Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League
This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject National Football League and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 21 days ![]() |
![]() | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
|
![]() | WikiProject National Football League was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 November 2013. |
Dispute at Jordan Love
[edit]Hello, Yankees10 and I are having a dispute at Jordan Love. Seeing as there is some history here considering accusations of me "owning" the article, I'm bringing it here for input. Basically, the dispute revolves around a second source from Packers.com being added to a statement regarding him signing his new contract extension. I had added a source from ESPN.com to verify the signing, which is a reputable, third party source. Another editor added a second citation after the sentence to Packers.com, which is technically a self-published primary source. I removed it as excessive, Yankees10 reverted to add it back in. I reverted and explained myself a bit more in the edit summary, they reverted again accusing me of article ownership and edit warring (noting I have only reverted once, they have reverted twice). So basically the issue is whether his signing needs to be supported by the primary Packers.com source in addition to the ESPN.com source. I'll also note that the current placement of the Packers.com source is confusing, because it does not support the facts in the preceding sentence (rather it supports the facts in the sentence before the one it is attached at the end of).
I think WP:V and WP:CITATION supports the basic premise that the minimum number of sources to support a fact is most appropriate, and that third party sources are much more preferred over self-published primary sources like Packers.com. WP:OVERCITE provides a good essay on how too many citations can hinder readers and editors. I will also note, since this is early in Love's career, I am trying real hard to avoid what happened with Aaron Rodgers and his 512 inclined citations. It is so much easier to avoid early instead of having to clean up later.
- Links to the sources in question: ESPN.com and Packers.com
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:45, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
- Accusations of ownership are better handled 1-on-1 on user talk pages, taking it to a noticeboard if needed (WP:CONDUCTDISPUTE). Diffs should be provided to justify such claims.—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, I am not sure who this was directed to, but I just wanted to note that one of the reasons I moved the discussion to here so quickly is because I wanted to avoid further accusations of ownership. I am, and always have been, happy to go along with the consensus of the SMEs here at WP:NFL. I also wanted to avoid starting an edit war, as I had only reverted once. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: It was intended to be a generic statement toward accusers of ownership, but it could also apply if the accused is subject to persistent, seemingly unfounded accusations from an accuser. —Bagumba (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, I am not sure who this was directed to, but I just wanted to note that one of the reasons I moved the discussion to here so quickly is because I wanted to avoid further accusations of ownership. I am, and always have been, happy to go along with the consensus of the SMEs here at WP:NFL. I also wanted to avoid starting an edit war, as I had only reverted once. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- As for the content dispute, it's probably better if the other involved parties state their perspective. Kante4 originally added the aforementioned Packers.com source.[1]—Bagumba (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Hey, i added the packers.com source as the ESPN article relies(d) on "Sources" ("sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter"). That was the only reason and the packers made if official with their article. Kante4 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for that background Kante4! My only desire is to try to limit the number of references necessary in Love's article. I always regretted not doing Aaron Rodgers, and his article has ballooned up to an unmanageable 512 references. Would you and Yankees10 support the replacement of those two with the following:
- Hey, i added the packers.com source as the ESPN article relies(d) on "Sources" ("sources told ESPN's Adam Schefter"). That was the only reason and the packers made if official with their article. Kante4 (talk) 11:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- "It's official: Packers QB Jordan Love signs record extension". Reuters. July 27, 2024. Archived from the original on August 2, 2024. Retrieved August 2, 2024.
I think for such a straightforward, non-controversial piece of info, we should be able to support it with just one citation. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:07, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Looks good to me Gonzo fan2007. Kante4 (talk) 15:22, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- My $.02 may not be needed here, Gonzo fan2007, but yeah, as long as the Packers have announced the extension, there doesn't seem to be a need for the additional ref. Yankees10 maybe was considering that we don't post breaking news with these signings/trades based on rumors or reports, until one of the teams officially announces it, but that's usually for article leads and infobox changes. We don't need sentences being broken up with several refs between random words. Your original ESPN reference is sufficient especially in this case. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- I went ahead and made this change, adding the Reuters reference in place of the Packers.com and ESPN citations. I used the citation bot to format the reference, but it doesn't appear to have worked. Can someone give me a hand with that? SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Spf121188, here you go:
{{Cite news | url = https://www.reuters.com/sports/its-official-packers-qb-jordan-love-signs-record-extension-2024-07-27/ | title = It's official: Packers QB Jordan Love signs record extension | date = July 27, 2024 | access-date = August 2, 2024 | newspaper = [[Reuters]] | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20240802150607/https://www.reuters.com/sports/its-official-packers-qb-jordan-love-signs-record-extension-2024-07-27/ | archive-date = August 2, 2024 | url-status = live}}
« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC)- Perfect, Gonzo fan2007, thank you! SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:28, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- Spf121188, here you go:
- I went ahead and made this change, adding the Reuters reference in place of the Packers.com and ESPN citations. I used the citation bot to format the reference, but it doesn't appear to have worked. Can someone give me a hand with that? SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 16:15, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
- My $.02 may not be needed here, Gonzo fan2007, but yeah, as long as the Packers have announced the extension, there doesn't seem to be a need for the additional ref. Yankees10 maybe was considering that we don't post breaking news with these signings/trades based on rumors or reports, until one of the teams officially announces it, but that's usually for article leads and infobox changes. We don't need sentences being broken up with several refs between random words. Your original ESPN reference is sufficient especially in this case. SPF121188 (talk this way) (my edits) 15:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Pro Football Archives
[edit]If I recall correctly. I saw a post here that https://www.profootballarchives.com/ was down. It appears to be up again. @BeanieFan11:- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
- I'm aware. It was down for awhile, the owner told me that he was never bringing it back up again, and now its somehow back up (but I'm glad that its back). BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
All-Time Rosters
[edit]As many of you know, I am working towards WP:FL for all WP:PACKERS lists. The ones I have left to end to complete are Green Bay Packers All-Time Roster. However, the more I think about it, I really struggle with whether they are worthwhile for Wikipedia. The quality and consistency in Category:Lists of players by National Football League team is so low and bad. With the sheer number of roster moves these days and the size of NFL rosters, updating these lists that are "All-Time Roster" style seems borderline impossible.
I know other WikiProjects have FLs for All-Time Rosters, like Portland Trail Blazers all-time roster, but I guess I wonder if the dynamics of the NFL justify not having these types of articles. I mentioned in an earlier post converting over the "list of players" to a different style, which had support and I implemented at Lists of Green Bay Packers players. I wonder if this is enough. I guess I am asking what everyone's thoughts would be with abandoning the idea of maintaining all-time rosters for NFL teams on Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:12, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- @Gonzo fan2007: I would caution against getting the all-time roster to FA status. Especially once the list goes into disrepair, ie with Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster once @Killervogel5: left, it is a pain to de-list everything. Maybe if they're worthy, we can have some bot just update the stats? But even then I don't support their inclusion on WP. Therapyisgood (talk) 19:01, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Given the sheer size and monotonous nature of the updates, it seems better suited for automation, but I'm not sure if there is community precedent for such types of automated edits. In the meantime, {{Dynamic list}} seems relevant for any such incomplete lists. Nobody is required to maintain these lists. Is the question whether they should be deleted (WP:THEREISNODEADLINE comes to mind)?—Bagumba (talk) 23:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, yes I think that's the question. Basically, is maintaining a badly outdated list preferential to deletion? Does categorization better fit this type of need? Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range? Just straw polling the community before I put effort into updating or reworking the lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Does categorization better fit this type of need?
I'm not endorsing one way or another, but the WP:NOTDUP guideline says:
—Bagumba (talk) 02:42, 6 August 2024 (UTC)Furthermore, arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion and should be avoided. Redirects of list articles to categories are highly discouraged: list articles should take the place of the redirect.
Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range?
As those Packers lists only have seasons and number of games played, which are pretty basic and self-explanatory, NOTSTATS doesn't seem applicable. —Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
- Bagumba, yes I think that's the question. Basically, is maintaining a badly outdated list preferential to deletion? Does categorization better fit this type of need? Does WP:NOTSTATS fall into this range? Just straw polling the community before I put effort into updating or reworking the lists. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:43, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Reliable sources noticeboard discussion
[edit]There is a discussion at WP:RSN#profootballarchives.com that may be of interest to members of this project. Left guide (talk) 06:09, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
NFL.com
[edit]I know we removed the links from the infoboxes recently but people keep changing weight and stuff "per NFL.com". NBA infoboxes take the links from Wikidata. I'm wondering if we should do the same thing here. Just a thought if anyone wants to pursue this. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:32, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- To complicate matters, there was discussion before at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21 § Player's position that the team's website was the most accurate, not NFL.com. I'll leave it to regulars to gauge that. —Bagumba (talk) 06:18, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- NFL.com and PFR to a lesser extent have always lagged behind the team's website for updates to jersey numbers, height/weight, and positions. The only reason people argued for NFL.com as the primary database for these things was due to its infobox inclusion. I don't see any reason why we couldn't have replaced it with an autopopulated team profile page link based on the
|current_team=
parameter. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 14:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
- NFL.com and PFR to a lesser extent have always lagged behind the team's website for updates to jersey numbers, height/weight, and positions. The only reason people argued for NFL.com as the primary database for these things was due to its infobox inclusion. I don't see any reason why we couldn't have replaced it with an autopopulated team profile page link based on the
Regarding the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21 § Player's position discussion, I agree with a lot of what Dissident93 had to say. I know that Hunterb212 (talk) is one user that updates the height and weight in the infoboxes to show what the NFL website says at the time that he is updating them. There have been times when, after not very long, I see that the NFL website ends up changing that info, and I have to update the infoboxes to show the new changes; that's why I like to first have the infoboxes show the height and weight from the pre-draft measurables around the time that this information is first coming out, and then I wait until the regular season is close to starting or has already started before I use the NFL website or the team websites to update the infoboxes, as this information is more likely to change before then. I would say as far as the measurements in the infoboxes go, sometimes, I rely only on the NFL website, only the team pages, or a combination of them, with the pre-draft measurables being factored into the decision making. For example, with Brock Bowers, Georgia had him listed at 6'4 and 240 pounds. At the NFL Combine, he was measured at 6'3 and 243 pounds. The NFL website currently has him listed at the NFL Combine measurables (6'3 and 243 pounds). The Raiders website has him listed at 6'4 and 230 pounds. Since the Raiders website has a different weight listed than what Georgia listed him at or what he was weighed at during the NFL Combine, I would use the team website's weight listing (230 pounds) for his infobox, as it's more current. As for the height, it looks like the Raiders team page is likely relying on what Georgia listed him at, so I would go with the 6'3 listing that the NFL website got from the NFL Combine. Currently, his infobox only relies on the NFL Combine measurables (6'3 and 243 pounds). There are other times when the NFL website and the team websites pull both the height and exact weight from the old college listings, such as for Xavier Legette and Brenden Rice. In this situation, I personally would have the pre-draft height and weight listed in the infobox and would cite PFR if the PFR page still relies on the pre-draft measurables, as those listings should be more accurate and current. However, since the NFL website, the team websites, and practically every other source now show the listings that originally came from their colleges, I expect that eventually, someone will update their infoboxes to show these listings, as they're now considered "official"; this is why a lot of the times, in the "Professional Career" section, I will add the pre-draft measurables, even if I can't retrieve any other info except for the measured height and weight, because I want to show that the official listings aren't as accurate as many people believe them to be. It's also why I add that info to the "Professional Career" section for special teamers as well, even though people have told me that adding this information is irrelevant for kickers, punters, and long snappers. There are also instances, such as in Cooper Beebe's case, when the team website gets the height and weight from what Kansas State listed him at (6'4 and 335 pounds), while the NFL website lists him at 6'3 and 320 pounds. At the NFL Combine, he was measured at 6'3 and 322 pounds. Since the NFL website didn't get the weight from the Combine or an old college listing, and the NFL website got the height from the NFL Combine instead of the college listing, I would cite the NFL website for both the height and weight (6'3 and 320 pounds). Currently, his infobox says 6'3 and 335 pounds.
In situations when the NFL website, the team page, or both show the accurate height from a pre-draft measurement and the weight comes from either a pre-draft measurement or after the players were drafted, while PFR got the height from an old college listing and/or the weight from either a college listing or an outdated, pre-draft measurement, I would encourage anyone to leave feedback on the PFR website to change the info. It usually takes them at least a week before they update their listings based on feedback. They're more receptive to that kind of feedback after training camp and the preseason have concluded.
There were times during this year's draft when the positions of the players were listed differently between the NFL website, the team websites, and the draft profiles. The 2024 NFL draft page on Wikipedia sometimes showed a different position listed for a player than what the same player's Wikipedia page said. I agree with what Dissident93 said in the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 21 § Player's position discussion that a more encompassing term, such as offensive lineman, defensive lineman, edge rusher, and defensive back, should be used during times of uncertainty. I would then update the positions once the NFL and team websites update the positions and are in agreement with each other. For example, currently, Darius Robinson is listed as a defensive lineman on the NFL website and the Arizona Cardinals team page. At the time of the draft, if I recall correctly, it was either the NFL website or the Arizona Cardinals website that listed him as a defensive end, while the other source said defensive lineman. Meanwhile, his NFL draft profile listed him as an edge rusher. During that time, I would have listed him as an edge rusher in the infobox, since two of the three sources considered him to be a pass rusher. Then, once the NFL website and the team page both listed him as a defensive lineman, I would have updated the infobox to say defensive lineman. As Sergio Skol (talk) said in the same discussion, the jersey number rules should also be considered a factor when it comes to deciding what position the player gets listed at in the infobox. I would have also left feedback on the PFR website to get the position updated if it needed to be. Currently, Darius Robinson is listed as a defensive end in his infobox and on the 2024 NFL draft page.
In my opinion, the infobox should have links to the NFL website, the team website, and PFR, regardless of how that gets implemented. Then, all three sources can be used interchangeably or in conjunction for the infobox info, depending on how each source decided to list the info. RevMSWIE500 (talk) 22:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Daask recently moved John Jefferson to John Jefferson (American football player). Notwithstanding the fact that "player" should very dropped either way, I'm not sure I support the move. Looking at page views, it appears the football player is pretty clearly the primary topic here. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 05:59, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- WP:RMUM says:
—Bagumba (talk) 06:36, 20 August 2024 (UTC)If you disagree with a prior bold move, and the new title has not been in place for a long time, you may revert the move yourself.
- I've undid the move per your WP:RMUM concern, and because WP:POSTMOVE wasn't followed to update all the links to John Jefferson that were pointing to a dab page instead of to the football player. No prejudice if this is formally proposed at WP:RM. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 06:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
- Conversation continued at Talk:John Jefferson § Requested move 20 August 2024. Daask (talk) 12:30, 20 August 2024 (UTC)