyed me former players were having ledes changed at a massive level without a consensus. And to address the multiple positions concern, maybe only use player if they played more than two positions.--Rockchalk 7 17 23:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

I can see dropping the 'professional' part of it. Haven't seen too many 'amateur' listings out there. Besides, having NFL listed in the same sentence answers any professional doubt. Bringingthewood ( talk) 02:06, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

identifying they played in the NFL establishes they were professional: Not to readers unfamiliar with the NFL or American football. "professional" is fairly common in the lead sentence of other sports' bios.— Bagumba ( talk) 04:55, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I understand that. Again, I was giving the reader too much credit. I figured that if the (NFL), (CFL), etc, followed quickly enough, they might click on it and see professional listed there. My thinking went back to not seeing amateur listed for many players. If I could only get myself to remember that some need a seeing eye dog to function. I learned a lot from Wikipedia over the years just by being curious and clicking on a link. Like not having to link Germany to know where Frankfurt is. Amazing. My mind is still recuperating from last night. I'll wait for the vote. Bringingthewood ( talk) 05:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Clicking: "professional" is just one additional word, so MOS:NOFORCELINK seems relevant:

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

— Bagumba ( talk) 05:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a MOS for everything, lol. My original support was just for the 'nationality' part, I'm sticking with that. --- T. J. Watt is an American football linebacker for the Pittsburgh Steelers of the National Football League (NFL). That has a nice ring to it. So professional has to be added due to the fact he's an American playing American football. Or else it would look the same, the nationality wouldn't be understood. Looks like professional can't be removed. It would be the new buffer. Correct? Bringingthewood ( talk) 06:02, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

So professional has to be added due to the fact he's an American playing American football: No, there's thousands of English soccer players with professional in their lead sentence. [6] — Bagumba ( talk) 06:21, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Exactly, English, Australian, Canadian. Add professional to all pages .. but Americans would definitely need it by default. See T. J. Watt's line up there. Here's Reggie White's page: was an American professional football defensive end in the National Football League (NFL). Now take professional out. It would look like an American football player. Not an American playing American football. That's all I meant. Of course this one is simple: "Le Démon Blond", was a Canadian professional ice hockey player. Bringingthewood ( talk) 06:41, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

...but back to back links is hardly a sea of blue: It's either back-to-back or it isn't. There is no half back-to-back. Aside from MOS:SEAOFBLUE being a community guideline, leaving them invites people to get cute and just pipe to one link like this.— Bagumba ( talk) 11:36, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

So I'm having trouble understanding the logic behind the idea that we have to assume the reader doesn't know NFL is professional football but we can't assume the reader knows we're referring to this sport and not this sport?? That doesn't make sense too me. Either we treat the reader like they are totally ignorant about the player we treat them like an expert. We can't treat them like they don't know it when it proves our point but like the do know it when it doesn't.--Rockchalk 7 17 08:08, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Rockchalk717, the whole point of the proposal was to construct a lead sentence that did not put "American" next to "football". Any change that brings back "American football" basically brings us back to the status quo. In America, NFL players are called "professional football players". That wording is common and long-lasting, helping to differentiate "college football players". If it wasn't for the other types of football, it would be the standard wording across all bios. My proposal is grammatically correct, is Encyclopedic in tone, factually correct and the common naming for the sport. The link to football, the statement of the "NFL" and the general feel of the article compared to other types of football bios provides the reader with sufficient evidence to realize we aren't talking about soccer or some other form of football. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:20, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

I have nominated List of Tampa Bay Buccaneers seasons for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:33, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

An offshoot to the last discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 23 § Question on Player Team Categories, where we discussed team categories and inbox team listings of players who never actually played a regular season game with said team.

Is this NFL project "claiming" the player, and using the {{ Infobox NFL player}} on their bio instead of {{ infobox college football player}}? (Courtesy ping to Sergio Skol, who recently changed a similar player to use the college infobox. [7]) — Bagumba ( talk) 04:01, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

• IMO we should keep the NFL infobox for anyone that actually signed to a team in the NFL – as that way we can list the player's whole career, rather than only the college career as would be happening with the college infobox. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:26, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Why did I change it? Well, it's true Thomas Weber signed as an UDFA with the Bengals, but he never was in the active roster, let alone played an official game. So, in these cases I think is better use the college football player Infobox, because technically the player never was in the NFL; that's why PFR nor NFL.com has a profile of the player ( Weber's page does not exist, for example)

So, we should use the correct Infobox, that's why we have different ones, it wouldn't be appropriate use the NFL Infobox for a CFL player, as you can see here. Sergio Skol ( talk) 14:02, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Saying that the person "was never in the NFL" is incorrect when they were a member of teams in the NFL! Whether or not they played shouldn't matter. Having the college infobox erases the entire professional career from the top, which in some cases could be a lot of teams (e.g. Nick Eubanks, six, comes to mind among things I wrote) – whereas having the NFL infobox allows someone to view the player's whole career. Not to mention there's plenty of UDFAs with articles who haven't played in games currently on NFL team rosters. Are we going to change those to the college box because they haven't yet played a regular season game in the NFL, and then we have to switch it over once they do play in a regular season game? It doesn't make sense. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 14:40, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Man, chill out 😂

Of course ACTIVE PLAYERS must use the NFL Infobox, no matter if they've not played an official game (If they're active, (and I mean signed with any team) must use the correct Infobox, as you can see here)

But when the player is retired and never played, why we should use an inappropriate box?

Example; I just edited Eric LeGrand. He actually signed with the Buccaneers, so we should use NFL Infobox for a player who signed a symbolic contract? He does signed, so... Sergio Skol ( talk) 16:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

A couple days ago, I updated the URL code for Template:Profootballhof, which had been out of date for a long while. But all the individual transclusions needs to be updated as well, like with this edit. I've done a few but there are 200+ that need updating; see https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:Profootballhof&limit=500. Jweiss11 ( talk) 16:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

What is the protocol for linking duplicate season years in the infobox? For example, Joshua Dobbs was on three different rosters in 2023, and the 2023 NFL season is linked for each instance. My reading of MOS:REPEATLINK is that only the first instance of 2023 in the infobox should be linked, but maybe I am incorrect. OceanGunfish ( talk) 14:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It only needs to be linked once. Jauerback ^dude?/ _dude. 14:36, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your swift reply. OceanGunfish ( talk) 14:39, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

It's justifiable in some tables to repeat links, e.g. large table that will be skimmed and where one might not have already seen the first link, but these team histories aren't enormous, esp. for football, and the same years will be grouped together chronologically. So no need to repeat for this.— Bagumba ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Per MOS:DUPLINK, it's allowed. I personally prefer it, but I recognize that others do not. Hey man im josh ( talk) 15:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

This RM to lowercase the titling of National Signing Day may be of interest to participants of this WikiProject. Randy Kryn ( talk) 05:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Kansas City Chiefs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Hog Farm _Talk 18:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

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

• Now its time for all the managers of defunct teams – does anyone know where to find those? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 03:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

That's fantastic, congratulations @ BeanieFan11! What is your list based off? Is it by chance Category:National Football League general manager navigational boxes? Hey man im josh ( talk) 13:07, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

That's what I was going off of – it seems pretty accurate (PFR also has just about all the same info). Defunct teams will be another challenge, since it doesn't seem there's anything online listing them. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 15:09, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Looking at the navboxes again; interestingly, a few of the current team navboxes are missing dates. The Cardinals is missing 1920–35; Bears 1920–35; Lions 1930–35; Packers 1919–20; Rams 1936; Giants 1925–36; Eagles 1933–35; Steelers 1933–35; and Commanders 1932. @ Hirolovesswords: I know you've done a lot of work on NFL GMs, do you know why there's no managers listed for the teams in those years, and who served in the positions during the times? BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm looking at the season pages on Pro-Football-Reference, as they usually list a GM in the top part of the page. A few of these that I've spot checked are indeed missing a listing for the GM. There's also pages for executives for each team, which I'm noticing do often stop at 1936. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:54, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Just replaced part at the Giants' GM template based on this. Looks like you have Ray Walsh to create now @ BeanieFan11 ;) Hey man im josh ( talk) 20:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@ BeanieFan11: According to page 694 of the 49ers' media guide, it looks like Spadia wasn't GM as long as listed and I can't find an appropriate "Jack White" to add to Template:San Francisco 49ers general manager navbox. Hey man im josh ( talk) 20:48, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@ Hey man im josh: Thanks for the info! I'm also keeping a list of NFL GMs for defunct teams if you're interested in trying to figure out some of those as well. Thanks, BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:08, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Walsh done; just White left, unless we find another missing GM :) BeanieFan11 ( talk) 03:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Finished up White; @ Hey man im josh: we're done unless you can find another missing GM! BeanieFan11 ( talk) 00:41, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

• Congratulations! Cbl62 ( talk) 13:41, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

An interesting challenge

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

My long-term task is done too!

Wikipedia:Featured topics/Green Bay Packers presidents! I started it in 2018....... almost 6 years. And the fun thing is that Mark Murphy (American football executive) is going to retire next year, which means I'll have to add one more GA after the new president is announced haha. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:26, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Another long-term task finished!

With my creations of Dick Harris and Joe Gray, it also now appears that every first-round draft pick in NFL history now has an article! BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I noticed you making a changes to articles that I had promoted or prepped for featured list nomination! I did however just look over the 12 that I worked on and noticed a red link for Jim Davidson in List of Buffalo Bills first-round draft picks, if you're interested in covering the AFL ones as well. Hey man im josh ( talk) 19:29, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Might do him sometime soon. Throw in the AAFC as well and there's the following "first-rounders" without articles:

Jim Davidson - 1965 AFL (Ohio State - OL)

Cal Richardson - 1947 AAFC "Special Draft" (Tulsa - E)

Bernie Gallagher - 1947 AAFC "Special Draft" (Pennsylvania - T)

Larry Rice - 1947 AAFC "Special Draft" (Tulane - C)

Joe Sullivan - 1949 AAFC (Dartmouth - B)

Chet Fritz - 1949 AAFC (Missouri - T)

BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:43, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, for anyone who is feeling an urge to create new articles for this project and for college football, there are a ton of requested articles at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports/American football for a variety of subjects, from players and coaches to rivalries and terminology. Some of these have been lingering around for awhile with no action. Feel free to be bold, help create some new articles and expand Wikipedia's coverage of American football! Fretyr ( talk) 16:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

• Do not assume that these topics are notable simply because they appear on this list. For example, the list includes 17 proposed articles on rivalries of the Cleveland Browns. That's in addition to the Three Browns rivalry articles that already exist. Cbl62 ( talk) 19:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I think all of those rivalries probably need to be removed from that page. I think we're already at 100% coverage for actual NFL rivalries. SportingFlyer T· C 00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I know the last proposal got shot down, but I found coverage of the incident on March 25, 2024. As such, WP:SUSTAINED is covered to some degree. 69.118.230.235 ( talk) 22:54, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A single article from a sub community of SB Nation (specifically one focused on the Lions) is not enough to argue for WP:SUSTAINED. I'm probably the biggest Lions fan at WP:NFL, and I can't make an argument for supporting creation of that article. Hey man im josh ( talk) 23:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Step away from the dead Lion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Josh (we'll agree to disagree on biggest Lions fan...); it's not an ongoing controversy. No rules changes, no one lost their job. Both teams made the playoffs; they didn't meet again and the Lions advanced further anyway. Mackensen (talk) 16:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Can someone take a look at this topic on Wikidata ?

The question is about a dewiki article about "fake", and Play-action for which they also have an article. We're wondering if it's a duplicate or if there are several kind of "fake" in football and "play-action" is a special case ? TomT0m ( talk) 19:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Copying from WT:AMF, since this project is more active. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 22:26, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

• @ TomT0m: Since no one else has responded to this: if I remember correctly, a "play-action" is a type of fake, but not all "fakes" are "play-actions". (E.g. a play-action is a "fake" run that turns out to be a pass, whereas a draw play is a "fake" pass that turns out to be a run). BeanieFan11 ( talk) 16:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ BeanieFan11 So basically it's just a kind of Feint in the football case ? TomT0m ( talk) 16:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  @ TomT0m: Yes, I think that could be used to describe it. BeanieFan11 ( talk) 19:05, 8 April 2024 (UTC)