Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Formatting

{{U|Yankees10}} has reverted me twice on my removal of pre-1950 starting QBs from {{tl|Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks}} with the justification that all other NFL teams include pre-1950 starting QBs and starting "Pro-Football-Reference exists". My removal is based on the following:

• List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks, the subject article for this navbox, does not include pre-1950s starting QBs.
• {{tl|Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks}} is not currently on the article pages of any pre-1950 starting QB (note WP:NAVBOX says {{tq|Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.}})
• Most importantly, no reliable sources state that any player prior to 1950 was a "starting quarterback", especially when taking in the context of what an early QB did back then versus today. The burden of proof is on the inclusion of information to be reliably sourced.
• I do not understand the statement that "Pro-Football-Reference exists" as they specifically do not include quarterback starts before 1950. Take Arnie Herber, which PFR identifies as a tailback. Cliff Christl notes that although Herber was inducted into the HoF as a quarterback, he barely played that position during his career (this is revisionism, as by the time he was inducted, the QB had become the premier passer/leader on a team). The important part of all of this is that "starting QB" as a cohesive topic we know today isn't applicable to early professional football, because the QB was primarily a blocking back and because passing duties were shared between multiple backs. Take a look at any early "QBs", like Charlie Mathys, [https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MathCh20.htm PFR has him as a blocking back]. Even someone who is identified as a QB, like Jack Jacobs, [https://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/J/JacoJa20.htm PFR does not list a QB record] and it is unclear whether he started as a QB, TB, or HB in 47 or 48, and he doesn't even have a position listed in some years.
• Lastly, there is no rule that things need to be consistent across all 32 teams. The burden to fix issues is not on me, a volunteer, so if I choose to challenge the sourcing and then fix the Packers template, just because the other 31 teams have it wrong doesn't mean the Packers template can't be right.

Any input would be welcome. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

:Are there any master lists of Packers starting QBs published in reliable sources? If so, I'd say follow their inclusion criteria, both on the list page and the navbox (which I assume should match each other). Per WP:LISTCRITERIA: {{tq2|{{em|Selection criteria}} (also known as {{em|inclusion criteria}} or {{em|membership criteria}}) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.}} Left guide (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:I'm not much of an expert on the NFL before modern quarterback offenses. However, I do agree that sources should support that a player was considered a QB that season, and WP should not just call them one because they threw passes. I remember coming across Paul Lowe's college career section before, and removing unsourced mention of him being a QB, presumably because he had some passing stats. —Bagumba (talk) 12:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{U|Left guide}}, PFR has [https://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/gnb/career-passing.htm Green Bay career passing leaders] that, when sorted by QB record, provides the list since 1950. [https://www.footballdb.com/teams/nfl/green-bay-packers/starting-quarterbacks FootballDB.com] only goes back to 1970. So does [https://lombardiave.com/posts/green-bay-packers-starting-quarterback-team-history-full-list this blog post] on LombardiAve.com. I remember only coming across one source, but I can't find it now, that listed farther back, but the way it was formatted was exactly like the old tables, so it felt like a mirror of Wikipedia. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:29, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{U|Bagumba}}, for clarity, the issue is "starting QBs". PFR lists positions, including QB. However, in early football, QB wasn't what it is today. So QB record wasn't a thing, because in early football the QB was a blocking back. Players also easily rotate between different backs during a game, with multiple players passing the ball. This is where the triple threat man came from and why there are so many different positions at Back (American football). It wasn't until the 1940s, when passing opened up, that teams started to feature a single passer, with the 1950s/1960s being the formative era for the QB becoming the pre-eminent position on offense. This is why QB record wasn't recorded until 1950, and why the cut-off is that year for his list. Otherwise, everything is conjecture. BeanieFan11 noted that we could source every QB starter for every game using game notes from historic newspapers. Although possible, we are talking hundreds of games pre-1950, and the important part being that no reliable sources group pre-1950 QB starters with post-1950 QB starters. So in a way, this would be OR, with us editors taking it upon ourselves to create a grouping that doesn't exist in reliable sources (WP:NLIST). « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::{{U|Yankees10}}, as the person who reverted me twice on this, can you please chime in? Right now, both editors to comment on this thread seem to generally be in support that the template and list should match, and both should rely on a reliable source. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:24, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I've been waiting for others to chime in. I'm in favor of keeping the names on there, but I'm ok with whatever is decided. What I don't like would be inconsistency. You don't care about it, but I do. The Packers shouldn't be the only one with no pre 1950's while the other 31 teams do. There needs to be a set standard for all 32 teams.-- Yankees10 21:56, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::{{U|Yankees10}}, not the most in-depth engagement here, but {{U|Left guide}} and {{U|Bagumba}} seem to support the position that inclusion in this template needs to be cited by a reliable source. Considering WP:V is a core Wikipedia policy, I am taking the position that you have a pretty high bar to clear here. I don't want to edit war, and I have no skin in the game regarding the other 31 team templates. If someone wants to update the others, I have no issue with that. Are you going to revert me if I make the change at {{tl|Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks}}? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:22, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I was looking at the A. J. Francis article and there is an issue with the NFL predraft template skewing the page. I tried several different things to fix it but I didnt have much luck outside of removing the template or adding data above it. I was hoping someone here might be willing to put some time into fixing it and reviewing the alerts regarding references within the article. Thanks in advance. Sephiroth storm (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2025 (UTC)

:On my desktop browser, the infobox is about twice the height of the lead, and with {{tl|NFL predraft}} spanning the whole screen width and having to go below the infobox, it leaves a huge whitespace atop the "professional football career" section. Assuming the table is to be kept, I don't know of a simple remedy other than to shorten the infobox and/or lengthen the lead. Someone with the template editor right and more knowledge of templates may be able to come up with a better solution. Left guide (talk) 00:15, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

::{{tqq|Assuming the table is to be kept ...}}: I had previously !voted to delete the template outright —Bagumba (talk) 17:50, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

:See Template_talk:NFL_predraft#Multiple_rows?. According to that, you can switch your default width on Vector 2022 to fix these problems. Vector 2022 has messed up other tables on the site too. Everything displays fine for me though since I use Vector legacy (2010). That's what Wikipedia was designed for. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:26, 16 April 2025 (UTC)

Hey all, I have opened an RfC at the talk page for Ben Williams (American football, born 1970) regarding a total revamp/expansion of this stub article. {{u|RCSCott91}} suggested I reach out directly to other editors to get more eyes on the proposal, so as a relevant WikiProject here, anyone is welcome to take a look at the proposal! Toa Nidhiki05 (Work) (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hello, is there a consensus on whether it's acceptable (wrong? encouraged?) to add a player's college number to the infobox - I added a few like so:

{{blockquote|College: Michigan State (2020–2023; #99)}}

My edits were reverted. Is there a reason not to include this? I'm open to any ideas regarding placement or formatting, as I'm just interested in preserving this information somewhere easier than checking each player's team roster. Brad (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:I feel like if you do it for one, you have to do it for all. Maybe that’s why it got reverted. It wouldn’t look right for it to be on one player's page or a few and not all the others. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Personally I don't see it as being relevant enough for inclusion in the infobox of an NFL player. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

::And that. The only time it’s worth mentioning in the infobox is if the college retires their jersey number. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

:Adding jersey numbers next to year numbers as illustrated causes a lot of numerical clutter that is difficult and awkward to read. Portions of MOS:NUMNOTES indicate that adjacent numbers of different values are generally to be avoided. From a formatting standpoint without opining on the merits, if this is to be included, it should have a separate parameter. Or alternatively, it could be placed before the school name. Again, this is just a formatting/MOS comment, and not an endorsement of the proposal. Left guide (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Recently, I did a double-take when reading Andrew Mukuba, whose lead sentence calls him "American." This stuck out to me because, per the sources in the article, Mukuba was born in Zimbabwe to parents who were Congolese refugees; the family immigrated to the U.S. after being granted asylum when Mukuba was nine years old. But I recalled a player with similar circumstances whose lead sentence does not call him American. Kwity Paye was born in a refugee camp in Guinea; his mother is Liberian and had fled the civil war in that country. Paye and his mother immigrated to the U.S. when Paye was six months old. The lead sentence of Paye's article simply calls him "Liberian."

Then there's Andrei Iosivas, born in Japan to a Filipino mother and a Romanian father, who immigrated to the U.S. as a teenager. He's called "Romanian-Filipino-American" in his lead sentence, though old versions of the page call him "Japanese-born American".

I've reviewed MOS:NATIONALITY which says that the nationality in the lead should usually be {{tq|the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident}} and that {{tq|neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability}}. My reading of this is that all three of these players should be called (only) "American" because they are all residents of the United States whose notability does not come from the nationalities inherited from their parents or their birthplaces. (Paye, at least, is a naturalized [https://www.espn.com/nfl/draft2021/story/_/id/31310483/meet-nfl-draft-most-extraordinary-prospect-kwity-paye citizen].) Does anyone disagree? OceanGunfish (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:My general statement would be that anyone not either born to an American parent or in the US should be cited that they are American. For Iosivas' page, Essentially Sports is not reliable. For other countries, it's not a given that being born in a country or to a parent with citizenship of a country automatically means the child is a citizen. It varies by country. As for excluding citizenship in the lead, use your best judgement. However, invariably on basketball pages, some "patriot" will add a "missing" country, even if it's trivial to their notability. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:WT:MOSBIO notified. Left guide (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Not unrelated to the present discussion is the on-going discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#The_Catalan/Spanish_label_again_in_Catalan-related_biographies There are a few existing RfC results that have concluded that a description like "Catalan politician" are preferred in the lead, though "Catalan" refers to Spain. Many argue that since the politician (for example) was of Spanish nationality, they should be described as "Spanish politician". This may be in contradiction with cited sources and the preferred identity of the politician, who might prefer the identity "Catalan". (An American Indian politician may prefer the label Navajo politician.) These are quite controversial issues in Spain. My own interpretation is that going strictly by legal citizenship is a superficial approach, and editors should try to better reflect the identity of the subject. Not to mention it is often better writing; describing the subject more efficiently. Anyways, this particular apparent consensus would seem to be in contradiction to the guidance described above (though I didn't read it carefully). The US is perhaps unique being a nation of immigrants; yet everyone is an (Ethnicity-)American (generally, including football players) Bdushaw (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{tqq|... yet everyone is an (Ethnicity-)American (generally, including football players)}}: Except generally, ethnicity should not be in the lead (MOS:ETHNICITY). —Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

::Yes - I can see that could be a problem. These questions are not easy to resolve definitively and generally. Bdushaw (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I've given quite a bit of thought to labels in leads (see Wikipedia:Crime labels), and I've thought more about the problem posed above. Three guiding principles could be: "is the label consistent with the notability of the subject?", "is using the label good writing?", and "is the label more misleading than helpful?", in addition to the usual "is the label supported by reliable sources and the article text". In my view, the latter, while important, is not definitive; issues of UNDUE, etc. In the specific example above, one would have to ask, e.g., does the subject continue his ties to Zimbabwe? Or does he give Zimbabwe no further thought? If there is still a strong association, then perhaps "Zimbabwe" in the lead is appropriate, if not, then not. I would disagree with any hard and fast rule that says one has to specify the legal citizenship of a subject as a label; that has far too much potentiality to be misleading. Then there are nuanced questions of whether the label refers to a strictly legal fact, or whether it is a strong cultural identity (ethnicity?). In terms of good writing, labels are just shortcuts which can be easily misunderstood, or understood in a surprising variety of ways, unintended by the editor. They are a little dangerous. For nationality, as suggested above by Bagumba, it can be difficult to establish definitively the nationality of a subject. It is unclear to me that Mukuba is formally an American citizen (Does he still hold a work visa? Has he gone through the citizenship process?). I've been looking at the article Xavier Cugat and I have no idea what his citizenship status(es) were; he's called "Spanish" in the lead...that's not true; he's American, if anything. Also in terms of good writing, stacking labels can lead to problems, e.g., "American professional football player"...does that mean he is an American AND a professional football player? or a player for American professional football? (I once read on a package of cat food the label "Professional Cat Food", which I thought hilarious.) In the example above, I suspect the solution is to avoid the nationality, something like: "..a football safety [ok. What's a safety? Is "professional" really needed?] for the National Football League originally from Zimbabwe". It is often better to just avoid the label, and spend the words in a brief phrase later that clearly specifies the situation. That's the general result where crime labels are concerned. My ruminations. Bdushaw (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

We might as well just start rolling a dice. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

:Can't argue with WO-9 there. Maybe we can remove professional and I can get a few more hundred edits in. I spoke about 'salmon' months ago. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

::I think I'll just start doing football leads depending on which way the wind is blowing each day. Could be "former American football quarterback" (old style), "American former professional football quarterback" (new style), "American former football quarterback" (new style sans pro) "American former professional football player who was a quarterback" (Bagumba style) I haven't checked the weather forecast yet for tomorrow, so I'm not sure what it will be. I'll keep you posted. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::What WO-9 is saying is correct, (and that's why he said it, lol), no need to get a good editor upset. I can say, WO-9 is a lot nicer than I would be with this situation. We have to get a happy medium here. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::I know. We have this same discussion every few months, lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

:::::That we do, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

::::::Sure, you are correct that such discussions are as repetitive as they are pervasive and exhausting. I advocate for clearer guidance to fend off the incessant arguing (what a waste of time!). But it's a mistake to trivialize the problem - I am continually surprised by new dimensions to the question; labels are important. And don't forget the beer and buffalo wings! Bdushaw (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)