Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

NFL recaps in schedule tables

[edit]

As seen here doesn't this violate WP:External Links?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 06:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure I've seen those types of links thousands of times in soccer articles. Such as 2020 Seattle Sounders FC season (promoted to FA in February 2024) and 2022 FIFA World Cup (promoted to GA in March 2024). Hey man im josh (talk) 13:00, 9 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I'm misunderstanding, what's the difference between seemingly not opposing them there and removing them from this edit? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Dissident93: In my experience, we don't typically include external links for individuals who don't have an article of their own yet. I understand the goal and purpose of those links being added, but it seems rather excessive by comparison. As for the Sounders article, I wouldn't expect that link to ever change unless the site itself goes down permanently. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:20, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. We link to the front office page in the template so their profiles are still easily accessible. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 16:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also see no problems with it as long as the link follows the same basic rules as WP:RS and isn't used excessively. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest issue is described at Wikipedia:Bare URLs § What is wrong with bare URLs? If the link changes, you don't have the luxury of searching for the source's title. And bare urls are less likely to be archived. But I suppose worst case, an alternative replacement can be found. —Bagumba (talk) 04:33, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Team broadcast personnel in team staff templates

[edit]

I wanted to know if there was a consensus against adding notable team broadcast personnel, such as play-by-play and analysts, to team staff templates? They are usually not listed anywhere else outside of the team's main article (if that) and in many cases are filled with former players who are clearly more notable than most that fill other minor roles such as strength and conditioning coaches and front office assistants. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:42, 22 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Local TV stations instead of streaming platforms?

[edit]

I attempted to get some sort of consensus on this back in December, but the discussion ended up being about whether or not to include network information in the tables at all per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and quickly died out. While I agree that it's a discussion to be had, this is not what I'm trying to get consensus on now.

I've more than a couple times seen people remove streaming services from schedule tables and game boxes in favor of adding in the local networks broadcasting the games, like in this edit. Including the streaming service in these situations could at least be argued as useful for anyone using Wikipedia as their primary way of finding information about when/how to watch, but I don't see the value in having the local stations there instead. KristofferAG (talk) 20:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... but the discussion ended up being about whether or not to include network information in the tables at all per WP:NOTTVGUIDE and quickly died out: But nobody there justified having any channel or network information listed. —Bagumba (talk) 23:24, 25 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have been slowly trying to get historical schedule tables to match contemporary ones (more or less). Sometimes some IPs will come along and add "notes" game times, networks and even TV announcers. This is even though 2023 articles have TV channels removed. I propose some common schedule template for the column headings be constructed that incorporates whatever parameters are deemed necessary, and also keeps track of team colors that change over time, (e.g. NFLPrimaryStyle) since that seems to be of some concern to some people. In regards to this discussion, I think that a 1:00 ET game between the Rams and the Seahawks listed on FOX that is the same time as a 1:00 ET game between Dallas and Carolina, also on FOX does nothing for the average reader. Since they may get one of those two games or not. I realize now that I said something similar in that discussion but college football, college basketball, MLB, and NBA schedule tables have a template. It might be something to look into.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:09, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, I don't live in the US so I don't know exactly how it all works over there, but if a game listed to be on "FOX" doesn't necessarily mean people will find it on FOX depending on their location, I don't see any point in keeping the parameter in the tables at all.
Currently the TV parameter is removed when a team's season ends anyway. I don't mind network being included in game boxes as it doesn't really take up any space as commentators are listed anyway, but in my opinion, the TV column could and should be removed from the schedule tables. KristofferAG (talk) 08:49, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will 100% guarantee that they will be readded if we do not create a template for the column headings for the schedule tables. As I stated earlier, the NBA, MLB, and college sports have templates, the NFL projects needs to as well. Furthermore, the UFL, and CFL have different formats for the same sport. This is inconsistent and readers need to know what to expect when reading a page. Granted consistency has been a point of emphasis in WT:CFB for a long time, and I am more of a college sports fan/editor.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why include them in the first place if they are not considered important enough to keep after a season? Doesn't this violate WP:NOTTVGUIDE anyway? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 23:54, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I support a standardized template as well for past and present seasons. The TV network and time parameters should not be included, largely per WP:NOTTVGUIDE. If anything, those parameters should be removed from the templates for college football and other sports. I will add that if there is consensus to keep TV information (which I oppose), streaming service should be used instead of local channels to match the format of games on network TV. For example, a Broncos-Giants game on CBS lists "CBS" on each schedule template rather than the Denver or New York CBS affiliate. Frank Anchor 16:18, 26 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of suspensions in the NFL‎

[edit]

The list of suspensions in the NFL‎ page violates WP:NOTCATALOG; we don't need to document every single suspension the NFL has ever handed out. I propose that we at least give it some sort of inclusion guideline if the page's scope can't be changed, such as omitting the (4-6 game) substance policy suspensions since those basically require no real work from the league as they are automatically given if a player fails a drug test. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute at Jordan Love

[edit]

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.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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:
  • "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)[reply]

Looks good to me Gonzo fan2007. Kante4 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Perfect, Gonzo fan2007, thank you! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pro Football Archives

[edit]

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)[reply]

All-Time Rosters

[edit]

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)[reply]

@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Does categorization better fit this type of need? I'm not endorsing one way or another, but the WP:NOTDUP guideline says:

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.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&oldid=1238950359"