Knowledge talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 14

6888:

we don't have to match the gamebooks verbatim. For example, the gamebooks list drive lengths in the format "8-74, 5:16"; how is a casual reader supposed to know that actually means "8 plays, 74 yards, 5:16"? Same goes for the stats lines in the Ravens article. How is a casual reader supposed to know that "BAL – Joe Flacco – 23–34–258–1–0" means Joe Flacco completed 23 of his 34 attempts for 258 yards and a touchdown? I know because I'm familiar with football and I have a reference to compare against, but we're supposed to be catering for people who don't necessarily have a clue about the sport. Tell me I'm wrong. –

6412: 12710:. If you're aware of the existence or likely existence of a source but are unable to access it, the Resource Exchange can help you out. Volunteers field requests to access sources via our own institutional access. We can then forward these sources onto you to help you create content. Between the many volunteers who help out at the Resource Exchange, we can access almost any source in the world. Note that we can only handle requests related to creating or improving specific Knowledge articles. 7009:

of each score – after all, if you're going to include drive lengths/durations, why not include the time when the points were scored too? But I'm not here to simply impose my will on you all, I just want to find a common style that we can all agree on. And yes, you're right, we don't have a lot of people here to update game summaries, but if at least some people are going to update them, we should at least be doing it all the same, not just in our own team's house style. Work with me, man. –

31: 10514:

really care, then they wouldn't participate and talk about their favorite players and their teammates in the videos. I do agree it could look cluttered in the infoboxes but maybe an alternative way of sharing the info could be considered. It doesn't have to be the way I've been doing it, i could be included in the article under awards and accomplishments for those players that have those sections. But I believe that this ranking should be included somewhere in their pages.

6705:), only passing, rushing and receiving are. I would agree that defense is important, but defense is about far more than just tackles. Why not record INTs? Or sacks? Or forced fumbles? But of course, if you can provide a good reason for including tackles (i.e. one that we can all reach a consensus over), then I guess we should include them. I just don't see any reliable sources that include tackles as part of the at-a-glance statistics for an NFL game. – 8522: 12685:. You want to search in the individual databases that are known to have good sources for editing NFL articles in most cases, not the general library search engine. You'll also have access to Interlibrary Loan, which you can use to request sources held at other libraries. The usefulness of Interlibrary Loan depends on how generous your institution is with funding, as many lending libraries require the borrowing library to pay a fee for the service. 1045:"Top" should be reserved for Hall of Famers (and likely Hall of Famers who've not yet been inducted), "High" should be those players who are just short of the Hall of Fame but were considered among the top players at their position for a decent portion of their career, "Mid" should be players with a longer than average career or a short stretch when they were considered among the league's best, "Low" should be for all other players. 12746: 12538: 7225:? Because aside from the the impact on season articles I'm fine with any change/consistency. In season articles I prefer the "relevant team first" format that is used. For example; in the Jaguars 2016 season article the scores of the Jaguars are always listed first, with the opposing score second. So if the Jags lose 20 points to 27 the score is 20-27. If they win 27 to 20 the score is 27-20. 6486: 7126:

it seems like consensus here is for their inclusion, although I did notice that most teams didn't include them as I made my tour around the league. The question now is, what should we include under tackles? I assume we should only be listing the player who made the most tackles, but does that mean solo or combined? What else should we be listing? Interceptions? Forced fumbles? Sacks? –

11097:. He wore 19 with the Broncos 2005 preseason. I have football cards of Jerry playing for the Broncos in the preseason with #19 even though he retired before the start of the season. I have a card with Terrell on the Seahawks with #10. My point is that there are guys who never play or are on the regular season roster who have numbers in their infobox. What should we then do when 9261:

status in their own right. The subordinates who reached head coach provides a indication of the influence of the original head coach - either in identifying good candidates to hire in the first place, or perhaps in training them well enough to make it to head coach. The list of assistant coaches strikes me as significant overkill, but that's certainly subject to discussion.

6811:, major format changes and the like must be reached by consensus, not by one editor's whim. I have just been following what was done in several previous articles on the same subject. The fact that no one else has commented just means that they don't care either way. You have your opinion, while mine are based in the fundamental principles of Knowledge. 6829:. I've implemented these changes on eight articles already (excluding the Vikings, which was already like this), and no one has complained except you. That implies consensus. The Ravens articles are not your sole domain, so if you are the only one complaining across the 32 teams in the league, I'm afraid consensus is already against you. – 8740:

haven't done this a significant number of times. My vote might be to include it with anyone with 3 or more 2 point conversions in their career. My reason would be that 3 two point conversions add up to 6 points--the equivalent of an additional touchdown--at which point I feels it ceases to be merely an asterisk and becomes a statistic.

640:(founder of the Cowboys). So Murchison Jr. founded his own team and bought the rights to "Hail to the Redskins" the fight song for the Redskins, and pretty much blackmailed Marshall and said "either we play in Dallas or you never play this song again." Marshall relented and got the song back and Murchison Jr. got the Cowboys in Dallas. 7554:

2 goals to 0. Outside of that there is no real standard or agreement as long as is clear which score belonged to which team. So you could easily see the phrase "Manchester United went on the road, beating Arsenal 2-0" or "Arsenal lost their home game Manchester United, 2-0." The latter is somewhat rarer but still acceptable.

6689:

you're trying to stand in the way of standardisation. If your only issue with this is that this season would be different from all the old Ravens season articles, I would point out that you can easily change that yourself. Standardisation across the entire league is more important than your one team. –

12680:

If you're a student or faculty at a university, you'll have access to many paid databases with high quality articles. Look especially for access to LexisNexis Academic (contains USA Today, New York Times, Washington Post, etc.) and ProQuest (many historical newspapers, some modern ones). Depending on

9325:

I obviously disagree(with the exception of TOOMUCH as I've already indicated NCAA relations could be left out). It's not indiscriminate information, as Tarl N. describes above. It's not statistics(maybe the section should be more descriptive), it's not trivia/miscellaneous information, but relevant

9252:

Getting to the matter at hand - the concept of a "work genealogy" is not unique to coaching. It's common in the academic world to assume who someone studied under and worked under is relevant. The assumption is that attitudes and general practices will be acquired when working under someone else. For

6732:

I disagree. We obviously have a standard to be followed, i.e. that of the central NFL playoffs articles. Regardless, I intend to continue to implement the standard format across the entire league. If you insist on resisting that for the Ravens, that's up to you, but it'll look pretty silly having the

6688:

As I have pointed out, this has always been the standard, you've just chosen not to follow it (and by "you", I mean anyone who has ever edited the Ravens season articles, not just you specifically). I've not run into any opposition over this from editors of any other team article, so I don't know why

4650:

For sure. In the programming case I mentioned, if the player has over X catches (we can decide a threshold), than the receiver stats get added in. Since Terrell Pryor has both completions and receptions, both of those stats categories would be pulled. We can also work more on the specifics when I get

1050:

Are there any sort of guidelines or rules of thumb as to what percentage of the articles in a project should be in each category? For example, is there something that says the "Top" should be the most important 5% of articles, "High" the next 10%, etc. If there were that might help us determine where

685:

Yh, if you see anything that seems unencyclopedic, feel free to remove it. There isn't really much we can do though, IPs will always add stuff. Maybe if they don't see it on other articles, they won't add it though. Or we could go extreme and make a big warning popup when people click edit lol. Also,

12216:

I'll have a check in my NFL stats and records book when I get home from work later. Based on those sites, though, it seems like we're following neither standard. Personally, even though the MVP has come from the losing team only once, I think it would be beneficial to list the team regardless of who

11101:

retires? He wore #1 & #3 with the Chiefs and Bengals in the off-season. Should we not count these? Lets say you sign with the Seahawks in the off-season and get cut in preseason. You wore #10. You then signed with the Broncos in the next off-season and wore #19 and was cut before regular season.

10427:

has racked up over 170,000 views. That's quite a lot for the 83rd best player in the league, relatively unknown, plays for the Jaguars, and didn't really have a standout college career. Every vid in the top ten has over half a million views. And they do get considerable press. Really the main reason

7553:

Since I'm actually European I'd add some first hand experience: In soccer the standard is usually to list the home team first if there is no direct reference to who won the game. So if you see the sentence "Arsenal hosted Manchester United today. The score was 0-2." It's understood that Man U won by

7066:

Just because you don't agree doesn't mean you get to remove them. The argument is just fine: Defensive stats should be included and tackles are the best way of doing that. So stop removing good content willy-nilly when in fact you have multiple editors disagreeing with you unless you want to pretend

7008:

True enough about the tacklers, but if you look at any NFL.com game book, you'll see that the defensive stat that is actually given the most prominence is interceptions. Why not record those in our game boxes instead of tackles? Primarily, we follow the NFL.com game books, which do include the times

6887:

has not exactly explained his objection to my changes other than to say he simply prefers the original style of the Ravens article. Saying "I like the old ways" is not a valid argument. The only decent argument I've seen from him is, "it matches the official NFL gamebooks", which is fair enough, but

6000:

I am still alive ;) Just got caught in real life stuff. My main concern has always been organizing and properly assessing articles, and then focusing my energies on articles I am interested in (Go Pack! Go!). So if all of the team projects get merged, I would prefer the Packer's one be retained in a

5950:

idea to merge the Green Bay Packers WikiProject without Gonzo's affirmative consent. I mean, how would you feel if you worked to get a project running, you got a bit busy, and came back to all your work undone? I asked him about merging before I did the bot tagging run, and he preferred to (for now)

10906:

See the last comment I left in the "Coaching trees" section a few sections above this one. That's exactly how I feel about listing post-season stats. Even if we agree here to only include them when they're appropriate, people are gonna go around adding them to every single player's page anyway. 90%

10047:

I will categorically state this, the college football and CFL inboxes look horrible compared to the NFL ones (no offense intended). I know it may seem a little biased, but I think the NFL infoboxes are just formatted (in general) much better and the addition of team colors is a plus. (Sorry for the

9519:

I would request for more input regardless of discussion's "friendliness" as I want to know more people's opinions about this. If more users don't show up then we could go back to the previous discussion and try to work out something there. As I said before – I'm in favor of removing coaching trees.

8133:

I think it would have to be plays from a kicking formation where the kicker either passes or runs for the TD (or makes the reception in the exceedingly rare case where he catches a pass from the holder!). Also, I don't think it would include botched kicking plays, e.g. if Tony Romo had made it into

7125:

The whole league has been standardised now (aside from the holdouts in Baltimore and Jacksonville). Hopefully this minimum standard will be kept to for the remainder of this season and into the future, and if anyone fancies it, they could overhaul previous seasons for each team too. As for tackles,

7053:

So we get to the crux of the issue: it's your personal opinion about what should be included. I was being facetious about the defensive stats anyway. The fact is that defensive stats are almost never given in box scores and so we shouldn't include them here. As for the times, your argument makes no

6760:

The state of MLB season articles is of no concern to me. I simply don't care about baseball. You are right that those people are not the sole arbiters of Knowledge formatting, but I'm yet to see any explanation from you of what you don't like about that formatting. Is it just because it's different

6673:

the article, which included "Top tacklers" in the game summary section which the previous editor has felt the compelling need to delete. Additionally, I have simply been copying the scoring summaries from the official NFL.com gamebook. If that is not a valid authority on the correct format, I don't

1129:

I'm totally fine with bumping up some of the parameters for a given category if we can find some concensus, but I'm not sure I really see any value in adding a "Bottom" category. It seems to me that the existing Low, Medium, High and Top categories should be sufficient. Adding another just gives us

1076:

made the Pro Bowl last year and he's like the 25th best QB lol. Also, if we added a bottom importance, it wouldn't seem that weird to have players who played seven seasons listed as "Low" and anyone below that as "Bottom" but that might be overcategorization like I said above. 17:56, 26 August 2016

10368:

I've always thought it was done by contract, and not by them actually playing for the team. So using this, Elway shouldn't have "Indianapolis Colts players" as a category, but some player who only appeared on their practice squad for two weeks would, because they had to have signed a contract with

10291:

Not replying to Lizard here, just showing more of the different criteria. The Bucs one includes active roster players that didn't play in a game. Also this from the Panthers one: "A player is considered to have played a game if they have been part of the team's 53-man active roster for that game".

10234:

Do you think we should change the requirements for the player category. Some people might think its appropriate for football because some people could spent a good number of games on the active roster and never play in a game (53 man roster + practice squad). A backup QB could spend years with one

9395:

Keep it. The policies cited for nuking the content are not applicable. I agree that the trees can be pared to remove those who have never been a head coach (but do keep college head coaches such as Charlie Weis), but arbitrarily removing them and then edit-warring when it is clear that many others

8739:

Include this statistic only when a player has achieved some threshold number of 2 point conversions (maybe 3 or 4) in his career. This would have the benefit of giving the player credit when they've done this enough for it to be notable while not wasting space for the vast majority of players who

1144:

Honestly, mid and low importance probably don't mean much to anyone. Especially not now, with our very limited amount of editors. The ones that should be well-defined are top and high importance. As far as bios, I agree with Top being reserved for HOFers. I think that should remain no matter what.

271:

for example. I just have the different teams/leagues condensed into separate paragraphs. You don't necessarily need section headings for all of them. That's what paragraphs are for. The Johnson article is confusing though because the Bucs section seems big enough to warrant its own section, so now

10963:

I personally would prefer post-season stats be listed for everyone who has regular season stats listed (provided they played any post-season games). I just think that post-season stats are at least equally important as regular-season stats, so if we are going to list regular season stats then we

10513:

I've personally watched all the videos for this past year and this ranking is voted by the players themselves, and they take being on this list as an honor. I've been writing it in the players' pages at the end of the 2015 season because the players care so much about this ranking. If they didn't

8743:

Include it for all players on offense for whom rushing and receiving statistics are generally recorded (eg wide receivers, running backs, quarterbacks). This would be more complete but could be criticized as wasting space as many such players will only have 2, 1, or even zero such plays in their

8098:

is a specific one that occurred in a college game last year. As you can see, the holder passed the ball to the kicker who ran it in for a touchdown. Note how many times he bobbled it before he finally caught it; that's why plays like these are relatively rare. They come with a high risk since the

7138:

Anyone? Also, can I just point out that tackles were not officially recorded before 2001, and sacks were not officially recorded before 1982. The only defensive statistic that goes all the way back to the inception of the league is interceptions, and even then only the ones that were returned for

7038:

I use tackles instead of interceptions because tackles are more evenly distributed and there's more of them as a whole so they make a more accurate representation of the contribution of a defensive player. Defenders rarely get more than 1 or 2 interceptions per game but they frequently hit double

6623:

It was one of his eight Pro Bowls. He was an alternate who ended up being selected to the game. I think Lizard is talking about alternates who aren't actually named to the game. They're alternates but they only make the roster if someone else drops out or doesn't play due to injury. In Urlacher's

5918:

FWIW, I'm against deleting/redirecting the child projects & banners, if only because they really aren't doing any harm where they are right now, they obviously represent a lot of hard work spent by someone in the past, and they could be useful again someday in the future. However, we probably

5165:

The hell is a $ LB? I would've thought that was a typo on the Cardinals' site. Anyway, what (and how) to include/not include as positions in the infobox is an issue that's gone unaddressed for way too long. We really aught to have a firm rule in place, but no one on this project ever gives a damn

1056:

In terms of what milestones we should be looking at, Pro Bowl designations have been increasing watered down over recent years as more and more player opt out and thus require alternates — it seems that at least half of the leagues QBs in particular "make" the Pro Bowl in a given year. Because of

1004:

I don't think that the average player needs week by week summaries. However, great weeks should be mentioned in an article. An MVP season might warrant a dozen game specifics to fully summarize it. I think most 100-yard games should be mentioned in an article for receivers and even running backs.

897:

is an interesting example. It includes substantial game-by-game discussion of his college career, and it is rated as a "Good Article". While I tend to think in retrospect the game-by-game discussion in the Robinson is a bit much and could use some trimming, I think the in depth discussion of the

646:

ladies and gentlemen is you start a sports rivalry...in grand fashion not just being in the same division or play each other a lot. There needs to be some animosity between the franchises that transcends generations of players to the point players 20 years after the rivalry started still hate the

341:

I like the combining season sections, but it might be a little awkward in the middle of the player's career. Like having sections for 2007, 2008, 2009–2012, 2013, 2014. I think this works best at the beginning of their career, like on Johnson's, when most players don't see much playing time. Even

9260:

As for the actual sections, I'm only familiar only with the Bill Belichick article. I agree that section was way overkill, and would strongly support trimming it back. Perhaps to a statement of which head coaches he worked under and a brief list of subordinates of his who have reached head coach

7503:

Well, being here in the States, I've never seen it change. I figured since it's an American league, it would be common sense to list them the American way. lol. I mean, I know common sense is hard to come by in the world today, well that and the fact people so many times just assume and put them

6026:

I would probably prefer for everything to stay as-is for the Packers project for now, as my main concern would be breaking the functionality of certain items and tools. I am a full supporter of merging any of the other sub-projects that have had no activity for some time. If I were doing this, I

4635:

Yh, but in Pryor's case both passing and receiving stats are probably warranted as he has been both a QB and a WR. We can still do the standardized stats table thing but having a bot automatically create table might be a little complicated. We can just add them in manually like we've been doing.

1044:

I'll be the first to admit that the parameters I set out were not entirely scientific and the dicussion at the time was less vigorous than I would have liked. I tried to document my thought processes as much as possible in the importance scale. My thinking in general is that in terms of players,

879:

Yh, let's not get too hardcore with this. I think a sentence about Garoppolo's first career start would be okay. I mean if he only has four career starts altogether, then a sentence about all of them might be okay. But for a player like Brady or Brees, maybe documenting all of their starts isn't

7784:

I'm pretty sure this is standard MOS for most (American) sports articles and websites, and it should also be enforced on Knowledge. The only problem I have is that this will have to be manually maintained and fixed for all the incorrect uses, unless a bot is created (or exists already) that can

6993:

it's not that critical to me especially considering a lot of articles don't have people to update the game summaries regularly. Additionally, I don't agree with the removal of the "Top tacklers" stat, PeeJay2K3 argues that this stat isn't included on the NFL quick take recap, but neither is the

6745:

The person/persons who originally edited the playoff articles are not the arbitrators of Knowledge. a format consensus has to be reached among all users. Also, a look at the MLB team season articles shows different formats for different teams, and nobody has seemed to mind until you came along.

3550:

This might be a good idea. I was actually kind of thinking about the same thing recently lol. I was adding some stats tables to players' articles and I was wondering if there might be some way for a bot to automatically copy certain values from NFL.com or Pro Football Reference into the tables.

3049:

This is the longest-running continuous rivalry in the NFL. They have been division rivals since 1933, have played twice a year since 1932 with no cancelled meetings and with 173 total games so far. In the 1950s and early 1960s, they played each year on Thanksgiving in televised games. A quick

11162:

I'm not sure, we include people in the team categories when they were only in the offseason and we list the offseason teams in the infobox. One thing I've wondered is if we should start writing what jersey numbers they wore into the body of the article. The numbers in the infobox by themselves

7458:

they list as it is proposed. I assume it's an English-speaking world thing to list "team X lost 10–5 to team Y", because in other cultures it varies on the purpose of article (it can be the opposite that in my example). However, it can also be the way a reporter prefers and both variations are

5945:

My bot could almost certainly do most/all of the cleanup if we decide to implement this. Speaking as an editor of templates, I love consolidation when it doesn't take away from the benefit of the templates, so I think these should be merged. Speaking as someone who doesn't want to drive away a

5688:

Yh, we could also just redirect all of these inactive projects. Also for the banners, if someone's been a on a lot of teams. It could say like / Team 1 / Team 2 / Team 3 / Team 4 / Team 5. Not sure if that's necessary. And we might as well have banners for all the teams if we're gonna do that.

1098:

We're currently including 4 or 5 different All-Pro selectors in the All-Pro pages, and treating each selector as equivalent to each other. Which is probably the best way to do it, since we'd never get enough discussion going here to decide which one(s) to include. So All-Pros aren't much more

4855:

Early in the third quarter, a Reich pass is intercepted and returned for a touchdown, extending the Houston Oilers' lead to 35-3. But showing he has the Reich stuff, he leads an un-Bill-ievable comeback. He throws four touchdown passes, the last three to Andre Reed, and Buffalo takes a 38-35

3497:

Yh, not sure about this either. The NBA articles have them. I've also seen some NFL articles with the regular and postseason stats in one table, with the posteason under the regular season stats. Also, if we only had the postseason stats on certain articles like McGinest, it might we hard to

9846:

Disagree on format. On most browser resolutions, this is likely to cause a second line to appear in a less-than-optimal location, like between "Head" and "coach" instead of before the position entirely. Unfortunately, Dirtlawyer's way of doing this is probably the best. The root problem is

5140:

Except he hasn't taken one snap at DB in training camp, preseason, or regular season. Him being listed at S is from when he was drafted and before the team had set plans for him. He is currently a 100% passing down linebacker, and the article should not be primarily calling him a safety.

5306:

Really it's probably best as it is now. Night Train's was obviously misnamed, since he was rarely, if ever referred to as Dick Lane. That doesn't seem to be the case with Joe Greene. It's probably best to stick to what NFL.com has them listed as and not to go overboard with these moves.

8684:

You can look at the to-do list at the top of this page. But you don't have to necessarily do any of that stuff. Most people just edit whatever they feel like. So you can just continue what you've been doing. You could also respond to discussions on this page. You can add your name to

7906:

In any US newspaper, it will be listed as higher score first. Therefore, I think it should be higher score first in prose as well as tables. I can't believe there are so many NCAA football and basketball individual season articles that put lower score first in the schedule tables. —

6790:

really on his own in opposition to this? I don't want to step on anyone's toes by enforcing something that doesn't meet all the appropriate guidelines, but if no one has any objections, I'm going to go ahead and continue with my changes - including to the Ravens 2016 article. –

5149:

listed as a "moneybacker/$ LB", so should we call him one in his infobox too, despite him just being another converted safety playing LB? If the fact he's officially listed at S must be listed, it needs to come after him being a linebacker, where he takes 100% of the snaps. ~

6717:

Whether you are right or wrong will have to be decided. I'm just not comfortable with such vast changes being made "off the cuff" without having a discussion about it first. I have found articles other that the Ravens' that have used a variety of formats, including this one.

7584:

I'm also European and in my country results are written in any way. It is related to the reporter and his POV. If his team lost then he'll write "Team X lost 10–15 to Team Y". If it's the other way around then it would be the opposite. Neutral person can write either way. –

6215:

Yes, in most cases we link every instance regardless. There are arguments such as those mentioned by Sabbatino that they are overlinking, but generally people ignore over linking in a list so the list is uniform. But I don't believe there is anything codified stating so.

10310:. I had created the list from those categories, and I had mistakenly assumed those categories only contained those who actually played a game. A solution I wanted to propose when that list is completed is to split those categories in two: one category for those who have 9208:

Um, I'm not harassing anyone; you wanted to discuss it here, I'm here. If you don't want me to participate, I won't- but I'm not harassing you. I'm here to discuss this. All I said was that the onus is on you if you want a change to start the discussion. That's all.

8928:

If your concern is with tagging American Football League players with the WP:NFL banner, then I'd say yes, it's appropriate. The NFL all but absorbed the AFL, including records and stats. So there's players in the NFL record books who never actually played in the NFL.

985:

Thank for the compliment on the Harmon article. I've just never gotten into the habit of promoting articles through the GA status. BTW, the Tittle article looks real strong, too. I didn't know much about him and enjoyed reading the article and learning about him.

9766:

Sorry, I am late to the party. My thinking is that coaching trees are more of a basketball thing than a football thing in terms of media mentions. However, I consider a coaching tree an encyclopedic topic if it can be sourced. I think I am in the minority on this

4651:

closer to a working bot, but the more we can figure out now the easier it will be to program. Easiest thing to hammer out right now is the formatting of the table. Sortable is an obvious one, but if you guys could start working something out that would be great.

4995:

I'm with Cbl62. I like that they are linked (it looks better in my opinion). However, I've just felt that they should be linked to the team's season, not the league. So, honestly, I know it would be a bit of a big change, but I would wholeheartedly support it.

532:

Actually, they may be able to find the talk page because there were a bunch of edit requests when the Sam Bradford page was protected. I think if you're an IP or un-autoconfirmed on a semi-protected page, a message pops up saying something about the talk page.

2928:. According to the Jaguars' team history, the franchise's first game was against the Oilers and from that game "a rivalry was born between the Oilers and Jaguars that would continue forward when Oilers became the Titans and moved to Nashville, Tennessee." See 575:

To give an actual answer, I'd say trash it. A few tight games over the past few years does not a rivalry make. But if that's what the media considers a rivalry now then there's really nothing we can do about it. And our inclusion criteria is pretty low. Hell,

10169:. "Given the disruption which has almost always been associated with Reguyla/Kumioko we have taken the unusual step of removing talk page and email access as well as fully protecting Reguyla's userpage and talk page." Sounds like he killed Jimmy Wales' dog. 8512: 4821:"In college, as a quarterback for Maryland in 1984, Frank Reich had come off the bench to rally the Terrapins from a 31-0 halftime deficit to a 42-40 victory over defending national champion Miami. In today's AFC Wild Card Game, Reich goes a point better. 864:

While I agree that summaries of every game are generally not needed in player bios, I do not think there should be a per se rule against discussion of individual games. In some cases, it is appropriate. It has to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

10496:

OK, I'm satisfied it's not entirely trivial for bios. Just like other stats, it'd be monotonous to spew out a players rank year after year in prose, but that's better left for a GA/FA review. LISTN no longer is a concern for me. Thanks for doing the

7688:

It wouldn't be any different, but not for the reason Lizard mentioned. In results tables on team season articles, we always put that team's score first. The change proposed by this thread should only affect scorelines mentioned in prose, not tables. –

7333:

I don't know why I ever did it, but I know I heard it from somewhere, otherwise I wouldn't have done it. I can tell you that there are definitely more than a few people who believe this is the correct way of doing it, so it isn't just a random error.

12295:

The table layout occasionally needs some work. For example, if there has only ever been one kick off return for a touchdown in the franchise's playoff history, someone needs to manually type in a colspan=3 snippet, and idiosyncratic things of that

9567:

You are not helping here as you are just nitpicking my every word. Even if I did not write "Not to sound desperate", you would think the same as you did. Instead of accusing users of something (or at least trying to do it), stick to the topic. –

12716: 9930:

Ehh, reversing the years would be pretty dramatic. Would only coaching years be reversed and playing years remain the same? Or would it all flip? Either way would be a striking visual change to something that's stayed the same for a while now.

12852:

I also think the bright color-coding is too striking for an encyclopedia that strives for professionalism. There are much better options, such as bolding and the † and ‡ symbols. If color coding must be used, it should be a very light shade.

9504:

I didn't make an accusation- and specifically said this didn't cross the line- but I'm guessing you wouldn't have requested more input if the discussion was more friendly to your position. If that's not the case, then I retract my statement.

6336:

I partly agree. That's because I think that "(sports executive)" would be the most appropriate DAB for article's name as he could get involved with some other team from some other sport. However, I'm not opposed with the proposition above. –

9077:

The league itself is definitely in the scope of WP:NFL. I'm not sure about individual players. Although we probably only have about 100 or so articles on AAFC-only players so it might not even be worth bothering ourselves with. Bigger fish.

7802:

I have been correcting it where I can. I think I've identified the user that's been adding the incorrect format. I posted on their talk page about it and they ignored and removed my post, simply because of a disagreement we had previously.

1420: 12602:

I stumbled upon this a few weeks ago and just left it alone because it was so bad. It's definitely a thing, but I'm not sure it's exclusively a Broncos thing. I've seen it used for other teams like the Cardinals and even for college teams.

11126:

would be an example of someone that wouldn't have the number 1 as a jersey number, now that I think about it. If I'm not mistaken he didn't wear the number in any pre-season games, just training camp. Also, Michael Same was at least on the

6924:

Positioning of the time when the score was made, wording of the description of each score, the notation for the PAT/2PT conversion, the notation for the scoreline, and the notation for the drive length/duration. See above for arguments. –

1377:

If you're looking for potential "weak" rivalries, teams that have articles on, say, five or more purported rivalries are particularly suspect. E.g, Steelers (six purported "rivalry" articles), Cowboys (six), 49ers (five), Giants (five).

10079:

If there's appetite to change the infobox to make use of numbered teams/years parameters so we can easily make formatting changes in the future without a bot run, I'd be 100% behind that and could handle it with my bot. I've done it for

9550:

That's not the point here(but yes, I would have said it anyway). You have every right to your views and to comment. But when someone says "Not to sound desperate" when soliciting comments I'm not sure what else I'm supposed to think.

9281:

In the case of Belichick specifically I would suggest that only NFL personnel who went on to other things be listed(maybe the one CFL head coach), and not people who went on to NCAA jobs- as well as the people Belichick worked under.

6241: 6866:

is no longer applicable. Silence is a very weak form a consensus; if one person disagrees, and another 500 people remain silent, then the vote count is 1 disagree to 1 agree (assuming the one proposing the guideline is the 1 agree).

6848:– From the fact that you had to change all those other articles, obviously the previous editors DID disagree with you. The fact that they havent changed it back might not be considered consensus if they previously disagreed with you. 1416: 10001:(1989–1993, OC). Not saying we should do this, just brainstorming. The NBA infobox just lists everything else but head coach as "assistant". However, there are more prominent assistant positions in football like coordinators. 4903:

Man, apparently I don't know football and I don't know how to read. Apologies. I can't even explain how I didn't see that. Overtired? No, that doesn't come close to a valid excuse...Thanks for indulging me and responding.

938:

is another example where I think substantial coverage of key games is warranted. His 1939 and 1940 seasons were among the greatest in football history, and I think the level of detail included in that article is appropriate.

7274:

I am not a big stickler for consistency and standardization, but I absolutely hate the 20-27 format, even in season article charts. If the proposal passes, I will gladly make the change in all Big Ten season article charts.

12386:

The first two columns of my table can be verified using the "career leaders" and "single season leaders" on the dropdown menu. The rest of them need to be queried (which I do via a script). I notice that there is already a

10235:

team without playing. This would be pretty much impossible in NBA (13 man roster), MLB (25 man roster) or NHL (23 man roster), where probably every person whose on the roster during the season appears in at least one game.

4701: 4954: 3134:

When I grew up in Detroit in the 1970s, this was recognized as a major rivalry. Haven't lived there in 30 years, but a quick search confirms the existence of significant coverage of this series as a rivalry. E.g., E.g.,

9489:

You should stop with accusations, because I'm not trying influence anyone. Regular editors are always notified in other WikiProjects at any point of the discussion so I don't see why the same thing can't be done here. –

5919:

should make them sub-projects of the main NFL project, rather then stand-alones, and collapse the banners into the main NFL one, like what was done with the Patriots project already, and as has already been done for the

6941:

So am I to gather from the silence in this thread that everyone here is happy with the inconsistency between teams? If Jdavi333 is the only one opposing this and I'm the only one in support, what else is there to do? –

7572:" (emphasis added for clarity). Alternatively, we would construct the sentence some other way to avoid such ambiguity, but regardless of how the sentence is constructed, we always put the winning team's score first. – 6988:

and the discussion here I agree with him on some points but disagree on most. First of all, I understand the idea of bringing consistency across all NFL articles, however I disagree whether this is necessary, and like

4520:

That is neat they do that, would just need some work. Do one of you guys want to work with them to see if you can get that smoothed out? If you guys are interested I can look into the bot as well. Let me know, thanks!

475:

Lol, but IP editors don't even read what's in the actual article (Like updating the infobox with current stats when it still says "Career NFL statistics as of 2015"), they stand no chance of discovering the talk page.

6419: 9352:. These summaries of coaching influences are widely discussed and are a meaningful aide to understanding. One editor may see "trivia" but others see meaningful information, discussed extensively in reliable sources. 920:

Yh, I noticed the length of that article too but at least it's reliably sourced. The real problem is when this stuff isn't. The Robinson article is comprehensive at least. Some people probably care about that stuff.

4535:

Yh, not sure what we can work out besides having them make a second wiki format option that only has certain values. Also, if you wanna make a bot that can automatically create good looking stats tables, feel free.

9582:

You may think what you wish; I know what I would have done. I unconditionally regret giving offense but as all of us do I can only call things as they seem to me. I will not say any more about my earlier comment.

12060: 9112:

He played for teams that merged into the NFL, so I'd say that's fair game. It's part of the history of an NFL team, even if it's not part of the history of the NFL itself, and NFL teams are obviously in-scope. ~

6674:

know what could possibly be. Such enormous changes to any Knowledge article should not be made before a consensus has been reached. You can't simply change 3 or 4 other articles and make this into the standard.

8370:

Yh, you're right. The current LA Chargers cat used to be at Los Angeles Chargers (AFL), so we could just move it back. Also, the current San Diego Chargers one doesn't say (NFL) and they played in the AFL too.

6785:

How is it possible that no one but a disgruntled, stuck-in-the-mud Ravens fan has anything to say about this issue? Can I assume that everyone else is perfectly happy with my suggestion for standardisation? Is

4494:, you can just copy "402 624 64.4 4,770 7.6 36 7 38 225 102.2" from the first line then paste it into the table. Maybe a bot could get that Dutch Clark info and post it into the correct Knowledge table format. 10622:

For the record, I'm also of the feeling post-season stats shouldn't be included (in table format) in articles at all. The only reference that needs to be made in the article is if they're record holders, like

6456: 8464:

Super Bowl I (1967) to Super Bowl II (1968), that's one year but two games played. People don't count the beginning. Using numbers as an example, Super Bowl I would be like 0 and Super Bowl II would be 1.

8735:

Do not include these because they occur so infrequently that to include them would be a waste of space (this seems to be the present practice, but I'd argue that they should be included, at least for some

8353:

as well? If someone types in "Category:Los Angeles Chargers players" from now on they'll most likely be looking for the NFL Chargers, not the Chargers from back when they were in LA in the AFL for a year.

8296: 6275: 5732: 4949: 1071:

There are not any percentage guidelines that I know of. Also, I know what you're saying about the Pro Bowl thing. Maybe we could just increase the threshold for mid importance from two Pro Bowls to three.

6761:

and would mean a lot of work to fix all the other Ravens articles? I'm not denying it would be a lot of work, but one should never let the prospect of effort stand in the way of a better encyclopaedia. –

456:

Newton's page should be indef semi-protected. There's no good reason for it not to be. If there's the odd, miraculous chance that an IP wants to add something useful they can suggest it on the talk page.

9677:

I agree with StarScream1007 and Bagumba that coaching trees should be reserved for extraordinary coaches like Belichick, Lombardi, Stagg, Warner, etc. This should not be part of every coaching article.

8827:

Now that I look at it, it seems it was a procedural close since the editor had nominated dozens of articles like it all in one AfD. Which brings up a bigger issue; that we have dozens of these articles.

8513: 5230: 2462:

FWIW, this used to be a divisional matchup, between 1970–2001, however the article states that the rivalry didn't really begin until after then, making much of this article basically a duplicate copy of

7663:, where (due to forfeit rules in place at the time) Alabama actually is considered to have lost several games despite scoring more points? Even with the (forfeit) note I can see that getting confusing. 7025:

care to actually engage in a discussion here or does he simply intend to state his case and walk away? It would be nice to believe I'm not the only person trying to build a better encyclopaedia here. –

11521:

him as a WR. However they do have kickings stats for him since he attempted and made one field goal and one extra points as a rookie and an extra point with the Pats. But that would be like listing

9847:

unsolvable; we're trying to cram a lot of information into one entry. Agree on "head coach unless specified otherwise" (and happy to run a bot to remove "head coach" entries, if that would help). ~

5971:

Good point about Gonzo, he did put a lot of work into getting that project back up. I sometimes forget that when someone hasn't edited in a while it doesn't necessarily mean they've lost interest.

5643: 2763:. They are two of the oldest franchises in the Deep South, first met in 1967, and have played in the same divisions since 1970. There is also significant coverage of this series as a rivalry. E.g, 5776: 12285:

The links to the record holders don't disambiguate automatically, so if I could get some help making sure all the ]s of the world are pointing to the *right* Mike Anderson, that would be amazing.

8783:

Yikes! I love stats and all, but sheesh. I guess I don't mind stand-alone articles, but more when these tables are included in stadium articles, similar to listing every concert at a facility. --

1336:

and should be deleted, with relevant content migrated to team and season articles." Arguing each article with the associated fanbase felt more involved. Think outcome of 2) will help us decide.

1005:

Other key games (3 TDs, career highs, game-winning scores, etc.)are worth a mention. Anything that earns a player of the week award should be mentioned. Bad weeks don't need to be mentioned.--

11039: 8747:

Include it for all players, even on defense like Berry, because unusual plays like Berry's do occasionally happen. This is the most complete but would be even more criticized as wasting space.

6406: 5516: 5423: 5357: 9340:

Belichick's coaching tree, like his influence, is so extensive that a spinoff article may well be justified. Most of the existing coaching tree sections are not so long: compare for example

8091: 6236: 5435: 3399: 2973: 2153: 2062: 1779: 111:

Doesn't really seem necessary though. You can just put it in the external links section. And it should probably be removed from the gridiron football infoxbox too but no one has done it yet.

12938: 12909: 12893: 12822: 12786: 11370: 11208: 11081: 10958: 10072: 9466: 8969: 7374: 7345: 7191: 5135: 5106: 953:

That looks good. I think the main reason this was brought up is because of drive by IP editors who add unreferenced, poorly formatted game summaries using wording like "had a stellar game".

382: 353: 251: 12381: 12329: 12273: 11310: 11294: 11172: 11014:

I also meant in table form. If someone only played in a couple playoff games, the table will be short (I guess "a line or two" was an exaggeration, but it still won't take up much space).

10278: 10260: 10244: 10229: 10198: 10180: 10160: 10138: 10010: 9442:

Personally, I'm not a fan of them. Unless the coach has produced a number of highly successful/legendary head coaches. But that's just me, I don't think every single head coach needs one.

9107: 9089: 9052: 9033: 8589: 8558: 8474: 8380: 8365: 8332: 8308: 8128: 8110: 6653: 6618: 6567: 6190: 6167: 5913: 5892: 5872: 5834: 5816: 5792: 5764: 5750: 5726: 5698: 5683: 5667: 5637: 5589: 5191: 4503: 4485: 4469: 3677: 3663: 3647: 3633: 1124: 1110: 803: 789: 759: 745: 729: 715: 695: 609: 542: 505: 485: 468: 451: 431: 411: 222: 181: 11155: 10369:

them in order to be there. I think the other sports (MLB, NBA) require them to actually play in a game, but it's probably too large of a task to change how we do it for NFL players now. ~

7827: 7683: 4607:

who go from QB to WR and wide receivers who play special teams and get special teams tackles that way. At least with the NBA stat tables it's easy because everyone has the same stats lol.

3411: 3220: 3059: 2977: 2913: 2760: 2720: 2428: 2157: 1878: 1696: 12664: 12636: 12614: 11457: 11222: 10166: 9654: 8181: 7216: 4702: 4616: 4598: 3617: 3603: 3536: 3507: 1223: 1032: 336: 285: 12471:, who's responsible for most of the pro-AFL pushing that after a decade still plagues Knowledge. Check his talk page. He must have been a pain to deal with, and I'm glad I never had to. 11401: 10379: 10301: 9072: 8755:

I think adding them later if they retire and only have one and there is room, to add it. It annoys the heck out of me when the pages are made wider because the statistics box is too big.

7667: 6633: 5852: 5216: 5177: 4774:

and he's not just being an overzealous Bills fan, he's actually full-on right. I know nothing about football, though, and don't know where this would be added. Can anyone help? Thanks.

4771: 4753: 4739: 3485: 3313: 3190: 3126: 2904: 1130:

one more thing to discuss. Truthfully, I'm not convinced these importance scales have a lot of utility for anyone. How do you guys use them? What purpose do they really serve for you? —

773: 307: 12864: 11271: 10918: 7862: 7269: 5486: 5466: 2711: 2367: 2223: 2049: 1766: 1687: 1649: 1593: 1530: 523: 12988: 12836:

Well when it's "wikitable sortable" it stretches the stat table and gets annoying. When like the year is sortable, it's annoying to have three dots under it and makes it look weird...

12244: 12224: 12211: 10036: 9437: 8903: 8839: 8822: 8808: 8502: 8410: 7874: 7795: 7696: 6973: 6895: 6478: 6208: 5940: 5322: 5294: 5280: 5264: 5160: 5075: 2912:

The Jaguars have been a crappy team in recent years, but doesn't every team warrant at least one rivalry article? If so, ESPN.com rates the Titans as the #1 rival for the Jaguars. See

671: 12847: 12761: 12730: 12552: 12438: 12004: 11975: 11881: 11852: 11831: 11794: 11553: 11386: 11117: 10862: 10830: 10745: 10710: 10677: 10651: 10617: 10601: 10210: 10111: 9874: 9858: 8940: 8714:. Unless you take a picture yourself, it might be hard to find one that is in the public domain. We can't just upload anything off the internet because someone else owns the picture. 8026: 7846: 7234: 6878: 6450: 5982: 5962: 5392: 5373: 5050: 2140: 1434: 1345: 1315: 591: 568: 12482: 12462: 12395: 12365: 12351: 12310: 12117: 12097: 12078: 12050: 11424: 10801: 10506: 10491: 10439: 9972: 9956: 9942: 9897: 9146: 8723: 8698: 8670: 8641: 8614: 7892: 7766: 7737: 7725: 7651: 7634: 7528: 7468: 7442: 7386: 6400: 1156: 859: 835: 12965: 12583: 11285:

Brett Favre's link is messed up too, hmm... Anyway, I assume that the new inductees don't have pages on the website yet, so people are just using random ones to display the banner.

11023: 11009: 10973: 10876:

I mean players. Like guys who play one year on the active roster and play two playoff games. We shouldn't add post-season stats. Maybe not regular season if they are that bad haha.

9560: 9545: 9419: 8885: 8486: 8452: 8426: 8286: 8258: 8236: 8212: 8141: 8003: 7970: 7952: 7916: 6932: 6919: 6268: 5494: 5034: 1270: 1241: 12146: 10666:, etc. It shows the work they got done in very few games. AND I spent a lot of time with post-season stats in articles. They are hard to find if you don't look in the right places. 10359: 9124: 9038:

Yh, I was wondering whether it actually merged too. What do we mean by merge anyway. Does it have to be every team to be a merge. Does a partial merge count. Here are some sources

9009: 8989: 8062: 7284: 7258:

I'm a big stickler for consistency and standardization, but I probably won't go around flipping scores according to the outcome of this discussion. There's bigger dolphins to fry.

7172: 6549: 6529: 6502: 6331: 6313: 6295: 5621: 5607: 4990: 4927: 4913: 4898: 4884: 4797: 995: 874: 206: 165: 151: 11615: 11600: 11572: 9925: 9911: 9814: 9484: 8542: 8081: 6225: 6117: 1200: 1170: 1139: 1093: 1066: 9622: 9405: 8792: 8778: 7617: 7563: 7328: 5020: 4690: 4660: 4645: 4630: 4569: 4545: 4530: 3560: 3448: 3367: 3259: 3088: 3022: 2848: 2812: 2674: 2638: 2516: 2476: 2392: 120: 10885: 10327: 9794: 8919: 8017:

I, too, have never seen losing score first but on wikipedia. I admit I do it that way because I have had original changes corrected to that way, but I would happily reverse it.

7579: 7253: 7092: 7080: 7061: 7048: 7033: 7016: 7003: 2330: 2186: 2103: 2012: 1951: 1911: 1851: 1812: 1725: 962: 948: 930: 915: 889: 12187: 12175: 10901: 9390: 7594: 7498: 7484: 7146: 7133: 7039:

digits in tackles. As for the times; I consider the indication of the quarter in which a score was made to be sufficiently accurate for the information we're trying to convey.

6949: 6798: 6642:

year's Pro Bowl. The players who are currently listed as alternates for this upcoming Pro Bowl are not yet Pro Bowlers, and thus they shouldn't have it added to their infobox.

6144: 6101:

Just for all to know, I still consistently check my talk page/watchlist and will respond promptly. Just had some issues come up and haven't had the time to edit lately. Thanks!

4715:

Well, I worked on a few small things. For one in tables, please for the love of all that is hole, write it out as 1,### yards. lol. I did that and I corrected one teams name.

3211: 1057:

that, I've always given more weight to All-Pro designations (in addition to the fact that All-Pro is at the entire league level versus at the conference level for Pro Bowl). —

10765: 10523: 6857: 6836: 6820: 6768: 6755: 6740: 6727: 6712: 6696: 6683: 6346: 3467: 3386: 3294: 3275: 3171: 3107: 3041: 2960: 2886: 2867: 2831: 2795: 2751: 2693: 2657: 2596: 2556: 2495: 2411: 2349: 2309: 2290: 2271: 2205: 2122: 2031: 1492: 1328:

where some folks are going to oppose with google searches which absolutely can give the appearance of coverage. So I thought along the lines of presenting a single AfD, ala "

97: 89: 84: 72: 67: 59: 12525: 10318:. He's been on several NFL rosters, but has never played a game. Nevertheless, he's categorized as a "player" for several teams, even though that's technically inaccurate. -- 9757: 9734: 9276: 7054:

sense, and you're literally the only person arguing against their inclusion; since your reasoning isn't particularly convincing, I see no reason to agree with you on that. –

1991: 1930: 1869: 1830: 1744: 1668: 1630: 1574: 1511: 1408: 12623:

for it just because this article is so bad I don't even know where to start on the cleanup. I think with some cleanup it has some potential especially if we can set up like

10398: 9605:

a head coach has a notable lineage of successors. I would support it in some cases if there was enough prose or content to explain a coach's impact on football strategy. --

9592: 9577: 9529: 9514: 9499: 9368: 9335: 9320: 9239: 9218: 9196: 9171: 7106: 4871:

My football friend insists that Reich's contribution isn't accurately reflected in this article. I'd think it should be added but I don't know enough to either know that it

3431: 3346: 3240: 3071: 2997: 2621: 2577: 2537: 2452: 2169: 2082: 1890: 1325: 7568:

That's what I expected. However, in the English-speaking world, we don't give scores in this way. We would always say, "Team X were away to Team Y today; the score was 2-0

5672:

Yes, if not removed outright (my preferred option, since these projects are all but dead so the banners serve no real purpose) they should all be like the Patriots banner.

1296: 137: 12505: 11632: 9840: 9834: 9291: 6994:

timestamp for each score, yet that was added in the drive info. On top of that, we don't have to follow NFL.com to the letter, Knowledge isn't bound by their style guide.

4621:

Some kind of "if stat X is greater than Y, include in table" could be easily coded, that way we could just create a baseline for inclusion and only include those columns.

3152: 2941: 2776: 2732: 2467:. IMHO, this article could be legit, but it needs to focus more on the historical aspects and sources and less on Brady & Manning, which is already covered elsewhere. 2252: 1972: 1791: 1708: 1555: 1471: 1368: 1359:, any AFDs should be brought separately to allow the merits of each to be assessed independently. A mass bundled AfD would create confusion and be a procedural mess IMO. 9687: 6243: 5951:

keep them separate and build the project in the hopes that editors would appear once the project was more developed. There's no harm in giving him a chance to do that. ~

12977:

denoting championships in the regular season stats table since there's no correlation between a single player's regular season stats and his team's post-season success.

11625: 10218:

Why not just go by category? Oh yeh that's right, because we put players in team categories as soon as they're drafted, and they may never even play for the team. Oops.

6701:

Furthermore, you ask why I deleted tacklers from the stats section? The reason is that tackles are not recorded on the "Quick takes" section of NFL.com game recaps (see

6249: 6173: 549: 9713: 9000:. The NFL even briefly changed its name to the National–American Football League but shortly changed it back. AAFC players are also usually included on NFL stat sites. 7928:

well, in tables, (horizontal ones at least) the home team is on the bottom and visitors on top. I think in vertical ones it's guest on the left and home on the right.

1387: 12180:

But is this a format used in other reliable sources, or is it just a Knowledge custom? If it's the latter, we may need to reconsider how we display Super Bowl MVPs. –

10211: 12086:

was just created a few days ago, most likely in response to his name being in that template. Doesn't look like he's ever held any coaching positions of significance.

9825:

I have no problem with what Tarl N suggests. I could also understand if not every head coach had one, but some do deserve them due to their influence on the league.

9311:

apply here. This kind of lists could be found on NHL and NBA articles not long ago, but all of them were removed since they didn't improve the articles in any way. –

7701:

Exactly. The tables would remain the same, visiting team on top, home team on bottom (for horizontal ones that is). In prose it would be winning score-losing score.

4783: 3622:

PFR does have an option to convert stats tables into wiki markup tables. I noticed it after they updated to the new site layout, so I'm not sure if it's a new thing.

10577:

No. Just no. The way I see it, post-season stats don't count towards season and career stats, and post-season game starts don't count towards career starts, so no.

7455: 7246:

In season articles, I don't think any changes would be made to the schedule tables, but in prose, the winning score should always be written first, no exceptions. –

4967: 4490:

Yh, with all of the values that are there it's probably faster to just copy paste certain values in yourself as opposed to removing all of the other values. Like at

156:

Apparently it has 1,054 transfusions. Also, Look at Peyton Manning's article. Are all of those links really necessary. Not like his stats change from site to site.

11508: 8766: 3199: 11485: 10476: 5446:

A quick Twitter search seems to imply it's a joke from the Pardon My Take podcast that he's on, which would at least explain the "Glazer washes his apples" joke.

12258: 11647:

Also, can we please finally agree that since we don't repeatedly link team names in the box that we also don't need to repeatedly link the same season also? Like

5235: 4678: 7180:

I'll take your word for it, but I'll be honest, I usually do losing–winning if the subject of the article is on the losing side. Guess I've just been ignorant.

6098:

Again, I would prefer this not to happen to the Packers project right now, unless someone can guarantee all of the tools and categorization would be maintained.

3058:("The Lions-Packers rivalry is one of the most storied traditions in all of sports . . ."). Also, ESPN.com rates the Packers as the #1 rival for the Lions. See 844:

as a standard, since his page will undoubtably have many eyes on it over the next month. I think ideally we should wait until he plays all 4 of his starts, and

8729: 1423:

argues that the 49ers are the team the Cowboys take the most satisfaction in beating. Granted, they're by the same author. But there's some convincing points.

5062: 10186: 2921: 2236: 1246:

I'm fine with either one. I'm rarely comfortable just saying "Hell, it needs to be this. F*%k it, I'll just do it." So, if anyone wants to, go right ahead.

600:

Yh, how do we differentiate between sources saying it's a rivalry just for fun or in a way to promote the games and sources talking about an actual rivalry.

11255: 10930:(which isn't at all) I gotta agree with 'em....unless there was some way would put a banner on the page (when it's being edited), ala the BLP banner. Also, 10189:. The one I listed above wasn't even rated by WP:NFL so there could be some others like that. I'm just gonna say any undeveloped season articles are stubs. 8686: 10964:

should list post-season stats too. If someone only played a couple post-season games, then the post season stats would only require a line or two anyway.

5924: 5883:

What do you suggest we do with the userboxes. If we redirected the projects, that would really be the only thing left to do. Besides removing the banners.

1419:

claims "As much as Cowboys fans like to consider the Washington Redkins their top rival, a strong argument could be made for the San Francisco 49ers." And

1084:

as "Mid" importance but if he was "Low" importance, and players who played less than sevens seasons were listed as bottom, that might not seem that weird.

11356: 6195:

In my opinion,there's no need to link the same thing twice in the infobox. Apart from aesthetics it doesn't add anything beside unneeded link and breaks

906:

and I both worked extensively on the Robinson article, I'd be interested in his take on the issue. For that reason, I am pinging him to this discussion.

47: 17: 5269:

I'll be working on expanding Mean Joe's article soon. Indeed, I've heard him referred to as Mean Joe Greene probably more often than just "Joe Greene."

12356:

When I click More all that pops up is "All Pros & Pro Bowlers Uniform Numbers Comebacks Blown Leads Executives Training Camps Future Schedules" .

7730:

When I say tables, I'm talking about the schedule tables that list all 17 games, not the box scores, but you're right, those wouldn't change either. –

5111:

I would say I agree, but don't get me wrong, I think it should be mentioned that he also plays linebacker. Be it in the lede, infobox or pro section.

4889:

Well, Reich's name appears 23 times in the article. There's even a little section called "Reich and the biggest comeback in college football history".

11705:

I have changed the second stint and people changed it back. I think with teams we shouldn't over link it, but with years, I feel different about them.

11430: 11106:

doesn't have a number in PFR and we have his numbers as 96, 46, 94. I guess we should take off 96 and 46 because he only played with 94 in the CFL? –

5801:

I thought about that, but decided to include it as "inactive" since Gonzo has been MIA for a month. The project had some activity with me, Gonzo, and

2231:. Only 10 regular season games in 40 years, which hardly seems like much of a rivalry, but there is some coverage of this series as a rivalry. E.g., 9355: 8115:

And what would the criteria for that list be? Would it have to come from a kicking formation or only list people who were primarily kickers. Because

6256: 5843:

What if they come back. Are we gonna unredirect everything and then they leave again (making the project inactive) and we redirect everything again.

7979:

are in the improper format. The ones I was referring too are below that one, for individual games, and the info box ones for single game articles.

2925: 10467: 9947:

Should be consistent across players and coaches. I don't think it's that dramatic; the average reader would not be scratching their head over it.—

2232: 267:

Yh, I brought this up recently on Lizard's talk page. I'm not sure that all of these two sentence section headings on articles are needed. Look at

11474:

was on the 2014 opening season roster, but it is not in his infobox. It says (2008-2013) Should I change '13 to '14? Or should I just leave it. —

12012: 342:

better if we can group years into sort of "eras" for players, but that could be difficult to do without arbitrary grouping or original research.

10314:

in at least one regular or post-season game and another category for those who have been on a roster but never played a game. A good example is

9357: 8977: 5538: 12914:

To quote my mother, "sounds like a weiner to me", but I was meaning the whole sortable thing. How can we fix it so it "doesn't look so bad"?

10446: 12055:

We're not too far from that. I won't be surprised to see John Jastremski and Jim McNally listed as edit-war bait, since they can be reliably

8072:

is what you're looking for. See the fake punt and fake field goal sections. Not sure trick plays by kickers warrants its own article though.

6579: 6087: 6063: 6050: 6009: 5206:

for an explanation. Cravens is pretty much this for the Redskins, but it's just a gimmicky term for a new era of passing down linebackers. ~

4709: 679: 10725:.com for stats and post-season stats are usually not included. That's why I think we should leave those that are already there on articles. 10452: 8571: 8417:

Yh, the colors for these articles are messed up now, with the 1960 Los Angeles Chargers colors all over the place in inappropriate places.

5475:

has been criminally slow lately. 1,280 admins on this site and there's only around 5 of them that regularly deal with protection requests.

2764: 1332:

worked to review and improve 50 current rivalry articles within project scope and reached consensus that the following subset clearly fail

1304:, will look over each of these shortly. By "mass AFD" though, do you mean bundling them all into one AfD? Because I'd be opposed to that. 12056: 10758:

may not have had a regular season start in the year of his only postseason start, but he had started regular season games before that. –

8858: 8533:

There should only be one navbox, that song is still a part of the franchise's history. I'm boldly redirecting the San Diego one for now.

822:

I'd remove from bios and leave a note on the user's talk page that game-level details are more appropriate for team season articles like

7608:. I thought I was in the minority and have recently given in to what I consider heresy. I am pleased to support Underride's proposal. 10424: 7867:

Personally, I wouldn't say "an X–Y score"; I would prefer the construction "a score of X–Y". But either way, an endash is preferred. –

6002: 5568: 5203: 3358:, etc.) especially during the 70s & 80s. Probably more of a historical rivalry then a current rivalry, but a rivalry, nonetheless. 2929: 700:

Of course, use common sense. If the player reached a milestone then it's probably notable. But we don't need what we currently have on

5655: 620:

I would say trash it also. The term "rivalry" gets thrown around too much nowadays. For an example of a true NFL rivalry, look at the

211:

The source I usually use for middle names is Pro-Football-Reference. If it's available anywhere on the internet they usually have it.

11352: 10084: 9133:

I would say yes due to the fact that there are many guys in the Hall of Fame that played or coached most of their career in the AFL.

9060: 8578:. It's a very short article and I don't think we have any like it for other teams (but if we do, I'd suggest merging those as well). 8575: 6125: 5573: 4560:

Yh, that would probably probably be a good idea. I think I saw Dirtlawyer say something about making standardized stats tables once.

4474:

It's obviously rough around the edges, but it does the job. Maybe we can email the guys at PFR and try to work out something better.

548: 227:

Yeah, I like Lizard tend to use Pro-Football-Reference, unless it's available in their college bio, then I tend to prefer that one.

12391:; similar pages exist for a lot of the MLB and a few NBA teams, but this is the only one for an NFL team, as far as I can tell... — 12410: 11344: 11340: 11332: 8458: 7477:;) I'm from the UK, so I'm familiar with Sky Sports, I just wondered if it was a thing that was more common in Germany or Italy. – 6301: 6279: 5558: 5553: 5082: 142:

It's in some articles. I'm not sure we need all of those sites though. Database football was already removed from the NFL infobox.

12973:

is more relevant, but yes, if I were active in the NBA project I'd push to eliminate color coding there as well. I'd also suggest

12419:

Yes, merge them. Please. Having separate categories for teams when they were in the AFL is needless and esoteric. If you searched

11701:) and the other (2015). I would just leave it to make it look the same. Many people are now making the teams all links. Check out 11328: 10462: 7660: 6020: 5548: 1278: 191: 10457: 8769:

if you don't believe me). If you decide to try to take them on, all I can say is good luck, you're definitely going to need it.

1601:. Again, one of the oldest rivalries in NFL history, dating to 1930 with 172 games played so far. Coverage is extensive. E.g., 12134: 11324: 6598: 5563: 5378: 11494:

Since he wasn't able to record any stats in 2014 (due to him being released before week 1), 2013 is the final season given by

12930: 12885: 12814: 12624: 12575: 12342:

query engines to look them up one at a time, which gives us (almost unlimited) flexibility about what statistics to include.

11996: 11873: 11857:

Well, people have talked about it before. Like, within the last year. I think it's kinda obvious we should be, but oh well.

11823: 11545: 11449: 11348: 11200: 11147: 11073: 11001: 10950: 10854: 10793: 10702: 10643: 10593: 10471: 10419:

As much as I hate to admit, it's a pretty big deal. I don't really see a problem with it in prose. The NFL's YouTube channel

10064: 9646: 9458: 9345: 8996:

While we're here, we should decide whether the AAFC is within the scope. It looks like they merged with the NFL according to

8961: 8877: 8662: 8292: 8173: 8054: 7995: 7944: 7819: 7758: 7717: 7520: 7434: 7366: 7320: 6392: 5142: 5127: 5012: 4731: 4590: 3595: 3528: 1262: 663: 439: 374: 328: 243: 12591: 2917: 12674: 11336: 11279: 9396:

object is disruptive. Also, taking every disagreement personally and responding in a hostile manner is disruptive as well.

6430: 5499: 2464: 12691:

allows editors without access to certain paid databases to obtain access for free. Of special interest to NFL editors are

10907:

of work on stats is done by IPs who have no idea this WikiProject even exists, much less give a damn about our decisions.

10336:

Yes. The only problem is there are players who don't fit in either of those categories. We add players to team categories

8813:

Believe me, that's just the tip of the iceberg. And, don't even get me started on the soccer notability guidelines. Argh!

5543: 5039:

I have no idea what you're talking about. Any verbatim phrases expressed hitherto are purely coincidental, I assure you.

3198:

Packers-Bears and Redskins-Cowboys are the sports biggest rivalries. Packers-Vikes could well be third place. Notice who

8997: 7958: 12388: 11803:

time I would be okay with linking the same season repeatedly would be if we linked to that season, for that team, like

11558:

We should only go with the primary position the player was known by, not every single one they ever played. A guy like

10266: 10249:

No, it's too late now. It wouldn't be worth the trouble of constantly reverting and explaining to people on draft day.

9777: 8765:

FWIW, I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately, the soccer project literally lives for generating statcruft like this (see

7085:

Okay, so defensive stats are apparently fine (unless anyone else would like to comment). But what about score times? –

6663: 6073: 4603:

If you can figure something out, feel free to try. Football is kind of complicated though. Because we have people like

1015: 11525:

as a tight end / long snapper / kickoff specialist when he was an emergency kickoff guy in Philly. He certainly would

9137:

is good example because his coaching record includes AFL and NFL, but they are considered just "NFL coaching record."

8861:. Personally, I think, it's not, unless the player also at least spent time in the NFL. Many AFL players never have. 3330: 1842:

franchises. A divisional & in-state matchup. As a Bills fan, I can say that this is definitely an active rivalry.

1451: 12646: 11318: 4761: 510:

Nobody wants to tackle a Nebraska fullback. If there were a FB slot on the 90s all decades team, I'd campaign for

11799:

It's all the same to me. If we don't repeatedly link team names, we shouldn't repeatedly link seasons as well. The

10985:

well I was meaning in table form. If it's well written into prose, I couldn't care less. But I mean stats tables.

10529: 7837:

Which is preferred, an endash, a hyphen, or "to", such as "a 17–14 score"; "a 17-14 score"; or "a 17 to 14 score"?

7489:

Oops. I somehow missed that part. Looked at German sources and looks like it's varying by the reporter's style. –

6981: 6702: 6538:

as well. Pending changes is clearly insufficient, which shouldn't be a surprise considering the team he plays for.

5454: 5381:

is the most common, but "seasons" isn't always linked. Basically nothing in the lead that's bold should be linked.

4763: 2240: 1638:

110 meetings between the teams. When in doubt, if both teams are in the NFC North it's more than likely a rivalry.

1479:

Not a divisional matchup, but lots of playoff history between the two teams, especially during the 80s & 90s ("

272:

what do you do with the other sections. If none of the teams were big enough to warrant their own sections like at

11244:

don't have their infoboxes set as an NFL biography. I tried to change it and it screws it up. What should we do??

12688: 12420: 11923: 10428:

we don't include them in infoboxes is because they're so cluttersome for players who make the list every season.

10144: 10117: 9534:

I wonder if this accusation would have been made had Crash or I said we supported coaching trees. Of course not.

5928: 5532: 5408: 3419: 3228: 2985: 2565: 2525: 2440: 2380: 1960: 197:

Someone just reverted all of them anyway. They were probably true but a more reliable source would be preferred.

9410:

From a quick google search, it looks like there are quite a few sources taking about Belichick's coaching tree.

9257:. In the case of football coaching, the influence of a head coach on his subordinates is frequently remarked on. 7300:

seen it written losing team first-winning team, anywhere. I've always seen winning-losing. But I also like how

6156:

The AFL definitely is, since its history, stats, etc were merged with the NFL in 1970. Not sure about the AAFC.

4574:

I've thought about bringing the idea up, but I never have...always figured people would just blow it off. lol.

3334: 2436: 1459: 12700: 10345: 10307: 10094: 10019: 8678: 6555: 6515: 6365: 5252: 4974: 3136: 3055: 1602: 1229: 1191:

Yh, we're done with the bottom thing. I never actually said we should do it. Was just listing all the options.

823: 8479:

Exactly. This year is Super Bowl 51, so 50 years ago would have been Super Bowl 1. Elementary, dear Lizard. –

6910:

What exactly are you changing. They all look the same too me. Only difference I noticed was the top tacklers.

2759:

ESPN.com rates the Saints as the #1 rival for the Falcons and the Falcons as the #1 rival for the Saints. See

1606: 1161:

Yh, not a lot of people look at the importance but we might as well make sure its right if we're gonna do it.

12795: 12279: 12024: 11944: 11562:

would have fullback, defensive tackle, linebacker, offensive lineman, and special teamer listed if we did. ~

10123:

Looks like it was rated that way by a WikiProject United States member back in 2012, when the article was in

9697: 8436: 5920: 5595: 5237: 3051: 1610: 1480: 686:

let's remember not to just remove everything that says in Week 13, or whatever. Some of it might be notable.

9381:

I say keep it, but limit it to head coaches only, and eliminate the general managers and assistant coaches.

8646:

Yeah it is. I just wasn't sure what size to use. I always have trouble with that with images in infoboxes.

8323:

Yh, and the colors are wrong right now. On Rivers page, that is not the current team's colors, that's 1960.

12596: 11930: 11804: 10537:

I noticed that there are a few QBs that didn't start in the regular-season, but started in the post-season.

10420: 10406: 10185:

Hmm, anyway. I thought there were more but it looks like there's only 3 season articles rated as lists at

9916:

The work would be in encoding the template parameters in the article, which presumably a bot could handle?—

8704: 8193: 621: 12292:

of work to go to every single record holder's page and insert the code. Help with that would also be good.

10124: 9520:

However, if people don't care about it then I'm willing to compromise by leaving NFL head coaches only. –

8752:

I would say that after two, then add them to statistics. It is very rare, so I think two is a good number.

6624:

case, he is listed as making the team because someone who was a starter or reserve didn't end up playing.

3415: 3224: 2981: 2432: 1455: 12984: 12905: 12860: 12782: 12726: 12660: 12610: 12548: 12478: 12434: 12377: 12325: 12240: 12207: 12113: 12093: 12046: 11465: 11366: 11306: 11267: 10914: 10819:

so we should? I say yes if they are good. Those who suck, we shouldn't waste time on. There is no point.

10487: 10435: 10355: 10256: 10225: 10176: 10134: 9968: 9938: 9870: 9541: 9433: 9085: 9029: 8936: 8835: 8804: 8585: 8554: 8498: 8432: 8406: 8361: 8282: 8232: 8106: 7858: 7679: 7341: 7265: 7187: 6990: 6969: 6874: 6649: 6545: 6525: 6474: 6186: 6163: 6056:

to be marked as a team sub-project for all inactive sub-projects (to retain categorization and linkages).

5978: 5868: 5812: 5746: 5679: 5633: 5522: 5512: 5482: 5416: 5388: 5353: 5318: 5276: 5173: 5102: 5046: 4481: 3659: 3629: 3481: 3309: 3186: 3122: 2900: 2707: 2363: 2219: 2136: 2045: 1762: 1683: 1645: 1589: 1526: 1430: 1311: 1152: 1106: 855: 785: 741: 711: 587: 564: 501: 464: 427: 349: 261: 218: 177: 12898:

I'd say bold for league leaders and the † for career highs. Then maybe light shading for an NFL record.

11807:

and not the league year. But since it's the same article over and over again, it's wildly overlinking.

11605:

It's better to tell an admin instead of me. I know some members here have the power to protect pages. ~

11213:

Yh, I do that too but I was just talking about citing sources for the numbers or writing them in prose.

9742:

That was my intent. But it appears the discussion has not yet wound down, so I'll hold off for a while.

4770:

My football freak friend had a slight meltdown about Frank Reich's significance in this article. I did

3512:

My thought was record holders only. Not single game, but single post-season and career record holders.

12953: 10127:

condition. To someone unfamiliar with the NFL this certainly is just an article with a bunch of lists.

8711: 8440: 6435: 5626:

What about the projects' assessment banners? Will we have to manually remove them from every talkpage?

358:

I'm sure we can figure something out, we're pretty smart people here...okay, so let's huddle up. lol.

38: 4973:

If we do link, IMO the link would be more useful if it were a link to the specific team season (i.e.,

12923: 12878: 12807: 12568: 11989: 11866: 11816: 11538: 11442: 11193: 11140: 11066: 10994: 10943: 10847: 10786: 10695: 10658:

I would just leave it tbh. That would be hard to erase. They are nice to check out with legends like

10636: 10586: 10148: 10057: 9863:

Forgot to mention that I also think we should use abbreviations like the college coach infobox does.

9701: 9639: 9451: 8954: 8870: 8655: 8166: 8134:

the end zone on the play where he fumbled the hold against the Seahawks (although that was a PAT). –

8047: 7988: 7937: 7812: 7751: 7710: 7513: 7427: 7359: 7313: 6385: 6109: 5651: 5120: 5005: 4724: 4583: 3588: 3521: 3491: 1902:

franchises. Divisional matchup. As a Bills fan, I can say that this is definitely an active rivalry.

1255: 656: 367: 321: 236: 12063:

all the templates have lots of redlinks, which suggests that perhaps notability is being stretched.

5025:

I support removal of these season links. Lizard, no citation / hat tip for that rational above? :)

3354:

Not a divisional matchup, but lots of playoff meetings and memorable moments between the two teams (

2839:

FWIW, I could live without all of these articles on "rivalries" that exist mainly in the preseason.

898:

2010 season (one of the most extraordinary seasons in Michigan football histor) is appropriate. As

12692: 12361: 12306: 12269: 12193: 11420: 11290: 11218: 11168: 10722: 10297: 10274: 10240: 10194: 10156: 10006: 9907: 9615: 9415: 9103: 9068: 9048: 9005: 8985: 8891: 8719: 8694: 8538: 8470: 8448: 8422: 8376: 8328: 8304: 8124: 8077: 7209: 6915: 6629: 6611: 6563: 6425: 6360: 6309: 6264: 5909: 5888: 5848: 5830: 5788: 5760: 5722: 5694: 5663: 5617: 5585: 5187: 4923: 4894: 4793: 4686: 4641: 4612: 4565: 4541: 4499: 4465: 3673: 3643: 3613: 3556: 3503: 1582:

These are two of the oldest teams in the league. Plenty of history, especially in the 40s and 50s.

1483:", etc.) Probably more of a historical rivalry then a current rivalry, but a rivalry, nonetheless. 1219: 1196: 1166: 1120: 1089: 1038: 958: 926: 885: 799: 769: 755: 725: 691: 605: 577: 538: 481: 447: 407: 303: 281: 202: 161: 147: 116: 12681:

your institution, searching for a certain player in the library's search engine may turn up empty

12339: 12335: 12059:. Which will beg the question why we're listing locker room assistants and ball boys. I notice at 9039: 12127: 12029: 11639: 8527: 8119:

was a kicker too. But yh, that list would have no chance of surviving, I'm just humoring myself.

7379:

I always just assumed it was an American thing, but perhaps it's more from continental Europe. –

5736: 5072: 4960: 4749: 2629:

per Cbl62. Divisional matchup. I know this is definitely a rivalry in the eyes of Dolphins fans.

1208: 633: 10340:

once they're drafted, before they're even signed by the team. If Knowledge were around in 1936,

9326:

to a coach's career, and it's not 'listcruft'(which is an essay and not a guideline or policy).

5182:

Maybe we could solve this with an email to NFL.com telling them that Cravens actually plays LB.

5087: 1115:

At least the NBA is simple. They just have an All-NBA team chosen by the NBA and NBA All-Stars.

12978: 12970: 12899: 12854: 12829: 12776: 12737: 12720: 12654: 12633: 12604: 12542: 12472: 12428: 12392: 12371: 12319: 12234: 12201: 12152: 12107: 12087: 12040: 12017: 11518: 11360: 11300: 11261: 11086: 10927: 10908: 10481: 10429: 10349: 10315: 10250: 10219: 10170: 10128: 9962: 9932: 9864: 9773: 9725:

Please be more specific. We leave head coaches and remove assistant coaches (or any others)? –

9535: 9427: 9162:

If it's your change you want it is up to you to find the appropriate venue for the discussion.

9156: 9079: 9023: 8930: 8829: 8798: 8596: 8579: 8548: 8492: 8400: 8355: 8276: 8226: 8100: 7852: 7673: 7335: 7291: 7259: 7181: 6963: 6868: 6643: 6594: 6539: 6519: 6468: 6180: 6157: 5995: 5972: 5862: 5806: 5740: 5673: 5627: 5506: 5476: 5382: 5347: 5334: 5312: 5270: 5246: 5198: 5167: 5096: 5040: 4475: 3653: 3623: 3475: 3303: 3180: 3116: 2894: 2701: 2357: 2213: 2130: 2039: 1756: 1677: 1639: 1583: 1520: 1424: 1321: 1305: 1146: 1100: 1011: 849: 779: 735: 705: 581: 558: 495: 458: 421: 343: 212: 171: 125: 11049:

would have 1, 13 (so far) listed. I think it's safe to leave them off. What does PFR have for

10717:

Yes, but I'm talking about other people who don't know where to look. Everyone I know goes to

10423:

every season and they collectively generate tens of millions of views. Picking one at random,

9696:

As a rough rule of thumb, I'd suggest that coaches who have not been inducted into either the

5904:

Pinging BU Rob13, since he might have some useful input and since his bot was discussed here.

12142: 11230: 9401: 9022:

merge. Our article on the AAFC is a mess and I would take what it says with a grain of salt.

8899: 8788: 8624: 6493:

for one month, which should last until his off-season unless they go deep in the playoffs. --

6461: 6231: 4803: 3407: 3326: 2609: 2424: 2070: 1676:

Last year's playoff game between these two is enough proof that this is a very real rivalry.

1543: 1447: 494:

in the second quarter. The game is almost over, still not protected. A lot of good that did.

12695:(lots of historical American newspapers; note that they often don't have the newest stuff), 8038:

Occasionally it happens, but not often. Also, no, I don't think there's an article for it.

6554:

Speaking of Tavix, if you want something to do Lizard or anyone else, you can help with the

3140: 12916: 12871: 12842: 12833: 12800: 12561: 12347: 11982: 11970: 11859: 11847: 11838: 11809: 11789: 11694: 11595: 11578: 11531: 11480: 11435: 11250: 11186: 11133: 11112: 11090: 11059: 10987: 10936: 10897: 10881: 10873: 10840: 10826: 10812: 10779: 10741: 10688: 10673: 10629: 10613: 10579: 10519: 10394: 10050: 9632: 9444: 9349: 9142: 8947: 8863: 8759: 8648: 8200: 8159: 8040: 8022: 7981: 7930: 7842: 7805: 7744: 7703: 7559: 7506: 7420: 7352: 7306: 7230: 7154: 7076: 7044: 6999: 6378: 5805:(who's also been missing for a month), but the initial enthusiasm seems to have gone flat. 5459: 5285:

Ironically, according to the article, "Joe Greene" apparently wasn't even his actual name.

5113: 4998: 4943: 4717: 4576: 3581: 3514: 3418:. Fox Sports rated this in 2009 as one of its "Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries." See 3355: 3227:. Fox Sports rated this in 2009 as one of its "Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries." See 3207: 2984:. Fox Sports rated this in 2009 as one of its "Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries." See 2439:. Fox Sports rated this in 2009 as one of its "Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries." See 1799:

A divisional & in-state matchup. The founding & early history of the Bengals, with

1320:

I was originally thinking of one AfD for all the articles the project flagged, (even as an

1248: 649: 637: 519: 360: 314: 229: 12750:

If you need any help from me in putting something together, let me know how I can help. ~

9601:

To go back on topic, I would prefer limiting the mention of 'coaching trees' on Knowledge

5780: 3414:. Further, CBS Sports rated it as one of its "14 rivalries that made the NFL better". See 3223:. Further, CBS Sports rated it as one of its "14 rivalries that made the NFL better". See 2980:. Further, CBS Sports rated it as one of its "14 rivalries that made the NFL better". See 2564:. Fox Sports rated this in 2009 as one of its "Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries." See 2431:. Further, CBS Sports rated it as one of its "14 rivalries that made the NFL better". See 1454:. Further, CBS Sports rated it as one of its "14 rivalries that made the NFL better". See 580:

is in even worse shape in terms of establishing notability, and no one bats an eye at it.

8: 12961: 12769: 12468: 12456: 12370:

I was on mobile when I sent that, looks like the desktop site is configured differently.

12357: 12302: 12265: 12233:

that the MVP is always from the winning team, it may not be common knowledge to readers.

12221: 12184: 12171: 12072: 11953: 11919: 11744: 11736: 11416: 11409: 11286: 11214: 11179: 11164: 10762: 10293: 10270: 10236: 10190: 10152: 10033: 10002: 9903: 9810: 9751: 9730: 9627: 9608: 9573: 9525: 9495: 9411: 9386: 9364: 9316: 9308: 9270: 9235: 9192: 9099: 9064: 9044: 9001: 8981: 8818: 8774: 8715: 8690: 8637: 8534: 8483: 8466: 8444: 8418: 8372: 8324: 8300: 8138: 8120: 8073: 7871: 7734: 7693: 7647: 7631: 7590: 7576: 7494: 7481: 7464: 7383: 7250: 7202: 7143: 7130: 7089: 7058: 7030: 7013: 6985: 6946: 6929: 6911: 6892: 6845: 6833: 6795: 6765: 6737: 6709: 6693: 6669:

I have been editing and adding information to the Ravens' article. I was not the one who

6625: 6604: 6559: 6370: 6342: 6305: 6260: 6204: 6140: 5936: 5905: 5884: 5844: 5826: 5784: 5756: 5718: 5690: 5659: 5613: 5581: 5290: 5260: 5183: 4919: 4890: 4789: 4682: 4637: 4608: 4561: 4537: 4495: 4461: 3669: 3639: 3609: 3567: 3552: 3499: 3444: 3363: 3255: 3084: 3050:

search confirms the existence of significant coverage of this series as a rivalry. E.g.,

3018: 2844: 2808: 2670: 2634: 2512: 2472: 2388: 2326: 2182: 2099: 2008: 1947: 1907: 1847: 1808: 1721: 1488: 1215: 1192: 1162: 1116: 1085: 954: 922: 881: 795: 765: 751: 721: 687: 629: 601: 534: 477: 443: 403: 299: 277: 198: 157: 143: 112: 105: 10143:

It looks like a list but if it was developed, it could have a good amount of prose like

2916:. Also, ESPN in 2008 rated the Jaguars-Titans as the best rivalry in the AFC South. See 2524:

Fox Sports rated this in 2009 as one of its "Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries." See

1959:

Fox Sports rated this in 2009 as one of its "Top 10 hottest current NFL rivalries." See

12696: 11123: 11046: 11019: 10969: 10414: 9998: 9990: 9630:

said it better than I did. But we have essentially the same feelings about the topic.

9341: 9300: 8602: 7966: 7912: 7664: 6955: 6853: 6816: 6751: 6723: 6679: 6446: 6411: 6327: 6291: 6103: 5603: 5527: 5440: 5069: 5030: 4909: 4880: 4779: 4745: 3463: 3382: 3290: 3271: 3167: 3103: 3037: 2956: 2882: 2863: 2827: 2791: 2747: 2689: 2653: 2592: 2552: 2491: 2407: 2345: 2305: 2286: 2267: 2201: 2118: 2027: 1987: 1926: 1865: 1826: 1740: 1664: 1626: 1570: 1507: 1404: 1341: 1292: 1237: 734:

Specifically the 2009 season onward. What a mess, how did anyone let it get like that?

701: 396: 133: 12794:

might wanna be part of this. He made me think of it because he made the stat table on

12715:

This should really be pinned somewhere on the project page, or a put into a sub-page.

12197: 12103: 11961: 11940: 11773: 11765: 11702: 11559: 10502: 9952: 9921: 9893: 9805:

Coaching trees have been removed from basketball and ice hockey articles long ago. –

9785: 9768: 9472: 9296: 8610: 8491:

I knew there was a reason, I was just too lazy to figure it out myself. It's Sunday.

8222: 7888: 7168: 7097:

Score times and drive times should be included. Not sure about tackles, but why not.

6863: 6826: 6259:

and some of the other ones say (sports executive) and (American football executive).

6221: 6037: 4696: 4491: 1135: 1073: 1062: 1023: 1006: 901: 831: 12627:

is. Even though it has its issues, its a lot better then this No Fly Zone article.--

12510:

Just to be clear, this isn't a vote. It can't be, as all category merges go through

9230:

And I clearly stated that a message was left here about the discussion elsewhere. –

9041: 6059:

Have a Bot run that would remove those project's tags and add the team qualifier to

794:

For now, I'm just gonna be a little bold and cut out the obviously unnotable games.

12315: 12138: 11957: 11895: 11712: 11606: 11582: 11563: 11499: 11392: 10386: 10370: 9830: 9789: 9588: 9556: 9510: 9480: 9397: 9331: 9304: 9287: 9214: 9184: 9167: 8895: 8784: 8350: 8254: 8208: 7786: 7102: 6962:

if we had a standard way of doing it, but it's really not all that critical to me.

6804: 5755:

The CFL banner had the manual B-class thing too until I removed it. Not necessary.

5647: 5207: 5151: 4656: 4626: 4526: 3544: 1027: 511: 12035:

Half expected to find the team electrician listed. I say any employee that can be

7410:, etc. you'll see the scores listed as winning score-losing score. Honestly, I've 6131:

No one? I seriously think this needs to be addressed. The current claims reeks of

12837: 12791: 12501: 12447:

Agreed. If the AFL commissioner knocks on your door, we can discuss it with him.

12343: 11965: 11934: 11913: 11903: 11899: 11842: 11784: 11769: 11759: 11755: 11751: 11740: 11730: 11720: 11716: 11698: 11678: 11666: 11656: 11640: 11590: 11475: 11245: 11107: 10931: 10893: 10877: 10835: 10822: 10770: 10737: 10669: 10624: 10609: 10515: 10390: 9709: 9683: 9183:

You're not supposed to follow me around and say what to do. I'm starting to feel

9138: 8032: 8018: 7838: 7613: 7555: 7350:

Well, they're wrong. lol. :D Besides, it doesn't even roll off the tongue well.

7280: 7241: 7226: 7072: 7040: 7022: 6995: 6585:

I agree with you on this.Some sources will blur these designations. For example,

6535: 6132: 5449: 4986: 4978: 4961: 4955:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of Monday Night Football results (1990–2009)

3427: 3342: 3236: 3203: 3148: 3067: 2993: 2937: 2772: 2728: 2617: 2573: 2533: 2448: 2248: 2165: 2078: 1968: 1886: 1787: 1704: 1551: 1467: 1383: 1364: 991: 944: 911: 894: 870: 841: 515: 417: 11495: 10572:

Should we make something special in the team's starting quarterback's navboxes??

9961:

Well, I'd rather we not do it only for the sake of avoiding double parentheses.

46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

12957: 12218: 12181: 12167: 12018: 11909: 11726: 11684: 11662: 11128: 11054: 10806: 10759: 10663: 10030: 9885: 9806: 9781: 9739: 9726: 9569: 9521: 9491: 9382: 9360: 9312: 9231: 9203: 9188: 9095: 8814: 8770: 8633: 8480: 8154: 8148: 8135: 7868: 7731: 7690: 7643: 7628: 7586: 7573: 7490: 7478: 7474: 7460: 7449: 7393: 7380: 7301: 7247: 7140: 7127: 7086: 7055: 7027: 7010: 6943: 6926: 6889: 6842: 6830: 6792: 6762: 6734: 6706: 6690: 6586: 6338: 6200: 6136: 5932: 5472: 5308: 5301: 5286: 5256: 3440: 3359: 3251: 3080: 3014: 3010: 2840: 2804: 2666: 2630: 2508: 2468: 2384: 2322: 2178: 2095: 2004: 1943: 1903: 1843: 1804: 1717: 1484: 1019: 625: 491: 9018:

But AAFC stats and records aren't accounted for by the NFL, since the leagues

8095: 12751: 12620: 12515: 12511: 12424: 11674: 11652: 11376: 11098: 11015: 10980: 10965: 10816: 10101: 9848: 9114: 8909: 8625: 8116: 7962: 7923: 7908: 7068: 6884: 6849: 6812: 6808: 6787: 6747: 6719: 6675: 6590: 6442: 6323: 6287: 6283: 6150: 5991: 5952: 5899: 5733:

Knowledge:WikiProject National Football League/Pittsburgh Steelers subproject

5599: 5401: 5363: 5342: 5088: 5026: 4950:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Monday Night Football all-time team standings

4905: 4876: 4775: 4604: 3459: 3378: 3286: 3267: 3163: 3099: 3033: 2952: 2878: 2859: 2823: 2787: 2743: 2685: 2649: 2588: 2548: 2487: 2403: 2379:

franchises. A divisional & in-state matchup. Lots of memorable moments ("

2341: 2301: 2282: 2263: 2197: 2114: 2023: 1983: 1922: 1861: 1822: 1736: 1660: 1622: 1566: 1503: 1400: 1356: 1337: 1333: 1329: 1288: 1233: 1051:

to set the parameters for each designation in a somewhat more scientific way.

129: 12158:

I think that's because all Super Bowl MVPs were on winning teams except for

11841:

Seriously? I was just thinking the same!!!!!! Great minds think alike. lol —

8514:

Category:Lists of National Football League draftees by college football team

5251:

Based on the way that move request went, I wonder about a possible move for

12707: 12514:. If we get support here, I'll do a mass CfD nom and post the link here. ~ 12448: 12163: 12159: 12064: 11522: 10498: 10026: 9948: 9917: 9889: 9743: 9722: 9262: 8851: 8606: 8565: 7884: 7164: 6217: 6196: 3006: 2376: 2318: 2091: 2000: 1939: 1899: 1839: 1502:

Functionally uncited, but lots of coverage re playoffs as we've discussed.

1131: 1058: 827: 291: 273: 5095:

I'd say list him as defensive back, since that's what NFL.com has him as.

12642: 11260:

The NFL biography infobox is embedded to another infobox on those pages.

11237: 11103: 10558: 9826: 9584: 9552: 9506: 9476: 9327: 9283: 9225: 9210: 9178: 9163: 9134: 8797:

The fact that the last AfD for that closed as "speedy keep" is alarming.

8250: 8204: 7407: 7163:

winning score listed first. It's how it usually listed in most sources.—

7098: 6244:

Knowledge:Files for discussion/2016 November 7#File:NFCS-Uniform-CAR2.PNG

5802: 5644:

Knowledge:WikiProject National Football League/New York Giants subproject

5311:

was another obvious one, who we had as Frank Kinard until just recently.

4802:

I keep reading articles about Frank Reich's role in this game. To quote

4652: 4622: 4522: 2504: 1081: 636:

was being a dick and reneged on a deal to sell the Redskins franchise to

298:, I combined some of the one-and-two line paragraphs into one paragraph. 268: 11980:

No, I mean if none of them went to NFL seasons, but ONLY team seasons.

11122:

I will say that RoyalsLife does make a compelling argument. But I think

8203:. If the move isn't approved by the NFL, it can always be moved back. - 6300:

Agree with what? I didn't say anything. lol jk :) Also, it should be at

2156:. Also, ESPN.com rates the Steelers as the #1 rival for the Browns. See 750:

Do you mind if I just be bold and delete a lot of the unnotable games..

12497: 12083: 11241: 11094: 11050: 10341: 10319: 9705: 9679: 9353: 8399:

No, but that article is atrocious (as are most team history articles).

8069: 7880: 7609: 7276: 6509: 6494: 6457:

Requested move Infobox gridiron football person → Infobox CFL biography

5779:. Does this mean all of his work was for naught lol. Looks like he got 4982: 3423: 3410:. Also, ESPN.com rates the Steelers as the #1 rival for the Raven. See 3338: 3232: 3144: 3063: 2989: 2933: 2768: 2724: 2719:

FWIW, ESPN.com rates the Falcons as the #1 rival for the Panthers. See

2613: 2569: 2529: 2444: 2427:. Also, ESPN.com rates the Patriots as the #1 rival for the Colts. See 2244: 2161: 2074: 1964: 1882: 1877:. FWIW, ESPN.com rates the Patriots as the #1 rival for the Bills. See 1800: 1783: 1752: 1700: 1547: 1463: 1379: 1360: 1355:

a mass bundled AfD. If there is a belief that some of these don't pass

987: 940: 935: 907: 866: 10731: 10683: 9902:

Wouldn't reversing all of the years be a big change for this infobox?

8225:. Has the move actually happened? All I see is that it was announced. 7672:

Why would it be any different? The higher score would still be first.

4981:). I just don't think the generic NFL season link is all that useful. 3329:. Also, NFL.com rates this as the #3 rivalry/feud in NFL history. See 2976:. Also, ESPN.com rates the Patriots as the #1 rival for the Jets. See 1450:. Also, NFL.com ranks this as the #4 rivalry/feud in NFL history. See 312:

I like them, thus far. Let's see if we can get something worked out.

11586: 10718: 10659: 10606:

I see your point. The reason why I asked was because it is very rare.

10029:). Of course it helps that the text in that box is a little smaller. 9471:

I don't think it has crossed the line but this request is borderline

6807:. Additionally, this is not the way Knowledge works. As explained in 4838:

Reich is starting for the Buffalo Bills because Jim Kelly is injured.

1716:

per what Lizard said. Divisional matchup. Definitely a rivalry here.

12559:

I'm cool with it. The fact there are separate categories is crazy.

9253:

example, a recent example I ran into is the Mathematics world - see

5231:

List of most career 300-yard passing games in the NFL AfD nomination

3333:. Jeffri Chadiha of ESPN rated it as the #2 rivalry in the NFL. See 2803:

Divisional matchup. Lots of history here, dating back to the 1930s.

2665:

Divisional matchup. Lots of history here, dating back to the 1930s.

2435:. Jeffri Chadiha of ESPN rated it as the #4 rivalry in the NFL. See 1458:. Jeffri Chadiha of ESPN rated it as the #2 rivalry in the NFL. See 11471: 10755: 10552: 10043:

I will admit that the college format, for coaching, isn't too bad,

4703:

Gary Anderson's missed field goal in the 1998 NFC Championship Game

1695:. ESPN.com rates the Steelers as the #1 rival for the Bengals. See 1080:

Just as an example, some people might think it seems weird to have

12301:

Where on PFR are these records coming from. I couldn't find them.

11299:

They're not even officially inducted yet. That happens in August.

7504:

British, etc. date format for so many American articles. lol. :D

5642:

I'm assuming you're talking about making them subprojects like at

3219:. ESPN.com rates the Packers as the #1 rival for the Vikings. See 10480:. As to the copyright status of the list itself, I have no idea. 9888:. Avoids double parentheses, shortens verbose non-HC positions.— 6043:

that do not have any active users who disagree with the proposal.

12318:, then expand the "More Oakland/Los Angeles Raiders Pages" tab. 5717:

And no one really uses them anyway. They're kinda just clutter.

170:

PFR and NFL.com have everything that anyone would need, really.

12717:

Knowledge:WikiProject National Football League/Reliable sources

11040:

Including jersey numbers in player infobox for off-season teams

10934:

that's what I thought you meant, but I wasn't quiet sure. lol

9254: 6407:

2016 Community Wishlist Survey Proposal to Revive Popular Pages

1214:

I think making it a redirect would be better than deleting it.

295: 11783:

I just think that the first looks nicer than the second one. —

6601:

will state this was one of his 'eight' Pro Bowl selections. --

6376:

Yes, it should've and I've done it. Thanks for the heads up.

5825:

And those discussions could just be held on this page anyway.

5436:

Update: Pro Football Hall of Fame article improvement campaign

5068:

Both of these requests have been fulfilled. Thanks very much,

8605:

whatever is relevant (if anything) and redirect to the list.—

7627:- It's simply not possible to win 20–27, or to lose 16–23. – 6883:

Fair enough. But that's why this discussion is here. So far,

6179:

I think our preference is to link every instance regardless.

6135:, OR and just plain unsourced, made up crap. Please comment. 5362:

Example diff and category of articles this affects please. ~

12956:. In addition, all projects treat this thing differently. – 12869:

Then can we come up with an idea of how to fix the issues?

11633:

Knowledge:Requests for adminship/Optional RfA candidate poll

11102:

You then retire. Should you put the numbers in the infobox?

8945:

I agree with Lizard, if that's what Rob was talking about.

7296:"dolphins to fry"? You sick freak! lol. But seriously, I've 416:

And more long touchdown runs by fullbacks. Did you see that

10165:

Not sure if relevant, but I'll also point out that user is

8908:

Indeed, I was referring to the American Football League. ~

7399: 10734:

in player info-boxes as well. Many players don't have it.

10212:

Category:Lists of players by National Football League team

9094:

Well, this AAFC only player is tagged with WP:NFL anyway,

7199:

Winning score is almost always listed first in sources. --

5594:

Lizard, sounds like a good idea. You may want to consult

3439:

per Cbl62. Divisional matchup. Definitely a rivalry here.

420:? What year is it? Good to see Nagurski can still rumble. 12334:^ You can get many of them there. I'm actually using the 10444:

Here's coverage and commentary of this year's top 100 in

9187:

by such behavior from certain users so please stop it. –

7403: 6518:

as well? Needs protection ASAP and RFPP is running slow.

5495:

2006 Chicago Bears–Arizona Cardinals game up for deletion

1326:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Panthers–Seahawks rivalry

12703:(even more newspapers, including some more recent ones). 12496:

the proposal to merge the categories for a single team.

10892:

The way you said it sounds bad lol. "'Those who suck?'"

1803:

going from the Browns to the Bengals, like Lizard said.

778:

Yeh how I did with 07 and 08. Trimmed nearly 12k bytes.

11045:

I don't think we should. In that case when he retires,

9989:

I'm not sure there's a best way to do this. What about

8632:

Is changing the parameter in the infobox not enough? –

8099:

players are asked to do things they normally don't do.

4875:

be added or how to add it in context (appropriately).

3498:

determine what the appropriate cutoff point is. Hmm...

3079:

per Cbl62. Long-running rivalry. Lots of history here.

12653:

be written here. Someone just has to put in the time.

10777:

one of the first two sites I search for them on. lol

3398: