Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Infobox award precedence and clutter

On Jayden Daniels' page, VCcortex (talk · contribs) believes that PFWA NFL All-Rookie Team should be added to his infobox over PWFA Rookie of the Year simply because other pages do it this way. I disagree for clutter reasons, as Daniels being the only possible winner of the overall award should supersede being named to the lessen honor given by the same voters/publication. We have an dedicated award section in the article body for this sort of thing. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 05:29, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I think their edit summary is saying that only AP NFL Rookie of the Year Award should be in an infobox. This is similar to a point I raised at #All-Pro and Pro Bowl categories (above) about handling non-AP selectors for awards. —Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

We have typically included the PFWA All-Rookie Team, so I don't believe that being included is an issue. As for the AP Rookie of the year, I would think we'd be best to include *both*. Both are, more or less, significant/recognized selectors. With that said, I'm strongly against anything voted for by fans or by other players, since they typically don't do in depth research prior to voting and it becomes strictly a popularity contest. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:52, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

The issue isn't with PFWA All-Rookie Team not being notable enough for inclusion, it's with him being considered the overall rookie of the year by the same publication and removing that in favor of the lesser honor (the all-rookie team of which he is obviously also the QB of) just because a few other pages happened to have it done that way too. I don't view WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as a sound argument unless there's actual consensus for it, which is what I'm trying to get here one way or another.

So just to be clear, you also agree that all-team honors should take precedence over any greater award and support the inclusion of other ROTY awards? I'm aware that there is debate if the AP awards are the "primary" ones now that they are presented by the officially sponsored NFL Honors, but my personal stance is that we should keep the section as concise as possible for anti-bloat reasons and keep only one ROTY award if he won others (since the majority of those who win the AP ROTY award won several, if not all, of the other important ones). Infoboxes only exist to summarize key points of the subject's article, with the full selection of awards won ideally kept to the article body. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:09, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

FWIW, WP:NFLINFOBOX supports multiple selectors:

League MVPs from the following selectors: AP, NEA, PFWA, UPI, and the Joe. F. Carr Trophy

However, the selector details were supposed to be left out of the infobox:

When listing All-American and All-Pro selections, there is no need to list the selector.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:48, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

What if we list Offensive Rookie of the Year then selectors either in parenthesis (AP, PWFA) or footnoted (while still being linked)?

And what about the All-Rookie Team? Would we just keep that too? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:34, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the only rookie team that's really noted the PFWA one? Hey man im josh (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but everybody keeps bringing up the AP award which is separate from my original question. I'm asking if Daniels being named the PWFA Rookie of the Year should be obviously seen him also being on the PWFA All-Rookie team, a lessen honor. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

... then selectors either in parenthesis (AP, PWFA) or footnoted (while still being linked): The idea was to avoid alphabet soup and leave the details for the body. —Bagumba (talk) 08:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

All-Rookie Team: If the player already has a ROY listed, I'd say no need for the lesser All-Rookie too. —Bagumba (talk) 08:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If we're listing PFWA ROYs, should we also list Sporting News, which is listed in the NFL Record & Fact Book? —Bagumba (talk) 08:58, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we'll ever agree on how to do this...lol. Common sense would tell us that the simplest way to end the confusion would be to specify the selectors. I usually just go to PFR to see how many AP All-Pros someone had because the infobox is just confusing when AP, SN and PFWA first-team All-Pros are all crammed together on the same line. At the same time though, I am well aware of why we don't do that; there are so many selectors that the infoboxes would get cluttered if we listed them all out separately. I honestly don't know what the solution is. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Shouldn't the awards and honors section of the body specify the selectors? Peyton Manning's awards and honors section doesn't even specify if his All-Pros were AP or SN, etc. That seems pointless if the awards section is just a carbon copy of the infobox. I think the highlights section of the body should specify for readers who are confused (which is pretty much everyone because even I am confused by having AP, SN, PFWA, and PFF All-Pros all lumped together). There's no space limitation in the body, and even if there is a space concern, I think it is alleviated by ending the selector ambiguity. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:12, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe the best way to do this is just link to the generic Offensive Rookie of the Year or NFL MVP then footnote (and link) the exact selectors. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:41, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

That's not a bad idea for the infobox maybe. I don't think the awards section in the body should have notes though, there's not a space limitation and it's better for readers if they don't have to hover over footnotes (some might not even know the notes are there). ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:05, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I meant the infobox yeah. The award section should see each one independently listed and cited. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:56, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I gotcha now sorry for the confusion earlier yeah I had not seen this ,makes more sense now , does avoid a cluttering of that section. Earlier I had put the PFWA all rookie team back for Daniels as I saw most other quarterbacks like CJ Stroud , Purdy and the likes also had it listed. It was stuck into the same footnote as the rookie of year awards and not its own separate award. Candyman3466 (talk) 21:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

9mm.trilla's lead format for coaches

Just letting the community know that 9mm.trilla (talk · contribs) has been going around changing the lead format for coaches from "American professional football" back to "American football". ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:51, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

@9mm.trilla: Please be aware that this goes against past consensus, and that you should discuss such wide ranging changes prior to making them. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

After one of those recent edits, I asked them to at least provide an explanation in the edit summary. But best to gain consensus here now. —Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

• I don't understand the insistence on using the word "professional" in the lead sentence when coaches have had prominent roles in both professional and college football. For example, this diff removing "professional" from the lead sentence of the Pete Carroll article appears quite sensible. Likewise, I would favor removing "professional" from the opening sentence of other coaches with highly notable positions in both pro and college football. E.g., Jim Harbaugh. The lead for Jimmy Johnson (American football coach) is a good example of how this should be handled IMO: "James William Johnson (born July 16, 1943) is an American sports analyst and former football coach. Johnson served as a head football coach on the collegiate level from 1979 to 1988 and in the National Football League (NFL) for nine seasons." Cbl62 (talk) 03:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Cbl62 I think this probably stems from the feeling of "going pro" means you no longer are an amateur. Yet, for coaches, this doesn't really hold true, as they are almost always paid for their services. I would support removing professional across the board for coaches, while allowing "college football" for any coach who has never coached above that level. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

9mm.trilla, regardless of your feelings on the matter, it is typically expected that when there is some level of opposition to consistent editing across articles and they start a discussion on the matter, that you provide some reasoning for your edits before continuing on. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I felt like it would've been more appropriate (as it has been for a while now) of using "American football coach" for professional football coaches instead of adding "professional". 9mm.trilla (talk) 01:28, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

One issue with the Pete Carroll revision is that it removes his nationality. Maybe it makes sense to remove "professional" from coaches' leads, though we're then left with American football coach for current coaches, which might be a little ambiguous about whether "American" is the subject's nationality, or whether it distinguishes football from football. OceanGunfish (talk) 14:28, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Carroll has been prominent at both the college and pro level, while someone like Dennis Allen (from my diff above) has been predominantly a pro coach, both by years and significant job titles. The key is satisfying MOS:ROLEBIO. Ryan Day's notability is not from being a pro coach. —Bagumba (talk) 14:52, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I also don't get how previous college and high school coaching experience gets neglected in favor of adding "professional football coach". And also @Dissident93, I've tried fixing your sentences where it goes "[name] is the coach... of the [team] of the [National Football League]". It should go "[name] is the coach... for the [team] of the [National Football League]". 9mm.trilla (talk) 01:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Has that been discussed prior or is it simply proper English grammar rules? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:46, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

List Deacon Jones Award, or sack leader in infobox?

I know myself and others, particularly @Bringingthewood have sought consistency on the matter and tried to make sure pages were consistent. For those unaware, the Deacon Jones Award is presented at the NFL Honors to the player who led the league in sacks, and it's been awarded since 2013. Players who have led the league in sacks since 2013 have the Deacon Jones Award listed in their infobox as opposed to "NFL sacks leader (year)".

But someone once brought up the fact that we don't list Jim Brown Award, which is the award given at the NFL Honors to the player who was the NFL annual rushing yards leader. It's sat with me for a bit and I think, for consistency, it might make the most sense to list folks who have led the league in sacks as "NFL sacks leader (year)". This would be consistent with all years prior to 2013 and I think it would be helpful for those who are unaware of the award/what it represents, as we sometimes see folks add the sack accolade to infoboxes, unaware that it's already represented by the award being listed.

tl;dr – List "Deacon Jones Award (year)" for players from 2013 onwards (what we currently do) or "NFL sacks leader (year)"? Hey man im josh (talk) 12:57, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"NFL sacks leader (year)" is my preference, especially because Deacon Jones Award is a redirect. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:19, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally think it should be "NFL sacks leader", as a casual reader might not know Deacon Jones nor what the award is about. HappyBoi3892 (talk) 03:54, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm going with Josh here .. at the NFL Honors they mentioned the 'Deacon Jones Award' when I watched it. If someone doesn't know it .. get with the program. It was renamed and honored at the awards show. I stand with the Deacon Jones Award. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:18, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikilinks exist for this purpose too. We don't have to always explain everything. And while we are on the topic, I'd like clarity on if the consensus is to list every main MVP and player/rookie of the year award or just the APs (which is seen as the more prestigious and is usually the only one listed). This has been discussed before, but they get awarded at the NFL Honors tonight and no consensus has ever been reached regarding it AFAIK. My personal view is that we should simplify them to the basic award to avoid bias favoring any particular award (AP at the NFL Honors was a marketing deal, so it's still not "official") and footnote the publications with them each listed and cited in the article body. Example:

• College Football Player of the Year (2023)
• NFL Offensive Rookie of the Year (2024)

Failing this, I'd just like for the community to have clear guidelines on this one way or another. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:47, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I've decided to WP:BEBOLD and implemented this on Jayden Daniels. It looks cleaner for sure and helps mitigate the issues I've brought up. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:48, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Some bot will probably flag linking to a dab page like College Football Player of the Year. It should probably be made into a non-dab like List of NFL Rookie of the Year awards or List of U.S. men's college basketball national player of the year awards —Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah that's true, I'll see what I can do. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:22, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Notes

Is there consensus for adding college football nicknames in coach infoboxes?

Instead of using for example: "USC", is there any consensus on starting to use it like this, "USC Trojans" in the infoboxes for coaches? 9mm.trilla (talk) 11:49, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I would not be in favor of this, as it would involve updating probably hundreds of pages. Assadzadeh (talk) 12:11, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I doubt it, though you may want to check with the folks at WikiProject College Football. OceanGunfish (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

It always seemed weird for people like Jim Harbaugh, where the same list would have his pro teams w/ the nickname and his college teams w/o—"San Diego" is ambiguous. Strangely, infobox highlights like retired numbers for Bo Jackson have the full name, Auburn Tigers No. 34 retired —Bagumba (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

There was recent consensus to spell out the full names in leads, so why would infoboxes be excluded? It's inconsistent in other places like Bagumba said and we have college and pro teams named Washington, Miami, and Arizona, potentially creating confusion by being vague. It taking work to update other pages should not be the only real argument against it. We have bots for this sort of thing and this logic of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is why sports pages on Wikipedia are generally more poorly written/formatted when compared to other topics. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Rivalry Pages - Consistent team colors

Just wanted to note, recently we have had an IP(s) changing colors in rivalry page results tables to match the changing official colors of teams throughout their history. Frank Anchor and I had been reverting them to no avail, with the reasoning that most people aren't familiar with historic team colors and having on consistent color (the current color of each team) provides the reasoning behind even including colors in the first place: to make the data in tables easier to digest in a quick and efficient manner. With the exact IP changing every day, I just protected all the rivalry pages for a week to give things a break and hopefully dissuade the IP from continuing. That said, I wanted to confirm with the group here that that reasoning matches the consensus of this group. Specifically, on rivalry pages, we only use three colors: the official color(s) of each team, plus a neutral color to show ties. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:00, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Is this referring to 2600:1700:B0A1:5F0:0:0:0:0/64? IPv6 /64 ranges like those are typically a single user. —Bagumba (talk) 10:19, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Hall of Fame players in bold

I note that on some NFL teams' pages, some Hall of Fame players' names are in bold, whereas others are not. I have been told that bold means the player spent the majority of their playing career with that team. If so, then would someone please take the initiative to add an explanation note? Assadzadeh (talk) 05:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

New England Patriots § Pro Football Hall of Famers says Hall of Famers who made the major part of their primary contribution for the Patriots are listed in bold. Major and primary are subjective. A majority of seasons would be objective, but someone like Deion Sanders played 14 seasons, but with only 5 being the most (ATL and DAL). —Bagumba (talk) 09:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

It's absolutely subjective, and that's part of what has stopped me from nominating List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame. The HoF actually used to note which players they considered fit this criteria (see archive link), but they no longer list them in this fashion. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I personally think such lists are trivial compared to team HOFs and retired numbers, but enough sources talk about Pro Football HOFers from a given team to make these groupings notable. Major and primary are fine for publications with an editor-in-chief, but WP is crowd sourced with no one person to make the final call on ambiguous cases, so shouldnt make such distinctions. —Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah and I think that's exactly what I've been struggling with. I expect I'll remove that part from the article and move forward with a nomination without it at some point. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

For List of Green Bay Packers in the Pro Football Hall of Fame, I changed all the notes to be more objective. So if a player spent most of his time with one team that is not the Packers, I added a noter to clarify. For a player who played with a lot of teams, I noted that. For example, for Walt Kiesling, the note says Kiesling spent his career with six different teams, spending the most time with the Chicago Cardinals. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

This shouldn't stop you from nominating List of Detroit Lions in the Pro Football Hall of Fame hey man im josh. I think it just needs to be written in a more objective manner. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah it's definitely on my to do list, but I was hung up on that aspect of it and kept getting distracted with other tasks lol Hey man im josh (talk) 16:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Pro Bowl alternates

I've noticed while scanning the pages of recent Pro Bowls that the roster sections include a separate column for players selected as alternates. Each of those players also has a footnote by their name explaining that they were a "Replacement player selection due to an injury or vacancy" (example, 2025). Is it necessary to both place alternates in a separate alternates column and give them each a footnote explaining that they were an alternate? OceanGunfish (talk) 18:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, that's important information. It's important to know who are real Pro Bowlers and who are alternates because a lot of alternates aren't deserving. Literally like 50% of the players in the league have a chance at being alternates if enough people decline the invites or are injured. See this comment I left on Yankees10's talk page in 2017 about how excessive the AFC Pro Bowl QB invites were that year. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:36, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Oh I for sure agree that it should be noted who the alternates are. It just seems redundant to me to place them in a separate column and then still put a footnote on each one too. OceanGunfish (talk) 18:37, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the footnotes aren't needed. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

I have made this change at 2000 Pro Bowl. If there are no objections to how it looks, I will do the rest. OceanGunfish (talk) 23:16, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Team season draft picks

For draft pick selection tables in NFL team season pages, should we include all the draft trades/notes or omit everything but player selections and keep notes below? My preference is option 2, as draft trades are all listed on main draft articles and the majority of readers are looking at the table to see which players were drafted in a selected season and not sixth round pick swaps. PeeJay (talk · contribs) says this was discussed before but I couldn't remember or find anything regarding it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it makes sense to list all picks that belonged to each team at some point, for completeness' sake. If my team starts with the #1 overall pick and trades out, I would want it represented in the table that they had that pick. I agree that sixth-round pick swaps are less notable than a team trading out of pick #1, but where do you draw the line? Whether or not the team makes a selection with one of their allotted picks doesn't really matter. If a reader is looking for just the picks the team made, all they have to do is ignore the greyed-out cells and look at the names in the table. We had a whole discussion about this relatively recently where it was agreed that all the picks should be listed and the ones that were traded away should be greyed out. That seemed like a fair compromise to me at the time and it still does. – PeeJay 01:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I simply view them as table of player selections and not pick history. And even if traded-away picks stay in the table, the re-added extra notes column doesn't need to exist. And that history is all maintained on the main draft article anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:10, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. If you're going to note where outgoing picks went to, why would you not mention where incoming picks came from? Compensatory picks should be noted, as should 2020 Resolution JC-2A picks. What's wrong with being comprehensive? It's not like the info being included is at all excessive. – PeeJay 15:15, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I proposed to only list player selections in the tables as the main draft article already covers every single pick trade. Wikipedia is not meant to be fully comprehensive (WP:NOTDATABASE), but my issue here is with the formatting. Why have notes written out below and include additional column and row cells? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:10, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

That's not what you proposed at all. In fact, the link you provided above includes picks that were traded away. As I said, why include picks that were traded away per your suggestion if you're not going to include info about where the incoming picks came from? The point of the 'Notes' column is to provide at-a-glance info about where each pick came from and went. The point of the notes section below is to expand on that information, since multiple picks can be traded in one transaction. – PeeJay 11:30, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I wish they actually covered all of them. The main draft articles for the more recent drafts certainly do, but in working on getting all the items in the the first-round pick series to featured list status, I found many of the draft pages left out a lot of relevant trades. It's also actually difficult to find a lot of information about historical trades the further back you go.

For what it's worth, PFR only lists trades from 1995 onwards on their draft pages. It does include the full list, so it would only be one source for all of the trades if that's something we move forward with. Note that 1994 includes a few trades, but it's trades which involved picks from 1995 or later. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:34, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm absolutely fine with only listing pick trades that we can actually source. If that means that articles before a certain date don't list the trades, that's absolutely fine, just list the picks we know the team took. But after the advent of proper media coverage of the draft such as we have today, there's no excuse not to list all of a team's picks, whether they used them or traded them. – PeeJay 16:20, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I prefer Option 1. It makes it clear why a team has (or doesn't) have a particular draft pick. The "Note" column is brief with further explantion given below. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 14:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

But then why have notes below at all? It's both redundant and visually ugly. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

'Visually ugly' is just your opinion, and it's not redundant since the notes below the table carry extra information. It's called making editorial decisions. – PeeJay 11:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

While that is a subjective view, having two places to put notes on pick history is still redundant when it has no reason to be. What about a third table exclusively for this if the original format or bullet points don't work for you? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:20, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

There are already templates Template:NFL team draft start, and Template:NFL team draft entry that should be used universally across pages. It is bush league to have multiple formats, and readers don't know what to expect when reading pages. One way that the college football project is right is that has strived for is consistent formats. These templates do not have a parameter for traded picks. IMO, it is WP:Fancruft. But since I am of the minority opinion on that, my alternate proposal is that traded picks would be better suited to be in prose.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 11:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

an off topic-example is on the draft pages themselves 1957 NFL draft vs. 1998 NFL draft, where the formats are all different.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 11:43, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

MVP selectors

WP:NFLINFOBOXDO says that “League MVPs from the following selectors: AP, NEA, PFWA, UPI, and the Joe. F. Carr Trophy” are to be recognized as “NFL MVP” in player infoboxes. The awards have mostly all gone to the same person, but in years where they didn’t, infoboxes in fact seem to treat solely the AP selection as MVP. Marshall Faulk isn’t listed for his PFWA selection in 2001, Jamal Lewis is listed as “PFWA NFL MVP” for 2003 (whereas the style guide says to list as “NFL MVP” without qualifying it as “PFWA”), Kurt Warner isn’t listed for his NEA selection in 2008, and Lamar Jackson isn’t listed for his PFWA selection in 2024. I checked some going back before 2000 and the pattern seems to continue. The only non-AP awards I’ve seen listed as NFL MVP without qualification are Lenny Moore for 1964 (was an NEA selection), Charlie Conerly for 1959 (NEA, listed as “NFL MVP - NEA”), and awards from seasons before the AP began making selections.

Normally I might edit these pages to be in line with the style guide, but here it seems like actual practice across multiple articles just doesn’t agree with the guide. Should the guide be changed to reflect actual practice, which seems to be to treat the AP as the sole selector for “NFL Most Valuable Player” since 1957? If so, should other major MVP selectors be added to infoboxes in some other way? Or should we apply the style guide and start listing non-AP major selectors as “Most Valuable Player” without qualification? Generalcp702^{user talk} 18:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Not sure how this will turn out. I believe Joe Klecko, Mark Gastineau, and Calais Campbell all have their awards listed. It makes no sense. I didn't remove them, not really knowing if it was AP or bust for the infobox. Same problem goes for All-Pro and All-American selectors. An editor last week removed the first-team because it was PFWA and only kept the second-team AP there. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

We should list the other selectors mentioned in the style guide. For example, Dan Fouts' HOF profile mentions his 1982 MVP from PFWA. Other books have the historical winners of non-AP awards. WP should be based off independent sources, not necessarily the wishes of the NFL, who themselves never even call the AP official and lists the PFWA award in their annual record book. —Bagumba (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

If missed on another post above, I've implemented a cleaner, genericized format on Jayden Daniels article that lists all main selectors on a single line to avoid infobox clutter and AP favoritism. @Bagumba: I made College Football Player of the Year redirect to a newly created article, the list of college football player of the year awards, to avoid bot redirects. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:22, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Do we need the footnotes on the selectors in the infobox, or is it cleaner to leave the details to the body (either in normal text or footnote)? WP:NFLINFOBOX currently reads (for related honors):

When listing All-American and All-Pro selections, there is no need to list the selector.

—Bagumba (talk) 02:35, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I removed plenty of All-American selectors, citing the WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT (misc. info). But all these selectors usually go back to AP as number one. I've been guilty in the past .. asking why can't I put my favorite player as first-team All-American? Welll, SI and ESPN are not top-notch worthy let's say. I agree, we can't list everybody. So AP All-American second-team was put there instead. This seems like another slippery slope. All-Pro has been following suit. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:28, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Dissident93 and I discussed this above in a different topic. If we don't include a note, readers just assume it is AP only. For example if someone added 2024 NFL MVP without a note to Lamar Jackson, I'm 100% sure someone will come along and remove it because they think Josh Allen was the only MVP this year (Jackson was PFWA MVP). The awards section in the body shouldn't have notes though since there is enough room there to give the details of each selector. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:49, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I wonder for MVP if it's a problem anymore after we changed it to be a summarized table of all the selectors, instead of the previous sequential list, where AP was at the top of the page. —Bagumba (talk) 11:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Readers don't actually click the link. They just assume AP is what the infobox is talking about. Here's a recent diff of a newbie removing PFWA MVP from Jackson. Also, "ap trumps pfwa, ill add this in accolade section" by HappyBoi3892 (not a noob) ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:23, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

As long as they are individually listed and cited in the body either as prose or a bulleted list, footnotes can probably be omitted for the infobox. The Lamar Jackson PWFA MVP example WikiOriginal linked presents another issue for footnotes, as the current format would imply Jackson also won AP's the same season. Cases like this are rare though, with only six discrepancies between PFWA and AP MVP winners since 1990 (and two in the last 20 seasons). ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

For the few editors that might continue to change due to "AP only", we could put a WP:HIDDENCOMMENT, repeating what should already be sourced in the body. —Bagumba (talk) 01:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

D93, I'm a little confused about your "footnotes can probably be omitted for the infobox" comment. Your Jayden Daniels article currently has notes. Also, Lamar's note could say "AP: 2019, 2023 PFWA: 2024). Readers will probably still try to remove it though since Josh Allen was the "real MVP". We'll never agree on this stuff lol... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I haven't changed that on Daniels page since making this topic as I was waiting on more comments first. Since most editors here already consider the AP awards to be the "main" ones, maybe we could keep status quo while adding any additional non-AP selectors in a footnote? Perhaps I'm just being too pendantic here (and you're right in that this may never have a perfect solution; this has been discussed for years), but all of these MVP awards should be included and cited somewhere within the article at the very least. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Since most editors here already consider the AP awards to be the "main" ones ...: If here means this thread, I don't see anyone saying that explicitly, just acknowledging thats how it's currently on most pages, with some exceptions, but counter to WP:NFLINFOBOX. —Bagumba (talk) 12:33, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Not here, but how most articles are actually formatted and maintained. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:31, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Bert Bell Award: This seems to be in the infobox of all its winners' pages. Is this more notable than all the other non-AP MVP awards? While local club awards like the Heisman Trophy and Maxwell Award are prominent among college awards, I don't think the same applies at the pro level. It's not listed at WP:NFLINFOBOX. —Bagumba (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Non-AP sourcing

Non-AP NFL MVP sourcing

Year	Player	Selector	Current infobox display	Sources
				Total Football II	PFHOF
1957	Johnny Unitas	NEA	—	Yes (pp. 387–388)	No[1]
1957	Y. A. Tittle	UPI	—		No [2]
1959	Charlie Conerly	NEA	NFL MVP – NEA (1959)
1961	Y. A. Tittle	NEA	—		Yes [3]
1962	Y. A. Tittle	Sporting News	—		Ambig [4]
		UPI	—		Ambig [5]
1963	Jim Brown	NEA	—		Yes [6]
		UPI	—		Yes [7]
1964	Lenny Moore	NEA	NFL Most Valuable Player (1964)		Yes [8]
1971	Bob Griese	NEA	Jim Thorpe Trophy (1971)		No [9]
1978	Earl Campbell	PFWA	—		Yes [10]
		NEA	—		Yes [11]
1980	Earl Campbell	NEA	—		Yes [12]
1982	Dan Fouts	PFWA	–		Yes [13]
		NEA	–		Yes [14]
1983	Eric Dickerson	Sporting News	–		Yes [15]
1985	Walter Payton	NEA	—		Yes [16]
1986	Phil Simms	NEA	Jim Thorpe Trophy (1986)
1987	Jerry Rice	PFWA	—		Yes [17]
		Sporting News	—		Yes [18]
		NEA	—		Yes [19]
1988	Roger Craig	NEA	Jim Thorpe Trophy (1988)
1990	Randall Cunningham	PFWA	—
1990	Warren Moon	NEA	—		Yes [20]
1992	Emmitt Smith	NEA	—		No [21]
1998	Randall Cunningham	NEA	Jim Thorpe Trophy (1998)
2001	Marshall Faulk	PFWA	—		No [22]
		Sporting News	—		Yes [23]
2003	Jamal Lewis	PFWA	PFWA NFL Most Valuable Player (2003)
2008	Kurt Warner	NEA	—		No [24]
2024	Lamar Jackson	PFWA	–

Above is a summary of non-AP NFL MVP winners, limited to years where the player did not also win the AP award, which began in 1957. Generally, these are mentioned in the independent sources Total Football II: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League as well as the Pro Football Hall of Fame website (for inductees). Currently, NEA's MVP, the Jim Thorpe Trophy, is the most listed in infoboxes. Based on the coverage, limiting the infobox to only AP MVPs seems WP:UNDUE.—Bagumba (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

An obit by AP for Harlon Hill mentions his 1955 Jim Thorpe Trophy.[25]—Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Draft:Eagles–Packers rivalry

I have nominated the above article, which is relevant to this WikiProject, for deletion. Thank you, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Lead image of running back

Could others take a look at this please? I don't want to get accused of edit warring. This new user is very persistent and does not explain their reasoning or respond to messages. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 23:20, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Consider starting a discussion there explaining the dispute. —Bagumba (talk) 23:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Protection request filed at WP:RPPI, user blocked in response. Left guide (talk) 10:07, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion to add holder in infoboxes of punters

Hi everyone, as title says, I think adding holder in the infoboxes of punters is a good idea. When a player plays in a "secondary" position, it is usually displayed in their infoboxes, for example: Colorado cornerback/wide receiver Travis Hunter, Bears wide receiver/return specialist Devin Hester, Chargers fullback/defensive tackle Scott Matlock or Seahawks wide receiver/holder Steve Largent.

What I mean is, at least in the NFL, not because it's a position that every punter plays by default, we should omit it. I think is important to highlight that they play two different positions, they are a kind of a two-way player. It is more evident when we remember holders failing in their job. Johnny Hekker with the Rams in Super Bowl LVI, Romo fumbling against the Seahawks, or this YouTube video.

Finally, not absolutely all punters plays as holders as well, it is seen more often in college football, the most recognized player is Georgia quarterback Stetson Bennett IV, but generally there's a player that only plays at holder.

Let me know your thoughts about this.

Thanks. Kansas Comet 48 (talk) 15:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Serving as a holder is not a role typically listed in player profiles on team websites, news sites or any other site. While you may be able to find a source for a player filling that role somewhere, it’s not typically considered a “position” for the purposes of our biography infoboxes. – PeeJay 23:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with PeeJay. I'm not sure it's worth including in the infobox if teams themselves don't specify it. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Holders are really only discussed by sources when they make mistakes. It's more of a situational role than a proper position like a gunner, which we also don't list in infoboxes. If a player gained notoriety solely for his holding ability, it would be generalized to special teamer anyway. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

There's other roles I often see as an infobox position, like kick returner and special teamer. FWIW, KaVontae Turpin, an All-Pro returner, is only listed as a WR on his Cowboys profile. —Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

Citing a Draft Card

Stella Gadd is related to Hal Hinte. They have asserted that Hinte was born in Mount Hope, West Virginia, not Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, which PFR states. Now they have added Hinte's draft card to the article, supporting their claim. That said, draft cards are primary sources and I can imagine that many people who may have been born somewhere and then moved somewhere else as an infant would maybe not self-report their correct birthplace, and instead just provide their hometown where they grew up. Not sure how to handle this. Any thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:19, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

• I think I'd go for the source from the time rather than a database from 80 years later. I've found a couple PFR birthplaces that have been contradicted by other sources about the player, e.g. Wes Carlson which I wrote yesterday. I could also look through some census records for Hinte if you like. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:57, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
  • Yeah, I would feel better with a more definitive source, if you have the time BeanieFan11. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:38, 17 February 2025 (UTC)

  There's Alex Smith sourced to Bremerton, Washington, but pfr says Seattle. Sometimes people use the closest big city for convenience because non-locals otherwise wouldn't know the actual place. Or maybe its hometown being incorrectly used as birthplace. I don't use genealogy sites, but perhaps they would be slightly more reliable sourcing for draft card, birth certs, etc. than a user upload? Other options would be to omit the birthplace entirely until it's more obvious, or present both, possibly even in a footnote (see Wikipedia:Inaccuracy). —Bagumba (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

  It appears one of their earlier birthplace edits was cited to "Social Security Applications and Claims Index, 1936-2007; World War II Draft Cards Young Men, 1940-1947; and information from family."[26] —Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

I am not related to Hal Hinte. In addition to the draft card, I have a 1945 marriage record that has his birthplace. I am trying to upload it. Here is the records page where I found the marriage record: West Virginia Vital Research Records Project: https://dach-image-proxy.digital-relativity.workers.dev/?film=862731&frame=00536 E.M. Smith (talk) 21:05, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

His family is in the 1930 census with the surname misspelled "Hinty." He birthplace is "West Virginia." U.S. Census 1930; Census Place: Fayetteville, Fayette, West Virginia; Page: 24A; Enumeration District: 0016; FHL microfilm: 2342265 Also, Pennsylvania, U.S., Veteran Compensation Application Files, WWII, 1950-1966, lists his birthplace as Mount Hope, W.Va.: Name Harold A Hinte Birth Date 25 Jan 1920 Birth Place MT Hope, Fayette, West Virginia, USA Residence Date 12 Jun 1950 Residence Place Jacksonville, Duval, Florida, USA E.M. Smith (talk) 21:13, 19 February 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Captain Munnerlyn

Captain Munnerlyn has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 03:18, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Recent death

At Deaths in 2025, I ran across RB Gary Tucker, if anyone wants to vet it out for a possible article. Played 14 games and rushed 4 times for Miami in 1968.[27][28] —Bagumba (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2025 (UTC)

Player infobox captions

FYI

You're invite to join a discussion about team sports athletes' infobox captions at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Captions § Infobox caption of team sport athlete.—Bagumba (talk) 08:48, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Keith "End Zone" Jones#Requested move 21 February 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Keith "End Zone" Jones#Requested move 21 February 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —Bagumba (talk) 18:53, 21 February 2025 (UTC)

Multiple sets of standings on pages.

I usually work on historical pages as opposed to current articles. Why are multiple divisions standings templates appearing on pages ex. 1957 Pittsburgh Steelers season? This seems utterly pointless as the Steelers are in only one division. Should we add the other seven division standings to the 2024 Pittsburgh Steelers page?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

The convention for current seasons is to have a team's division standings and their conference standings. I agree that the other division shouldn't be shown for 1957, as there was no wildcard and thus no impact on the Steelers' ability to make the playoffs. Harper J. Cole (talk) 01:12, 23 February 2025 (UTC)