Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Village pump proposal

Should the {{para|playoffs}} parameter only list the final playoff game played in NFL team season articles like NBA ones? (compare the 2023–24 Boston Celtics with the 2024 Philadelphia Eagles) Obviously making it to the Championship Game or Super Bowl means a team won playoff games to get there and it just clutters the infobox with not only the opponent but the score. Playoff history is still noted in prose and schedule tables. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

:Agree with only the team's final playoff game appearing in the infobox like the NBA ones. Less is more per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE: {{tq2|The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.}} As an aside, if consensus forms this way, it might be worth adding a hidden editor note on {{tl|Infobox NFL team season}} and/or explaining this on its documentation sub-page. Left guide (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

:There has been no dissent expressed over nearly two full days, which is a rather long time for how busy and active this project is, so I am now going to update the documentation sub-page and start trimming infoboxes. Left guide (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

::Should the score still be listed? It's usually omitted in prose unless independently notable; NBA articles have series records instead. And while we're at it (didn't want to flood WT:NFL with yet another thread), the {{para|radio}} parameter should also be removed as it's almost never mentioned in the article and not relevant to the team's season even if so. I know some editors remove it locally too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::The score is probably already in some table in the body with the schedule results. —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I personally think the score of the team's last playoff battle is useful for the infobox in lieu of series records, for example, to know if it was a ridiculous blowout or a difference of less than a field goal. But I won't fight tooth and nail over it, and am willing to incorporate their removal in my edit runs if consensus is against me. By the way, I went through the 2024, 2023, and 2022 articles already. I'll have some time later today to continue this reverse chronology. Left guide (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:If we're doing this, I think "playoffs" should be changed to "playoff finish" like the NBA one. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{yo|WikiOriginal-9}} Agreed, I have filed an edit request for this purpose at Template talk:Infobox NFL team season#Template-protected edit request. Left guide (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::{{task completed}} Left guide (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I think it's a bit soon for you to have implemented this change, especially since it would mean changing nearly every NFL team season article. Discussions like this should typically last at least a week, if not longer. – PeeJay 14:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::WP:NOTBURO, 2–3 days is plenty of time to get a feel for consensus in this project. See how quickly the two image-related threads above attracted replies from a wide range of participants. Happy to pause the changes if someone enters an actual objection that amounts to more than stonewalling, but that has not occurred. Left guide (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::I'm just pointing out that some people don't check this page on more than a daily basis, and some check it barely weekly. Why don't we treat the playoffs parameter like the pro bowl and all pro parameters, with a collapsible box to show the team's entire playoff run? It's only four lines at most. – PeeJay 19:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::Why exactly are we doing this though? And i agree that this definitely needs more time before making this change on nearly *every* nfl article.

::::::To me, it seems like a useless change 2600:1004:B117:B0EA:805B:AA16:2CE7:93D9 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I'm cool if people disagree, but to be clear it doesn't affect every or nearly every team season article, only the ones that won playoff games, which is generally 6–8 teams per season (so less than a quarter). Left guide (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::Mb i didnt see this reply when making that second comment, but im not totally opposed, but it just feels unnecessary to me. 2600:1004:B117:B0EA:805B:AA16:2CE7:93D9 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::::It is mostly clutter and it doesn't seem to be an issue in NBA articles. The same information should go in the lead instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::::If youre attempting to make it easier to see at a glance, removing two lines of information that can be read within a few seconds doesnt change much

:::::::It makes it harder for people to see every playoff game at a glance, meaning theyd have to look down and scroll through the games.

:::::::Just feels useless to change every nfl article over something this minor 2600:1004:B117:B0EA:805B:AA16:2CE7:93D9 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

::::::::THIS. Eg224 (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:This is a ridiculous, unnecessary change and just makes things harder for the reader to see the important information at a glance. Changing every NFL season article over this is peak deletionist nonsense. And two people pushing it through in the dead of night after not even allowing for a week’s debate on such a major change is even more ridiculous. Thecourierncrforlife (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::EXACTLY. Eg224 (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I just wanted to see who the 2018 Rams beat to make the horrible NFC Championship that they "won" and was completely thrown off to not see it in the infobox. it takes two seconds extra to glance over and will require the editing of more than 500 articles to revise all of these.

:::Removing Hall of Famers from Super Bowl info boxes was also dumb, that happened a while ago and it’s still like that. Hate it. Hate these changes. They make the articles worse. Not everyone can read through a whole block of text like that. Eg224 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

::::I actually like that change, it's not particularly relevant and gives undue weight to the hall of famers. They may have played like garbage, the win may be the result of a few specific players, it doesn't tell us anything beneficial to include that in the infoboxes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:No. Abhiramakella (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:While that may be true, I believe listing all playoff games in the |playoffs= parameter provides better clarity on a team’s postseason journey. Whether a team’s season ends in the Wild Card Playoffs, Divisional Round, or Conference Championship, each game played is an important part of their story. Removing earlier rounds diminishes key context, such as how competitive or dominant a team was throughout the playoffs.

:For instance, in the 2024 Buffalo Bills season page, the |playoffs= parameter now only reads: Lost AFC Championship (vs. Chiefs) 29–32. This completely omits the Buffalo Bills previous playoff victories, making it seem as if the Buffalo Bills went straight to the AFC Championship rather than earning their way there. The infobox should serve as a comprehensive snapshot, not just a single-game summary. Abhiramakella (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::Infoboxes are not supposed to be fully comprehensive per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Again, has this ever been brought up in NBA seasons articles as an issue? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&ns0=1&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+National+Basketball+Association%2F&search=Playoff+infobox I don't think so], unless WT:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 31#Playoff Finish Infobox Category counts, but it's tough to tell at first glance what that thread is about. Left guide (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::Re: "comprehensive", in addition to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE there are multiple policy points to the contrary.

::WP:NOTEVERYTHING: {{tq2|Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.}} WP:INDISCRIMINATE: {{tq2|…merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.}} One of those even cites an Arbitration Committee ruling which says: {{tq2|An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details.}} Left guide (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

:I am of the opinion that this is a very unnecessary move to make. Removing note of previous playoff victories in the parameter undermines quick context of the team's playoff journey for the reader. Also, for teams like the Ravens who won a playoff game before eventually being eliminated, I believe it is especially damaging. EZBird (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

:The 1985 New England Patriots were the first team in NFL history to reach the Super Bowl after winning 3 straight road playoff games. Under this change, that information would be gone from the playoff parameter. All you would see is that they were destroyed by the Bears 10–46 in Super Bowl XX. Which is disingenious to what they accomplished before that. Why make this change? I don't believe the clutter talking point holds much water. EZBird (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

::{{tq2|They then became the first team in NFL history ever to advance to the Super Bowl by winning three playoff games on the road, defeating the New York Jets 26–14 in the AFC Wild Card Game, the Los Angeles Raiders 27–20 in the AFC Divisional Game and the Miami Dolphins 31–14 in the AFC Championship Game.}} The same information is already in the lead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I'm not talking about the lead section. I'm talking about the infobox. This just feels like you are deleting stuff just to be deleting stuff. 2600:4040:A1A6:2600:B0C2:8F63:641F:DA3C (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

::::I'm assuming you are EZBird, but the information still exists in "quick context of the team's playoff journey for the reader" in the lead. I also didn't delete anything, I simply brought up the proposal. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

:::::I would say Left gaurd made the change way to quickly, as of now it appears to be in favor of not doing it,

:::::Idk why was this was even changed without a weeks worth (or more because of how big this change is) discussion

:::::Now the articles are split between "playoff finish" and "playoffs"

:::::Which could be Confusing for some.

:::::I stand with it being extremely unnecessary, and feels like people just wanting to remove the journey a team goes through to win the superbowl, as someone else said. 2600:1004:B182:6E15:34B6:8FF2:B2F7:9ED6 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Was there ever a project discussion establishing consensus for all playoff games to be included in the infobox? I [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?limit=500&offset=0&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+National+Football+League%2F&profile=default&search=Playoff+infobox&title=Special%3ASearch&ns0=1&searchToken=9otuo7nqlq04vtp3e4wgxrkpj searched the archives] and could not find any. Also note WP:ONUS policy clause: {{tq2|The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.}} Left guide (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• :Maybe a WP:SILENTCONSENSUS? I'm not gonna lose sleep over it either way. I'm surprised this many people cared, lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)
• ::{{tqq|I'm surprised this many people cared, lol}}: Some IPs and a new account to boot. —Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::This change is why I made my account Bagumba lol EZBird (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)
• :::And one with 3,000 edits. Eg224 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

:Infoboxes on NFL pages have long been used as a quick glance for how the team did in a season. A big part of that is seeing the playoff journey a team took (or didn't take). I think skipping to the end would be a disservice to the readers. Jimania16 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

::You are right. Abhiramakella (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

:No, it’s nice to be able to see how they got to that point quickly. Eg224 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

If this format is to return can we at least use "Wild Card/Divisional Round" over "Playoffs", which is both its official name and less redundant as the {{para|playoffs}} parameter name already covers it? It also avoids a linebreak which aids readability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:Yeah, I’m in agreement with that, that’s a sensible change. Thecourierncrforlife (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

:I see no issue there. EZBird (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

{{U|Thetreesarespeakingtome}} and I are having a small disagreement regarding two items at Ed Policy. Since both issues are related to a claim of standard practice for NFL pages, I am bringing it here. I also have this at WP:GAN, so any disputes would jeopardize a review at this point.

1. How executive positions are listed in the infobox, specifically whether positions held with the same team and in a consecutive timeframe should have the team listed just once, or whether it needs to be restated for each position. [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Policy&oldid=1282707269 My preference] is that we shouldn't have to list the same team over and over again if someone stayed with the team and was promoted. This gets extremely burdensome for an executive/coach who promoted multiple times, making the infobox longer. Thetreesarespeakingtome's preference [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ed_Policy&oldid=1282707763 is this], noting that they believe it is {{tq|generally accepted formatting for NFL info boxes}}. I'll note that their version looks like a wall of text and makes it difficult to quickly grasp the info, which is the purpose of an infobox. Note, I prefer the use of the {{tl|Abbr}} template to tighten things up, but that isn't something I am concerned with either way.
2. How an external link is listed:
3. *My preference: [https://www.packers.com/team/front-office-roster/ed-policy Ed Policy biography] at Packers.com
4. *Thetreesarespeakingtome's preference: [https://www.packers.com/team/front-office-roster/ed-policy Green Bay Packers profile]
5. **My reasoning is just based on plain English, my preference explains what the user is going to see and where they are getting it from. Importantly, it follows standard naming convention from some externalink templates, like {{tl|YouTube}}, {{tl|Twitter}}, {{tl|Facebook}}, etc. The other version is ambiguous, as in plain English I read that to mean I am going to find a "Profile on the Green Bay Packers"

Any input or clarity would be appreciated. Courtesy pining {{U|Dissident93}}, who also made the same change to the external link on the same page a while back. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

{{Infobox NFL biography

| name = Howie Roseman

| current_team = Philadelphia Eagles

| pastexecutive =

• Philadelphia Eagles ({{NFL Year|2000}}–present)
• {{ubl|Front office intern|({{NFL Year|2000}})}}
• {{ubl|Salary cap staff counsel|({{NFL Year|2001|2002}})}}
• {{ubl|Director of football administration|({{NFL Year|2003|2005}})}}
• {{ubl|Vice president of football administration|({{NFL Year|2006|2007}})}}
• {{ubl|Vice president of player personnel|({{NFL Year|2008|2009}})}}
• {{ubl|General manager|({{NFL Year|2010|2014}})}}
• {{ubl|Executive vice president of football operations|({{NFL Year|2015|2018}})}}
• {{ubl|Executive vice president/general manager|({{NFL Year|2019}}−present)}}

}}

1) For the infobox, wasn't there a proposed adjustment to the current format to indent/collapse different titles in tenure with the same team to avoid listing them multiple times? I can't find an example of it right now, but Howie Roseman's infobox in this format would only list the Eagles once with all of the various titles below (Front office intern (2000); Salary cap staff counsel (2001–2002) etc).

2) For profile links, I don't really see how "[https://www.packers.com/team/front-office-roster/ed-policy Green Bay Packers profile]" is ambiguous when it should logically only apply to the subject on their article. Displaying "Biography" on the link can also be misleading for people who don't actually have any biographical information and only include stats like a random practice squad player (same reason I've been replacing "bio" with "profile" when I come across them). I personally find name conventions for social media templates to be superfluous, so if this were to change I'd go with [https://www.packers.com/team/front-office-roster/ed-policy Profile at Packers.com], which avoids any ambiguity or title redundancy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

:{{U|Dissident93}}, take a look at [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Lumberjack_Band&oldid=1282815071 this version] of Lumberjack Band, specifically the external link section. This isn't the first time I have removed a generic Packers.com external link from a page. I am fine with your proposed rewrite of linking all the text to the external link and using "Profile" instead.

:Howie Roseman is a great example of how ridiculous this all look when you have people promoting from within. This should change to just listing the team and then all the positions and years underneath. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::There are a couple of other ways the formating could be adjusted, but it's cleaner for sure. I'm pretty sure something like this was proposed in the past but it failed to catch on (was it just done locally on a few pages and not discussed here?) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

:::I mean, this is exactly what I am talking about. So much cleaner and easier to read. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

::::Is there any opposition to this from others? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::@Dissident93: I had actually proposed a formatting change a few years ago that seemed to get support, but that we never actually moved forward with. See this proposed format for coaches, which we could obviously apply for any staff member who changes positions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Seeing as the original reason for the revert was {{tq|Rev to generally accepted formatting for NFL info boxes}}, and that does not appear to hold true, I have restored the original version at Ed Policy. Any improvements based on additional discussion here are encouraged. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::Seems like the only real difference is mine used indention; you can see the difference with Lance Newmark and Adam Peters. I'd like to settle on a single format before I start changing as they come up, so which is preferable? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

:::::::I don't mind either way, as long as we are not repeating the team for each position. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

::::::::I can't personally decide which of the two I like more. Newmark's still has somewhat of a wall of text issue while Peters' might need *all* titles to be indented to feel cohesive. Is there perhaps a prettier third option? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:This should apply to assistant coaching roles too? Often a lots of space taken by repeated teams too.. (Actually in that 2021 discussion, I had suggested not listing the specific positions in the infobox, and just noting non-head coach positions with (asst.) or similar on the same line. The details can be covered in prose (with citations). For reference, baseball bios don't enumerate the specific coaching roles in the infobox (e.g. Don Zimmer).—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

::Yeah, anywhere teams are repeated consecutively under another title. I'd probably support generalizing assistant roles if it we could fully enforce it, which unfortunately tends to be a weakness of sports projects compared to others.

::For players, we could also make team history follow how coach pages such as Joe Gibbs do it and merge years for the same team over multiple tenures. For example Calais Campbell, who just re-signed with Arizona this week, would display "Arizona Cardinals (2008–2016; 2025–present)". The {{tl|NFL Year}} template could be adjusted to support more than one span to avoid manually typing it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

:::I don't think its a big issue for players. Sometimes I see years omitted if they were on IR, but they were still under contract and taking up a spot, esp. when we go through the trouble to highlight other nuances like offseason and practice squads. If there was a gap because of lapsed contracts, it probably should be separate entries. —Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

I am bringing this topic up again. This time in its own thread. Can we finally implement a template for a header of the schedule tables? It would accomplish the following: a standardized format, remove random additions (networks for old seasons, the addition of broadcast pbp and analysts). They are becoming uglier over time, see 1923 Buffalo All-Americans season, which would look so much better if the profootballreference.com recaps would become a source.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 8#Schedule Templates from back in '08 shows a family of NFL schedule templates. Their "what links here" pages show no uses in mainspace. As you seem to indicate, there may also be [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?search=Schedule+template&prefix=Wikipedia+talk%3AWikiProject+National+Football+League%2F&title=Special%3ASearch&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1&searchToken=ek7fwsojfz4u5tthswocb5iio similar past discussions] worth examining to see where project consensus lies. Left guide (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{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)