Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 11#Template:Infobox NFL coach

I've had an ongoing disagreement with another editor, Tnspro, and would like to get some feedback from others. Tnspro has taken to adding external links to a website called "Oldest Living Pro Football Players" (http://oldestlivingprofootball.com/) on biographical articles for a number of football players. Sometimes these links have been added to external links sections, sometimes (and certainly inaptly) to see also sections, and sometimes as bulleted items in reference sections. It remains unclear to me who is behind this website and if it should be considered a reliable source. My feeling is that it might be reliable enough to support an in-text citations, but it is certainly not significant enough to warrant stand-alone external links. That status ought to be reserved for official sites and definitive sports resources likes ESPN and the network of Sports Reference websites; cf. Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:External links/Perennial websites. Tnspro doesn't seem to understand that not just any website warrants that status. He and I have discussed this issue outside of Wikipedia and he does make the point that in some cases biographical information for football players may be incorrect on NFL.com or pro-football-reference.com, while oldestlivingprofootball.com has better information with support from cited periodicals. In such cases, a cited reference to oldestlivingprofootball.com may be warranted, although a citation directly to the sourced periodical would probably be better. But Tnspro has also added links to oldestlivingprofootball.com on articles in which there appears to be no question about the accuracy of vital stats, e.g. Don Meredith. Do others have thoughts about this? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:I can't tell anything about the website from the site itself, other than it seems to be very neat and clean, and free of annoying advertising. I'll take your word for it that it's reliable, even though it's not clear why! But in any event, dropping it as an external link, with no context or apparent relevance to the article at hand, seems to be a bit linkspammy to me. Does this editor add links to any other sites, or just this one? JohnInDC (talk) 11:12, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

::I've never heard of this website, but I can't find a reason to disqualify it (though that doesn't mean that is should be qualified). It at least [http://whois.net/whois/oldestlivingprofootball.com doesn't appear to be commercial] (which was my first reaction). [http://www.oldestlivingprofootball.com/apps/guestbook/ The Guestbook] shows that the website has well-established since 2007. It might be worth asking the opinion of the guys at http://www.pfraforum.org/ (The Pro Football Research Association) about their opinion on its quality. I found one example of them talking about it: http://www.pfraforum.org/index.php?showtopic=1173 but it's not clear how much credit they give it.--GrapedApe (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

:::JohnInDC, Tnspro seems to be largely a single-issue editor. His issue is disseminating links to oldestlivingprofootball.com. GrapedApe, I'm not arguing that the information on that site is unreliable. What I'm questioning is the need for stand-alone external linking to it. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

::::I am the person in question in this posting, what I can only view as a personal attack from Jweiss11. He constantly deletes my edits and I have warned him to stop many times. I will try to answer the points he and others have made. 1. I AM a single-issue editor. Is that a problem? It is what I know and what I am passionate about. Why should I edit something that I don't care about? 2. So Jweiss11, if the site information is "reliable", why not use it? Heck, at least do the copy/paste thing that a lot of others do to get the correct information! Have you ever done research on these football players? It really does not seem like it. DO SOME RESEARCH! Spend some time on the site and increase your knowledge on these players instead of following other sources that have just copied one bad piece of data after another and placed in on Wikipedia. Perhaps you will see that instead of worrying about a link being added, your time will be better spent by adding pages of players that do not have one. Add to the conversation, don't tear it down. As for the comment, "I can't tell anything about the website from the site itself, other than it seems to be very neat and clean, and free of annoying advertising. I'll take your word for it that it's reliable, even though it's not clear why!" That doesn't even make sense. Again, spend some time on that site and perhaps you will see why it is reliable and the best and most accurate source anywhere, period. pro-football-reference.com has literally hundreds and hundreds of mistakes. Why? Where do you think they get THEIR information? That's right, from out dated publications, a classic copy and paste job. I guess that qualifies them as a reliable source, I don't know. Granted, they have a lot of other information that IS useful and accurate, but sadly, player birth/death and in some cases the actual names of the players are wrong. Look, I could only assume Jweiss11 and others are looking for the most accurate information possible (although I question that sometimes). That is MY one and only goal. I will ask Jweiss11 again, spend some time researching. Go out and find information on a player that nobody knows or has found data on. There are still plenty of players that have missing birth/death records. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 12:31, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

Gentlemen, as we all know, there are a wide variety of college and professional football websites out there of wildly varying quality and accuracy, some of which are valuable resources. Some are sponsored and/or maintained by well-known public organizations (e.g., the College Football Hall of Game, NCAA, NFL, Pro Football Hall of Fame, university athletic departments) and some maintained by private individuals or small private associations (e.g., College Football Data Warehouse). Some privately maintained websites, such as CFBDW, are excellent resources with information that is often more accurate and more complete than such official websites as the NCAA's.

Sadly, oldestlivingprofootball.com is not among those truly excellent private resources. It is very limited in its content (mostly trivia, really), and usually relies on other websites for its content without any independent editorial check on the content's accuracy. The perfect example is shown on the website's home page, where it lists Ray Graves as a former Florida Gators football player. Graves was a Hall of Fame head coach for the Gators, but never played a down for the Gators as a player. Graves was a standout lineman and team captain for Robert Neyland's Tennessee Volunteers as a junior and senior, after initially attending a small Methodist college in east Tennessee. That's no small error. Bottom line: whether we routinely include any given website as an "external link" should be largely determined by the value of that reference to our readers. Here we have a website that purports to list the oldest living former pro football players (trivia), with very little other pertinent biographical information, and is often riddled with factual errors. While there may be occasions where this site is linked in footnotes, I see absolutely no reason why it should be routinely included in the external links section of player biographies. In fact, I would be inclined to delete it from those articles on which I usually work as a low-value link that offers very little information to our readers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 12:27, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

::::"usually relies on other websites for its content without any independent editorial check" are you serious?? Show me one example where this occurs. Everything possible is referenced, that IS the difference. The site NEVER listed Ray Graves as a player. You should slow down and read more closely. It lists Ray Graves as one of the 3 oldest living college football hall of famers. Click on his name and you will see it in more detail. All the so called "missing information" you are talking about is already there my friend. Sadly, another person spreading false accusations with out taking the time to read. Here, take a look for yourself - http://www.oldestlivingprofootball.com/raygraves.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 12:40, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

In regard to the www.oldestlivingprofootball.com, I have been the primary research person on this site for the

last 4 years. It has grown to the point where it contains accurate birth and death information, plus other

pertinent data, on more than 6,000 deceased pro players. I had begun gathering data from retired players

and relatives of deceased FB players in the early 1970's, after having done similar work as a contributor to

the original Baseball Encyclopedia (1968). When the new Football Encyclopedia came out in the late 1990's,

I was very happy, until I realized how much incorrect background data it contained (bad birth and death dates, wrong

names, etc.). When I questioned the errors, I was told that those in charge felt that incorrect data was preferable to a

blank space, and that when someone noticed the errors and provided the right data, they would be corrected. Fifteen years later, many of those same errors are on every website, except for the one whose credibility is in question - the site which is not big enough, not popular enough, not sanctioned by the elite, etc. Our goal is to provide a site that has accurate, confirmed birth date, death date, and other pertinent data for every

person who actually played in the NFL (not someone who has a similar name, and whose data required no more effort

than going to SSDI and copying dates). We have correct dates on our website for more than 100 players whose dates on

Pro-Football-reference.com are incorrect, in that they refer to a person who was not a pro player. We also have correct dates

for more than 200 players whose death date or sometimes both birth and death dates are missing on PFR. All of our data is documented by sources other than SSDI to ensure that we have the right person.

The most serious errors on the 'approved' websites involve players who are still alive but are listed as 'deceased'.

Ted Alflen, 1969 Denver running back, is listed as having died in Florida in 1978. Ted is a successful businessman who has been living in Florida for almost 40 years, since shortly after his retirement in 1971. Unfortunately, the Theodore Thomas Alflen who died in Florida in 1978 was Ted's infant son who died at birth. Joe Matesic (1954 Pitt), listed as deceased in 1989, is also still alive.

I find it hard to understand why anyone interested in football history would not welcome the opportunity to correct

erroneous data. Anyone unfamiliar with our site can easily access it, pick a random sample of players where our data differs from the other sites , and check our documentation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRJubyna (talk • contribs) 17:38, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

:Let's take a step back here. What we've been asked to determine is first whether this website is a reliable source under Wikipedia's reliable source policy. While I don't doubt that much effort has gone into making this website a good source of information, arguments based on this policy will be much more effective in convincing people that it's a reliable source. I don't think anybody would dispute that this is a third-party, published source under the policy. I think the area of the policy that's relevant is whether this is reliable as a self-published source. Because anybody can create a website and do with it anything he or she likes, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." It seems to me that a crucial question is whether this website has an editorial board and proper editorial oversight. I don't currently see any evidence of that on the site, but there's also no explanation of how it works or is managed. At first glance, I'd say I consider this to be somewhat marginal as a reliable source, but still one that could be used in inline citations as a source for basic facts. I concur on this point with Jweiss11. We also have to consider, though, if it's appropriate to include this as an external link, as has apparently been done across a number of articles. The policy on that is here. Generally, external links pointing to things like statistics on players – stuff that can't adequately be covered in the text of the article – is good to point to in an external link under the policy. See WP:ELYES. On the other hand, "any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" is not appropriate. See WP:ELNO. Also prohibited are links "mainly intended to promote a website," which is not necessarily the case here – but may be. I don't know. To me, it seems that most if not all of the information contained about players on this website derives from sources that would be covered anyway if the articles were to become featured articles. Any featured article on a player would include detail on his dates of birth and death, which colleges and teams he played for, and what honors and awards he received. Looking at the website, this seems to be mostly what the pages contain. Thus under the policy, I believe this should not generally be included as an external link. I'd make an exception, however, if there are cases where the link goes to a page on oldestlivingprofootball.com that clearly includes information that wouldn't be part of a featured article on the person in question. That determination would have to be a judgment call, but looking through the site it seems to me it's mostly not appropriate for external linking under policy. --Batard0 (talk) 02:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:::SRJubyn, thanks for the background on oldestlivingprofootball.com. Batard, thanks for giving a rundown of those policies. Many of us still seem to be missing the point of this discussion. I am not contending that oldestlivingprofootball.com can't be used an source in an in-line citation, although directly citing oldestlivingprofootball.com's own sources would be better. The problem is oldestlivingprofootball.com being used as an external link. As I explained above, generally only two types of sites are appropriate for inclusion as external links: 1) official sites related to the subject 2) structured listings from definitive, widely recognized resources that themselves are notable enough to be the subject of an article on Wikipedia. oldestlivingprofootball.com is neither. If there is incorrect information on Wikipedia pulled from NFL.com, pro-football-reference.com, or some other resource, by all means, let's fix it and cite the correct info properly, perhaps with a note about the persistence of the erroneous data. Carpet bombing Wikipedia with links to oldestlivingprofootball.com, often where there is no dispute about the player's vital data, is not the way to do this. Tnspro, I must say that your comments here are absurd and inappropriate. It is not a personal attack to describe your editing habits and how you may be violating core principals and policies of Wikipedia. If you want to see what a personal attack looks like, take a look above at your comments about me. Assertions such as "Have you ever done research on these football players? It really does not seem like it. DO SOME RESEARCH!" are hostile and wildly incongruous with reality. If you take the time to look at my contributions here on Wikipedia, you will finds thousands of edits about American football players and coaches. In many cases these edits have added biographical data that I researched from reliable and notable periodicals. Furthermore, over the past three years, I've sent hundreds of emails to David DeLassus at College Football Data Warehouse to share my findings and those of other Wikipedia editors with him so that he can improve the accuracy of that site. Tnspro, your behavior on Wikipedia is ridiculous and disruptive. It needs to stop. Jweiss11 (talk) 08:14, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

::::Tnspro has continued his link-spamming. What is the next course of action here? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:52, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::User:Jweiss11 - So, you consider fixing the Don Murry death information (Wikipedia had he died in 1952 when he died in 1951!) and taking out a "source" that mentions that he died but no date spamming? Get off your high horse pal. You didn't know the information and I added it. There IS a link to his obit. If you are so great at finding information, find it! Or should I just give the link to you like the actual death date for him? You are doing nothing but causing trouble where there shouldn't be. You should continue to do 'clean-up' work on Wikipedia and leave the searching and addition of factual information to the experts. You need to stop, the only one being ridiculous and disruptive is you Jonathan. I will say it again, I came to Wikipedia to ADD information that YOU and apparently everyone else does not have or did not bother to look for and in doing so, I have added the web site where you CAN get the information. You are lying when you say I am spamming and it will be dealt with accordingly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 02:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

::::::Tnspro, your edits on the Don Murry article deleted an existing in-line citation to a reliable source, the Chicago Tribune and also deleted the code that allows in-line citations to be rendered on the article. The 1952 article is not a bad source, it was just misapplied by a previous editor. Though I do not have access to read the text of that article, I presume it talked about Murry being dead by 1952. Pro-football-reference (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/M/MurrDo20.htm) has his death date correctly as June 30, 1951. I assume his 1951 obit from the Chicago Tribune confirms that date? That's the source that ought to be cited. Can you explain your insistence on adding the oldestlivingprofootball.com link on Kevin Turner (running back)? None of the basic info about Turner is in dispute. NFL.com, pro-football-reference.com, and oldestlivingprofootball.com all have his DOB as June 12, 1969 and his place of birth as Prattville, Alabama. What is the oldestlivingprofootball.com link adding? Though you can't understand it, your editing behavior here is tantamount to link-spamming. Furthermore, your entire tone is angry, irrational, and disrespectful toward the hours and hours of work put in by thousands of editors to build Wikipedia to what it is today, imperfections notwithstanding. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:02, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Whatever the differences are, I think it would be best if Tnspro temporarily stopped adding oldestlivingprofootball.com links to articles until a consensus can be reached on the policy for their inclusion as external links. I believe that's the question that needs answering. A revert war isn't going to help resolve this issue. --Batard0 (talk) 03:15, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:I can agree to that. I think my point has been made, however. oldestlivingprofootball.com is a site that you should use to make Wikipedia better, add the link to it or not, give them credit or not, it is up to you. It is just a shame that there are still hundreds of players that 1. need an article, both living and those already deceased (which is another good reason to use the site since it has the living list available to you) and 2. need their birth/death information updated. My question to this community is - Why hasn't this been done already? What is the hold up? The information is right there for you. I submit that most of you don't even know or care if a player has a wrong birth or death date. Don Murry is just the latest example. I do care and want it fixed. You should as well. Isn't that why you are here? One last thing, I sent Jonathan the link to Murry's obit and he still hasn't added it, yet he has time to come here and complain about me spamming. I don't know about you, but when I think of spamming, I think of someone adding a link that then wants you to purchase a certain product. There is nothing to buy when you go to oldestlivingprofootball.com., but there is a lot you can learn from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 03:49, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

::Tnspro, per your last comment..."I submit that most of you don't even know or care if a player has a wrong birth or death date." This is a disrespectful, ridiculous failure to assume good faith. "What is the hold up?" The hold up is that there are millions of articles on Wikipedia and ten of thousands of articles just about American football. "I sent Jonathan the link to Murry's obit and he still hasn't added it, yet he has time to come here and complain about me spamming." I don't know what you sent me, http://www.oldestlivingprofootball.com/donaldfranklinmurry.htm? It says the source is "Chicago Tribune - Published 07/02/51". I don't have access to the Chicago Tribune archives to verify that source, and frankly, it's not my responsibility, or anyone else's here, to verify the sources on oldestlivingprofootball.com. "There is nothing to buy when you go to oldestlivingprofootball.com." This is false as there are paid advertisements on the site. Per my previous post, can you explain your insistence on adding the oldestlivingprofootball.com link on Kevin Turner (running back)? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:54, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:I won't try to decide if this site should count as a reliable source for citations, but it definitely doesn't belong in the External Links section of any page. There are hundreds of websites that cover football, and the External Links section is supposed to be very short and highly selective. There's no room for a little-known website specializing in niche biographical trivia.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 09:21, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

::At best, it could be a reliable source for articles (though probably not). It certainly shouldn't be used as an "external link" section.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

I'd like to comment about two parts of a statement that a 'gentleman' made about our website. First

of all, saying that it consists mostly of trivia means that an accurate listing of birth and death data

of more than 6,000 players is not something that interests him, and that's his privilege. However,

relatives of several players whose playing career was attributed on several websites to a non-player with a similar

name were very appreciative of my efforts to have their, father, grandfather, uncle, etc. be justly recognized as

an NFL player.

The second part of the statement is much more bothersome because it is an outright lie. The line is

'usually relies on other websites for its content without any independent editorial check on the content's accuracy.'

If that were true, we would have all the same errors that everyone else has. We don't. We have accurate, documented

data on more than 250 players for whom the data is either wrong or missing on most, if not all, other sites. So from whom

are we copying? When I started contributing to this site 4 years ago, I started by going through the Encyclopedia and

checking the death date for every deceased player against SSDI. After the first 50 or 60, I realized that it was a waste of time

because all that meant was that they found a person with that name, not necessarily a football player with that name. From

that point, I checked every deceased player, along with those at an age to possibly have died, for confirmation of him being a player

from some independent source not connected with any of the football sites . Every player on our lists has been checked in this manner,

with logical exceptions like HOFers, etc. I was amazed at some of the errors I found, such as a player's name being changed

to fit data that was found. Lyle Lloyd Drury, from Idaho, who played with the Chicago Bears, became Lyle Thomas Drury

from Illinois, and then the data from Thomas F Drury was attached to the player. The best ones were two players --

Fay 'Mule' Wilson and Casimir 'Hippo' Gozdowski -- for whom the data that was attached to their record actually belonged to

a female. Where was the independent editorial check on these things?

Here are the names of five players whose data on all other websites actually belongs to a non-player:

Earl Nolan, Wayne 'Ike' Kakela, John Fekete, Maurice 'Moose' Harper, and W Walter 'Polly' Koch. Examine our documentation.

Then tell us why all the other sites have the same errors, if they each have an independent editorial check to verify

the accuracy of the contents.

I just noticed one other statement that I would like to respond to, which referred to us as a 'little-known website specializing in

niche biographical trivia.' Making sure that someone who played a couple NFL games in the early '20's has his

little piece of glory, and that it is not awarded to someone with a similar name, just because a researcher was too lazy to find

the right person, is not biographical trivia. Incorrect birth and death dates mean you are crediting the wrong guy.

Whether your regulations prevent our site from being an external link is a different matter, but our site is the only one I have found

that is focused on listing data for only players, and not people with similar names to players. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRJubyna (talk • contribs) 19:45, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

:::SRJubyna, I believe your last comments are in response to Dirtlawyer1's comment. Your testimony about relatives of old players being appreciative of your efforts is nice. I know that other editors here on Wikipedia have had the similar experiences, and I've had some nice interactions related to my editing with relatives of old football stars as well. But all of that is rather irrelevant to the discussion at hand. There's seems to be a failure, particularly by your associate Tnspro, to understand how Wikipedia works, from its policies about sources and citations to the basic structure and formatting of articles. I don't doubt your point that NFL.com and other sites still have erroneous bio data about many football players of minor note, more or less blindly copied from one another, while you and others at oldestlivingprofootball.com have gone back and done the research to fix this on your own site. But for the purposes of Wikipedia, saying oldestlivingprofootball.com has it right doesn't really cut it. We need go and show the world with citations to notable periodicals and documents of notable organizations that this research is sound. If you want to transpose the research that you've done on oldestlivingprofootball.com onto Wikipedia, I'd be happy to help with that. That would entail citing your sources on Wikipedia, not citing oldestlivingprofootball.com on Wikipedia. But Tnspro coming in and basically saying, "this DOB is correct, oldestlivingprofootball.com has it correct, trust me, QED" doesn't cut it. Furthermore, the way in which he's edited on Wikipedia, not adding in-line citations to oldestlivingprofootball.com, but rather bulleted external links, which are to be reserved for only the most renown and definitive resources, is even more inapt. On top of that, there's been a steady stream of hostility and bad faith from him, while both you and he have been rather loose with the accusations of dishonesty. There also seems to be a desire for oldestlivingprofootball.com to "get credit". That's not how Wikipedia works. When you edit on Wikipedia, you're turning over the content you've added to the world to use freely. So, folks, where do we go from here? Jweiss11 (talk) 03:49, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:I referred to you as a 'little-known website specializing in niche biographical trivia' because the whole angle of your site is that it documents biographical data for specific types of football players: old or dead. That's niche information. The name of the oldest living person who ever played for the Philadelphia Eagles is trivia, and yet that link and several similar ones are a prominent feature of your site's home page. You guys are a trivia website. The External Links section is for notable websites with broad appeal, not just any link about the same topic as the article.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 05:19, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

I have never said anything about the regulations set forth by Wikipedia. If our website does not

meet your criteria, that's fine, but when someone makes a blatantly false accusation about the

database, my integrity is being questioned, and I have the right to respond. Saying that most of

our content is copied from other websites is totally false. The fact that it is acceptable for him to

make this allegation, with no evidence, and the person who calls him on it is criticized, makes me wonder

if different people are governed according to different rules. As for the person who persists in calling us a

trivia website, by far the greatest part of our website is comprised of the Necrology Lists, which are historical

records. If you are bored with this type of information and label us a niche site, at least this has some merit.

However, the Football Encyclopedia had sections on football families, players who also played other

pro sports, players who had significant careers in other fields -- all of which could be labeled trivia.

That didn't make the Encyclopedia a trivia book any more than the small amount of trivia we have makes

us a trivia website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRJubyna (talk • contribs) 18:59, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

:SRJubyna, I think there's a difference between being mistaken and lying that is being glossed over here. I also think given the way oldestlivingprofootball.com couches it's information in almost an ancedotal fashion, the labels "niche" or even "trivia" are warranted, in contrast to the way Wikipedia aims to have a robust, vetted, and meticulously cited biography of these same players, or the way a site like pro-football-reference aims to have an exhaustive statistical description of their careers. All, can we say that we have a consensus on the matter, that bulleted links to oldestlivingprofootball.com are not appropriate on Wikipedia? Jweiss11 (talk) 05:06, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

::I'd say we have consensus. The only two dissenters are an admitted single-issue editor who keeps linking to the same website, and a user with an admitted conflict of interest who apparently signed up for no other reason than to argue in favor of that website.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 06:54, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

:::There seems to be some agreement that the site is usable in inline citations, but does not meet the requirements to be included in an external links section. It would be best if an uninvolved editor could assess the status of consensus and the arguments advanced on both sides of the issue. We could also do an RFC if there's a desire for that from either side. It would be most efficient, however, if everyone could simply agree to the proposal above. Are there any objections? --Batard0 (talk) 07:02, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

:::Actually, it looks like SRJubyna isn't even arguing in favor of using it as an external link—he/she keeps saying it's fine if the site doesn't meet Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion—so that makes it, by my count, five against one with GrapedApe, Batard0, and SRJubyna not having cast clear votes.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 21:35, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for providing a forum for me to express my opinions concerning various

websites, including the one to which I contributed. Naturally, I'm a bit disappointed by the

reactions to it, but we will continue to add confirmed data to it as we uncover it. I'm much

more concerned by the apparent willingness to accept and then defend bad data, as long

as it comes from an approved source. You have at least 30 individual pages, complete with

statistics, etc., that refer to individuals who had nothing to do with football. When I mention

a bad birth or death date, I'm not talking about a one-day discrepancy or a year or two on a guy

who changed his age during his career. I'm talking about having data on a totally different individual.

Two shining examples are Ted Hopkins and Polly Koch. Hopkins is the nephew of the famous Nesser

brothers. Considering he's part of one of the most prolific families in football, one would think a better effort

would have been made on this one, but the guy they list is 12 years older than the actual player.

Polly Koch played at U of Wisconsin, then for the Rock Island Independents. He founded an export company

which is still run by his grandchildren 60 years later. He was born in Davenport, Iowa, and died on Long Island

in 1962. You have him born in Wisconsin in 1895 and dying there in 1976 - straight from Pro Football Reference.

I'm sure that site has a lot of good features, but in this area, they are very deficient. They have at least 75 more

individuals on their site who are not players, so I would hope that you would do a little more than rubber-stamp

anything that uses them as the source, especially regarding players who played prior to 1965. An even better

solution would be for someone connected with that site or any of the others to accept the fact that they have made

mistakes, and fix them, which is basically what the families of those who did play the game deserve. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRJubyna (talk • contribs) 18:48, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

::srjubyna, I appreciate your thoughts, although, I think you are talking to people who really don't care one way or the other. As I mentioned before, and it was not a put down or poking fun at anyone, it was the truth. Most of the Wikipedia editors do not even know that such a problem exists. They see Polly Koch died in 1972 and just figure, OK, that must be correct. This is why oldestlivingprofootball.com is so valuable. The information is there, already searched and a lot of it has a source for you to do your own research if you don't agree with the findings. If you stopped putting the site down with all the childish "trivia" and "little-known" bull, you would see that it has information that you could use. Which is why I have been sourcing it. We know Jonathan has a personal vendetta against the site, he can't even admit it is a valuable resource while spending little to no time on the site. We know Dirtlawyer1 put his foot in his mouth which is probably why he has not come back to this discussion. We have "thatotherperson" who likes to say the word 'trivia' all the time. Guess what, Wikipedia has LOTS of trivia. Have you searched, "oldest living persons" or "centenarians" - guess what site comes up? Maybe listing the oldest living professional football players is considered trivia to you, but if you looked at the living list, you would have seen that two recent player deaths, Jack Del Bello and Burt Delavan do not have Wikipedia pages. Don't they deserve one? Are they not worthy enough to be on Wikipedia? Perhaps this trivia would have helped some of you make pages for the players that do not have one instead of spending all this time complaining about a little known web site. Look, at this point, I really don't care to fix anything Wikipedia has wrong. If you like having bad information listed for everyone to see, fine. You can't help those that refuse to see they need it. Keep Koch's page like it is, keep Ted Hopkin's page like it is. I think by now everyone knows where to find the correct information. Although, I am sure we will start seeing, little by little, the edits coming with the new information oldestlivingprofootball.com is providing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 00:16, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

:::SRJubyna and Tnspro, Jack Del Bello and Burt Delevan, as NFL players, should have a Wikipedia page. That they haven't been created yet is not that people don't care, it's that Wikipedia is not yet complete. The goal of Wikipedia is to have a comprehensive, sourced article about everything that's notable in human civilization. It's a massive task. The Polly Koch article is a "stub". That means it was created with just a very basic amount of information, which was apparently sourced from pro-football-reference.com. The M.O. of the editor that created this article is to do just that, create hordes of biographical stubs. That being said, he's not one of the best editors we have around here. The Koch article is not done. Not even close. The process of expanding it into a satisfactory article would uncover the errors at pro-football-reference.com and more. Your website mentions Koch's obit in the NY Times. I searched the archive there and could not find it. It is online? Do you have a URL? Tnspro, in the meantime, can you explain why you are still adding links to OLPF, such as seen in your last edit at Bull Behman, given that 1) consensus appears to be established against the links 2) above you stated would not do that (at least as long as this discussion persist?), and 3) Behman's vital data is not even in dispute among the major sources? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:50, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I knew you would say that as a way to try and make it seem like I am not an honest person. Get this straight Jonathan, I did not "add" a link after I said I wouldn't, I reverted it back to what it was before you edited it, again. The reason I added the link in the first place is because you and the Wikipedia community had his death date as "unknown". I felt that was lazy and insufficient work since the information was out there. I added the correct information, with a link where you could find the data and that particular link had a source, unlike all the others. Then, if you or anyone questioned the information, you could search it yourself. You seem to feel Wikipedia is your personal playground, it is not. I agreed not to add any more links, and I will not but you should stop as well. You should be man enough to stop your personal vendetta against me until it is figured out. Also, I hardly feel a few Wikipedia editors, giving their quick opinions on a subject and web site they know nothing about and are too lazy to learn about is sufficient when there are hundreds and hundreds of editors. Now that you know about Del Bello, Delavan, Koch and Hopkins, perhaps your time would be better spent fixing it. It would be better than doing "cleanup" work, I would think. There are a lot of other NFL players that do not have Wikipedia pages. Right...you know this right?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 10:49, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact that the Koch article is a stub to be expanded is not relevant to the problem, because there are plenty of stubs

which have missing data, and those can be legitimately expanded, because they are not building upon bad data. Unless the

'approved' sites correct Koch's dates, anyone expanding that stub would have no idea that he's building on incorrect data.

As for accessing Koch's obit, go to Google's Newspaper Archives, and google "Walter Koch" + "football". That will take you

to an abstract of his obit, which mentions that he played for Wisconsin in 1915. Unfortunately, instead of 'Wisconsin',

they spelled it 'Wiaconain', so you can't even google using his college's name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SRJubyna (talk • contribs) 17:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

• Okay, guys, let's be perfectly clear: per Wikipedia's external links policy, links featured as external links should offer a unique and valuable resource regarding the article's subject beyond what would be provided in a Feature Article quality Wikipedia article. (Please see WP:EL.) As a general rule, the only two external links that are usually added to every CFB/NFL player biography on Wikipedia are the links to the player's college football team bio and the player's official NFL team bio, and then only for the recent players for whom such bios exist. Many of the older NFL player bios have done just fine without a random collection of marginally useful external links. For many of the older, pre-1990's players, there is no CFB team bio available online, and the NFL official bio may be sparse. Per Wikipedia's external links "spam" policy, adding external links for a single website to every article in a class of article (e.g. all NFL players), without a good reason or purpose constitutes "link spam," and such links are subject to being immediately deleted by any editor. (Please see WP:LINKSPAM.) This is apparently being done in an effort to promote this website. If this continues, I am ready to take this to one of the Wikipedia-wide discussion boards for resolution.

:Personally, I have no interest in arguing the merits of this private trivia website, and this discussion has absolutely nothing to do with the personal integrity of Tnspro or the purported creator of this website. It is not a unique online resource of general interest, and its focus on the "oldest living football players" clearly constitutes trivia of limited interest. By adding these links to every player bio, Tnspro is engaged in promotional activity. If Tnspro persists in his link-spamming on behalf of this website, he is likely to be blocked. Our Wikipedia football player bios do not exist as a platform to promote this website. Enough is enough, and I really have nothing to add beyond my warning that continued link-spamming will be addressed by editors/administrators who have the authority to block editors who engage in link-spamming. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 01:53, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

::Well, Tnspro has continued to add/reinstate these superfluous links. What is the next step here? Am RFC? Post at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents? Jweiss11 (talk) 04:45, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

:::We don't need an RFC; consensus has been established. If Tnspro refuses to accept consensus, we finalize the four-step warning process and report him as a linkspammer. I've given him a level 3 for his most recent edits. Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 05:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

::::I'd prefer an RFC because it costs nothing to do, and I don't think an overwhelming consensus is yet established. There are only a handful of people here, many of whom (including me) are not entirely independent of the subject under debate, having edited NFL articles. I believe an incidents post is a step too far under the circumstances, and that Tnspro would likely cease if a firmer consensus were established to the effect that this site was not suitable as an external link via an RFC. --Batard0 (talk) 09:56, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

I understand now why people consider Wikipedia a joke, truly I do. The 3 or so people that continue to say I am spamming specifically (Jonathan Weiss, thatotherperson and dirtlawyer1, are acting like children and now I can see, along with everyone else, why your contributions to NFL pages on Wikipedia have been sorely lacking. One last time for the simple minded folks, I am not spamming, I am adding a link where you can find the "updated information" about a certain player that nobody knew was wrong. If the information was on jonathanweiss.com, I would add that link, it is very simple. If, after all this time, I have added it in the wrong place, my sincere apologies. I find it funny that Jonathan Weiss picks the one person (Punk Berryman) to edit that was so blatantly copied/stolen from other sources. Why just take out the link to his page on oldestlivingprofootball.com Jonathan? Why not revert it back to his old birth and death data you had? Then all of the information I added will be erased. Wont that make you happy? You obviously care very little about accuracy. How can you now trust the information I have provided and that is still on Berryman's page? Sadly, you three are an embarrassment as football researchers as I have shown over and over again. It is probably why you have gravitated to Wikipedia. You can do very little work and make yourself seem important. Well, I came here to fix your mistakes and sloppy work. Continue your fine cleanup work Jonathan, stick to editing kids shows 'thatotherperson', continue to put your foot in your mouth 'dirtlawyer1', its all ok. But, remember this, I will be watching. I will be looking for the additional pages and updates that have been mentioned in this long discussion along with the hundreds and hundreds of others that you can only find on oldestlivingprofootball.com. I know you three will not be the ones doing the edits however. At this point, that would be an admission of your shoddy work and an embarrassment to you. Jonathan, you stated "I've had some nice interactions related to my editing with relatives of old football stars as well." I believe you are lying. Can you prove any of this? Please give us the details of how your great cleanups have made some family members of old football players happy? ............That's what I though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 13:22, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

• For the record, Tnspro, I have made over 58,000 edits to Wikipedia in the past four years, over half of which were edits to college and professional football biographies and team articles. (See [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Dirtlawyer1&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia].) I have also created over 100 new Wikipedia articles, including 15+ bios for football players and coaches. Jweiss has over 120,000 edits, the overwhelming majority of which are to football and other sports-related articles. (See [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Jweiss11&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia].) Paulmcdonald has over 30,000 edits, the overwhelming majority of which are to American football articles. (See [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Paulmcdonald&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia].) GrapedApe has over 17,600 edits. (See [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=GrapedApe&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia].) JohnInDC has over 15,000. (See [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=JohnInDC&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia].) Batard has almost 9,000 edits, and is extremely active in editing sports articles. (See [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=Batard0&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia].)

:Compare your edit count: [http://tools.wmflabs.org/xtools/pcount/index.php?name=tnspro&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia 580] (as of September 11, 2013). A high edit count alone does not mean that anyone is a great Wikipedia editor or writer, or knows every Wikipedia policy and guideline; it may, however, be somewhat revealing of the editor's experience and long-term commitment to the project.

:One last point: slinging insults is unlikely to help your case. I would urge you to stick to the facts and the applicable Wikipedia policies. Personalizing this discussion only makes you look a little crazy and is not going to win any support for your position. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:20, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think anybody above disputes that the website in question is usable in inline citations (please correct me if I'm wrong). So to move this discussion forward, it seems to me it might be useful to do a quick straw poll on the main issue to determine if a consensus exists, which I think is:

• Is the website [http://oldestlivingprofootball.com Oldest Living Pro Football Players] acceptable for use as an external link under Wikipedia's external link policy? For reference, the parts of that policy that are relevant are WP:ELYES, WP:ELMAYBE and WP:ELNO. Can we get some policy-based !votes on this? --Batard0 (talk) 17:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• No on external links to Oldest Living Pro Football Players per policies referenced and discussion above. Jweiss11 (talk) 18:31, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
• No. Not a valuable external link. Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 01:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Tnspro has been going around reverting a bunch of my edits, labeling them as vandalism, and claiming to have "reported" me, which appears to be nothing more than an intimidation attempt. How many more hoops do we have to jump through before we can call a linkspammer a linkspammer and stop putting up with this guy?
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 00:07, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:We need to focus on the policy and on getting a consensus on the policy regarding this site before anything can be done on either side of the matter. While I tend to agree that it is not acceptable as an external link (it doesn't meet WP:ELNO because the information would be included in any featured-class article) I don't think the straw poll above necessarily shows the existence of a clear consensus. --Batard0 (talk) 14:37, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

::What standard of consensus are you trying to satisfy? It's literally just one guy against everybody else at this point. Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 08:19, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone around here tell the truth? Thatotherperson is lying. I am not going around reverting a bunch of his edits, that is a lie, plan and simple. That is what he is doing to me. What I am doing, however, is reverting HIS vandalism to my legitimate edits. Some that have been there for a long time with no problems. Hell, I MADE Jack Bighead's page 2 years ago. Now this guy comes along and feels he can do whatever he wants, 2 years later? When I made that page, NOBODY knew anything about him. You didn't even know he didn't have a page! Come on gentlemen, let's call a spade a spade here. You are the problem, Thatotherperson, not me. Thatotherperson likes to say linkspammer, fine, I really could care less what he thinks. His credibility on this subject is laughable. I have a job to do, fix the outrageous errors that are littered throughout the web about these players. I don't care how many thousands of edits you have next to your name. That does not impress me. What would impress me is if you would help me fix the problems I see concerning these players. This has been going on for a month and there are 3 or so people that have a problem with me fixing the mistakes and adding a link to where you can find the correct information. Enough is enough, your mission is a failure. As of now, I will fix any vandalism that happens on a page I edit.

On a side note, Mr. Weiss, on the Punk Berryman page you and your friend vandalized - Why would you take out the link to the only source on the entire web that has the correct information about when he died, yet, keep the information I provided, and this is the best part, KEEP links to Pro-Football-Ref and CFDW? What do they add to the conversation on that page? PRF has his birth/death totally wrong and CFDW basically lists nothing. Are you linkspamming? Do you care? How in the world can you call yourself a Wikipedia editor when you do things like that? It is such a shame. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tnspro (talk • contribs) 02:32, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:A friendly reminder, Tnspro: please sign your comments (you can do so by putting down four tildes (like this: ~~~~). A convenient way to do this is to use the button with the little pen and the squiggle in the upper-left corner of the editor or the squiggly signs below the editing window. And another point of housekeeping: you may want to thread your responses in future so it's easy for others to see what you're responding to. You can do this by beginning your response after the text you're responding to with a colon on a new line. A double-colon (like this: "::") will create two indentions, and a triple-colon will create three, and so forth. This helps make conversations more readable, and it would be a help to all of us when we're trying to understand who's talking to whom. On another front, I think both sides need to stop reverting each other until there's clear consensus on the simple issue raised in the straw poll above. I think it's great that Tnspro is trying to fix errors in the encyclopedia, which undoubtedly improves the quality of the information here. But we need to step back for now. We can come back to these issues later, but right now it's not helpful for the encyclopedia to have people constantly reverting each other. Instead of accusing each other of vandalism, I think we're all better off coming to a mutual agreement on the correct way forward under Wikipedia policy. Can we do that? Tnspro (and others, if applicable): do you dispute that the website oldestlivingprofootball.com is not acceptable under Wikipedia policy for use as an external link? If so, please explain which policies make it acceptable? We've heard the other side, but we haven't heard this one. A fuller explanation would help us greatly. --Batard0 (talk) 14:29, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

:Maybe you're not aware, Tnspro, but your editing history is a matter of public record. Anyone can check and see if I'm lying about your behavior. Just like I can check and see if you've really reported me anywhere when you write in an edit summary "user has been reported". By the way, here is the page to report someone as a vandal. Feel free to post my name over there and see if you can convince an admin that my edits are vandalism.
A few other things: the fact that you created a page does not mean you own it. The fact that a link has been on that page for two years does not make it exempt from Wikipedia's external links policy. The fact that you believe you "have a job to do" does not mean you can unilaterally declare a certain website to be "the only source on the entire web that has the correct information". If Wikipedia articles have incorrect information on them, then they do need to be fixed; however, you have not addressed the issue of why linking to oldestlivingprofootball.com is necessary to achieve that. If oldestlivingprofootball.com has reliable sources, why not cite them as the sources for your edits? How is it better to post links to the same website at the bottom of every article?
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 08:58, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

It appears Tnspro may have stopped editing. Time to start removing the links? Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 08:39, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

:Yes, it is time to remove the external links to oldestlivingprofootball.com, irrespective of whether Tnspro returns to editing. I have already removed a number of these links, but a thorough examination of his editing history and a related purge is in order. Jweiss11 (talk) 17:21, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

::I noticed that this editor has recently reverted a number of removals of the aforementioned links. It is troubling to me that the editor has done this without first engaging in further discussion, given the debate above. While I don't think the consensus is extremely broad – it involves perhaps five editors (I haven't done a count) in total over the course of this discussion – this appears to me to be a fairly clear case of editing against consensus. Nobody aside from people directly involved with the website has argued that it is acceptable as an external link under Wikipedia policy, I believe. I was hoping this could be resolved cooperatively, but that appears increasingly unlikely to happen at this stage. --Batard0 (talk) 07:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Reported at ANI. –Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 10:09, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The DOB on Steve Wallace (American football) keeps getting removed from the infobox and and lead of the article. The article appears to have had a long history of messy, questionable editing, and Wallace himself, or someone acting on his behalf, may have partaken in some of that. Thoughts? Jweiss11 (talk) 00:43, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

:First off, the DOB removal seems sort of odd. There is [http://www.pro-football-reference.com/players/W/WallSt00.htm at least one reliable source with the DOB in it] (December 27, 1964), so there should be no dispute on that point. If someone is removing this DOB, I'd argue it should stop unless they provide a valid, policy-based reason why it shouldn't be there. I can't think of what that would be, but you never know. The article has other issues, the most noticeable of which is that the statement "He has since been recognized as having helped revolutionize the position of left tackle" is entirely unsourced in the lead and unexplained (and unsourced) in the body except for "by having the ability to face such legends like Lawrence Taylor, Richard Dent, and Chris Doleman,etc. in one-on-one competition." I think both of these sentences should be removed until reliable sources can be found to support them. Wikipedia is neutral, and this fails to comply with the project's citation guidelines and the overriding principle of verifiability. --Batard0 (talk) 14:18, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

Anyone interested in getting this article to FA status. Its good that its at GA status, but it is one of the core articles (if not, the core article) and I believe we can get it to FA status. I need two things to occur.

1. Get some members of this WikiProject to help out.

1. Figure out where the article stands and what needs to be done to get it to FA status. See the section below and please help out. Just add # (comment) ~~~~ and then we'll divide and conquer with tasks. Anyone want to help? Sportsguy17 01:01, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

I, along with my colleague WWB Too, have been working on behalf of the National Football League Players Association to improve some football-related articles on Wikipedia. I'm currently working on the Health issues in American football article, which suffers from a number of issues, including a lack of reliable sources. I posted some revised language, with citations, on the Talk page but, as of yet, no editor has had a chance to look at them. If someone from here is interested and has time to take a look at that language I'm proposed, I'd appreciate it! Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 17:58, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

• What is the NFLPA's agenda here? Are they attempting to bring attention and awareness to player injuries on Wikipedia in order to sway public opinion toward embracing the idea that the sport is dangerous? I'm assuming good faith for now and take it you've merely been tasked to "generally improve articles relating to football" on Wikipedia, but it would be helpful if you could disclose not only your COI, but what the agenda of the interested parties is. What are they trying to do here? --Batard0 (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

::Hey Batard0. The NFLPA's aim here is to make sure that the information in the article is up-to-date, accurate, and properly sourced. Currently, the article is in quite a state—lack of citations and poor wording, with sections that are disorganized (the section Statistics on injuries other than concussions is a particularly egregious example).

::The NFLPA's goal—and my goal—is to make this article better by ensuring that it is accurate, neutral, and conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines. If you have any specific concerns about the wording I've proposed, I'm more than open to hearing them. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:54, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

:::So that's the NFLPA's goal with respect to this article. What is its overarching agenda in relation to Wikipedia? Is the NFLPA paying people to edit neutrally? Are you allowed to suggest edits that conflict with the NFLPA's agenda? Would you, for example, write something that said some people assert [http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/10/09/league-of-denial-fails-to-tell-the-whole-story-on-concussions/ the NFLPA was aware of the concussions issue back in 1999 and did not make efforts to protect its players]? This doesn't fit into the context of the edits you're proposing. The point I'm trying to make is that oftentimes, bias lies in what is omitted as much as the quality of the information that's included. And that's why I think it's important to understand your agenda. Other editors may like to know what that is so they can balance it where necessary. --Batard0 (talk) 06:47, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

:::: why not comment at Talk:Health issues in American football#Proposing some new language for Injuries section if you have such a strong opinion on this issue? Frietjes (talk) 14:42, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Is my opinion on the issue strong? I think it's rather natural and logical for editors to wish to know the underlying agendas of paid advocates. Is this inappropriate? In any event, I think this is a better place to have a discussion about the overarching agenda of the NFLPA on Wikipedia, given that it affects more than just the above-referenced article. --Batard0 (talk) 15:23, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::: see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Frietjes (talk) 16:16, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::What part of this page applies to the present discussion? The editor already has a disclosed COI and is not anywhere near violating any rules. Please clarify. --Batard0 (talk) 16:48, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

{{unindent}}The NFLPA's overall goal on Wikipedia is the same as their goal for this article—to help update the information on Wikipedia related to their organization and football generally, making sure that it is accurate, neutral, and correctly sourced. Prior to bringing on my colleague WWB Too and I, there were gaps and incorrect information in a number of articles. You can see, for example, the improvements WWB Too made to the article for Domonique Foxworth, as well as the work he did with another editor on the creation of a navbox for NFLPA presidents. I've also drafted an article for George Atallah, the NFLPA's assistant executive director of external affairs, which is currently in the AfC queue.

As far as I can tell from working with the NFLPA, improving information about the NFLPA and football more generally is their only aim. However, even if the NFLPA (or some other client) did have a specific agenda they were trying to push, I would not help them do so unless their goals were clearly aligned with Wikipedia's own aims and guidelines.

So careful am I to make sure that I follow Wikipedia's guidelines that I make no edits to articles myself—all of the work that I do is vetted by volunteer editors who can check not only that I have properly sourced my information, but also that I have abided by the guidelines regarding neutral point of view and non-promotional tone. As you note, bias can occur in what is omitted as much as in what is included, which is why my first stops in finding editors to vet my work are (a) editors who have actively edited the article in question and (b) relevant WikiProjects. I do this in the hopes that the editors whose help I solicit will be knowledgeable enough about a topic to identify any such omissions and work with me to correct them.

To address your specific concern, regarding not including information about concussions and the NFLPA in my proposed edits: this isn't mentioned because I haven't yet proposed any edits related to the concussions sections of the article. I'm attempting to work through this article section by section, making it easier for editors to compare my revisions to the current article and check my sources. I appreciate you pointing out that article, and will look at including it when I get to the relevant sections of this article, but I don't see it fitting into the current edits that I've suggested.

Although I can certainly see why you would want to know about the NFLPA's background—and mine—here, I subscribe to a model of Wikipedia editing which says that the content of edits—not who the editor is nor what their goals might be—should be the deciding criteria for whether or not a particular edit ought to be included. So, I would appreciate it if, in the interests of assuming good faith, you'd provide feedback specifically related to the changes that I proposed so that we can work on improving, in a neutral and unbiased fashion, Health issues in American football, which is in dire need of some help. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:23, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

:Thanks for laying out in more detail your purposes and aims here. It's certainly above and beyond what I imagine many COI editors do. That's commendable. I'd also like to respond to your last paragraph. When we're trying to improve the encyclopedia, policy requires us to stay neutral, something that conflicts of interest quite often make difficult – not because those conflicts are bad per se, but because of the practical limitations that arise from them. Somebody who's paid by an organization to edit on Wikipedia has financial incentives and possibly even contractual obligations to portray the organization or entity in a positive way (or else avoid painting the entity negatively). The encyclopedia will be better if we're alert to these potential conflicts of interest, so that interested editors can try to ensure a neutral point of view prevails. That's why I'm interested (and why I think NFL article editors might be interested) in the NFLPA's overarching agenda on Wikipedia. I don't think it's untoward to ask these questions, nor do I think by doing so we fail to assume good faith regarding the specific edits proposed. Moreover, who an editor is and what their goals are do matter when examining proposed edits that may involve conflicts of interest, since while the edits should by all means be included so long as their content improves the encyclopedia, policies on neutrality ought to be followed whenever practical. --Batard0 (talk) 18:52, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

::Hey Batard0, okay, great—we seem to be in rough agreement here about what's up, and since my COI is fully disclosed and discussed.... Any thoughts on the edits? Thanks! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 19:07, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

{{unindent}}{{done}}! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:23, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

I've made another annual suggestion to move Thanksgiving Classic to NFL on Thanksgiving. The reasoning and discussion is HERE. Doctorindy (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

:I concur that this article should be renamed. I added my reasoning here. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:28, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

::{{Done}} After receiving no further feedback, I've gone ahead and made this change. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:29, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

‎List of current National Football League head coaches isn't a featured list, and is outdated, so I felt like tampering with it a bit. Basing my idea off List of NFL starting quarterbacks, instead of having just a list, I thought of creating short profiles about each coach, and this could also be easier to maintain than the QBs, as QBs can change weekly, while coaches would usually have to change during the offseason. If anyone wants to help, the bios should be written at User:ZappaOMati/sandbox/2. ZappaOMati 20:52, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

In the interest of managing footer clutter, I'd like to delete a series of succession boxes noting Super Bowl winning and losing coaches. For an example, see Joe Gibbs. "See also" links to List of Super Bowl head coaches can be added to the relevant articles instead. Any objections here? Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

:That seems like a reasonable proposal. I've never quite understood what value those succession boxes have. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:13, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

::Okay, I went ahead and removed all of these as well as a series of succession boxes for the AFL championship-winning coaches. Jweiss11 (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In the past, I was hesitant about creating conference standings templates, similar to what they have on the NBA articles (East, West) and the NHL articles (East, West). My rationale was that it was harder to sort them, and applying the tiebreakers, early in the season when no one really had played any division games yet. But various reliable sources such as [http://espn.go.com/nfl/standings/_/group/2 ESPN] and [http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/standings/Conference Fox Sports] have their own now. Any interest in having these here? Zzyzx11 (talk) 05:20, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

:Another reason to have these conference standings templates is that in every December, various users add these temporary "current playoff picture" lists to the current season's playoff article.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=next&oldid=466692922] So might as well have this same information across all the current season articles, like the NBA and NHL articles do. Therefore, I'll probably be bold, and start these templates soon. Zzyzx11 (talk) 09:18, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

• I have created {{tl|2013 AFC standings}} and {{tl|2013 NFC standings}}. Any feedback or bold edits are welcome. I'll probably hold off on doing similar ones for past seasons until I see how these current ones work out. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:02, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Your expertise would be a big help in trying to reach consensus here. There are a whole series of articles that seem to be in conflict with the Manual of Style David in DC (talk) 04:02, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

I have nominated Template:BearsBox, Template:ColtsBox, and Template:PackersBox for deletion. Please see the discussion here. Thanks, Jweiss11 (talk) 05:26, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

Hey, everyone! The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject NFL for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Hope you have a great day! -buffbills7701 01:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

I saw [http://www.kansascity.com/2013/10/31/4588546/snap-count-observations-five-chiefs.html this article], which made me realize that the NFL keeps track of the number of plays each player plays. Are there PD databases that log these statistics?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:13, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

:[http://www.kansascity.com/2013/11/12/4615725/chiefs-snap-count-observations.html here] is a more recent one.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 08:03, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

I've been having a discussion with another editor about how to deal with the draft year for a player who doesn't play for an NFL team directly out of college. For example, Warren Moon left the University of Washington after the 1977 season and was eligible for the 1978 NFL Draft. However, he wasn't selected by any NFL team nor signed as a free angent. He ended up playing in the CFL for several seasons before joining the Houston Oilers in 1984. I feel that since Moon was eligible for the 1978 draft, he should be considered a member of that draft class and listed among the Notable undrafted players in that draft. However, instead, Moon is listed with the 1984 Draft, which makes no sense to me. However, in the infobox on Moon's article, he's listed (correctly, I feel) as being "Undrafted in 1978". Another example which is treated slightly differently is Kevin Kaesviharn, who left college after the 1997 season but was not selected in the 1998 Draft and didn't play in the NFL until 2001. Similarly to Moon, Kaesviharn is listed with the 2001 Draft (which seems strange to me as noted with Moon). However, differently from Moon, Kaesviharn is listed as "Undrafted in 2001" in the infobox of his article.

My goal here is just to determine which approach is the "convention" for the Project and to make sure that the convention is applied consistently. So which is it? Is a player's "draft class" considered to be the year that he leaves college and/or is otherwise "draft eligible," or is a player's "draft class" considered to be the year when he first plays in the league? — DeeJayK (talk) 04:35, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Hello; I have nominated List of Carolina Panthers head coaches, a mid-importance article in this project, for featured list. All editors of this WikiProject are invited to comment on the nomination page; the list has currently received little input, so I would like to see some more discussion to help weed out problems. Thanks! Toa Nidhiki05 17:34, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

I was recently looking at the NFL color templates (e.g. {{tl|NFLPrimaryStyle}}, {{tl|NFLPrimaryColor}}, {{tl|NFLSecondaryColorRaw}}, {{tl|NFLTertiaryColorRaw}}) and I feel that the way that team color scheme changes are handled by these templates is kludgy at best. In order to specify a color scheme other than the team's current color scheme, an editor needs to look at the code of the template to see what parameter needs to be sent and then supply that parameter in the template — for example, if I wanted to style an element with the color scheme used by the 1985 Patriots, I would have to look at the template code to determine that I need send the key "New England Patriots71thru92" to the template in place of the team name (e.g. {{tlx|NFLPrimaryColor|New England Patriots71thru92}}). This approach is not intuitive.

The change I am proposing is to add a year parameter to these templates, so that an editor merely needs to provide a team name and a year and the template will include logic to provide the correct color scheme in use during that particular season. Using this approach the earlier example becomes {{tlx|NFLPrimaryColor|New England Patriots|year{{=}}1985}} which I feel is much more straightforward and relies on no special knowledge of the "key". I have already implemented this approach in the sandboxes for these templates (see {{tl|NFLPrimaryStyle/sandbox}}, {{tl|NFLPrimaryColor/sandbox}}, {{tl|NFLSecondaryColorRaw/sandbox}}, {{tl|NFLTertiaryColorRaw/sandbox}}). I am currently completing testing of all of these changes using the testcase pages. Details of my approach can be found on the NFLPrimaryColor talk page.

The changes I have made are completely backward-compatible, which means that they will not require touching any of the many, many pages which currently use these templates. The idea is that use of the existing kludge would be replaced by the more straightforward approach going forward.

As long as there is general agreement here that this approach is wise, I would also look to extend this approach to other templates which rely on these color templates such as {{tl|Infobox NFL season}}. The idea being that the simpler implementation will lead to more consistency in the usage of these templates and application of color schemes across the project. What do you think? — DeeJayK (talk) 19:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)

:Update: After extensive testing, I've moved my changes from the sandboxes and released them into the wild. If you notice any problems with color schemes please feel free to let me know. — DeeJayK (talk) 18:58, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

::I've extended this effort to include {{tl|Infobox NFL season}} — I've removed the teamcolor parameter from this template and instead am passing the year along to the color templates to determine the historically accurate color scheme to use. Please let me know if you see any issues caused by this change. I'm not going to attempt to remove the teamcolor template from every instance where this template is being used. If you come across it when editing team season pages, please feel free to remove it for the sake of simplicity. If anyone has a bot that could perhaps perform this cleanup in an automated fashion, please let me know. Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 22:36, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

:::In a further effort to simplify, streamline and clean up these color templates I've just implemented a change whereby the alternate color templates ({{tl|NFLAltPrimaryColor}} and {{tl|NFLAltSecondaryColor}}) will use the values from the corresponding "regular" templates (i.e. {{tl|NFLPrimaryColor}} and {{tl|NFLSecondaryColor}}) as their default. This means that only those teams that actually have alternate color schemes that differ from their "regular" color scheme need to be listed in the alternate templates. This reduces the size of the alternate color templates considerably and lessens duplication. Please let me know if you have any comments/concerns about any of these changes. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:03, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Do any people have interest in seeing New England Patriots a FA again? I would. Does anyone else want to help? Sportsguy17 (talk • contribs • sign) 01:34, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

File:Ambox warning pn.svgTemplate:Lamar Hunt Award has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Yankees10 21:10, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with the new carry-in policy [http://www.packers.com/gameday/gameday-information.html#s9]. There's a good chance that I'll be going to Lambeau Field for the Packers-Steelers game in 2 weeks. I know that what's allowed in has greatly changed recently. Can I bring in my excellent Canon EOS D60, which is capable of doing a video? Or should I come with my Canon Rebel XS which is incapable of creating a video? I have a point and shoot which is better than nothing if that's okay (but it can make videos). With the first two cameras, I would bring a Canon EF 70–300mm lens which is much less than 12" long (even fully extended with either camera. I'll definitely bring in a blanket! Royalbroil 21:14, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

:I called the Packers. They said that the camera has to be incapable of making a video and the lens has to be less than 12". So I'm going with the Canon Rebel XS with my telephoto lens. Royalbroil 03:12, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

:: That's pretty disappointing, considering video is not allowed. Oh well. Too bad you didn't go to the Bears-Packers game back in Week 9; I would've been able to capitalize on some of the players without pics. ZappaOMati 03:35, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

:::What a stupid rule. Pretty much every smartphone these days is capable of recording video, as are a lot of Digital SLRs, so they've ruled those out immediately, and I don't know many people with regular cameras any more. How is anyone supposed to keep a record of their attendance at a game without applying for accreditation as a professional photographer?! – PeeJay 10:52, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

::::I hung the camera around my neck and security didn't ask me if the camera could make videos or not. I saw some smart phones but not many being used (or selfies). The camera worked well but I had to put it under my jacket pretty quickly because snow was melting on the camera. Royalbroil 06:12, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

::::: This is why it's more preferable to attend a fair-weather game if you want to take photos. How long were you able to take photos before putting it away? NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 16:15, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

::::::I'm busy early in the season. Besides, Packers tickets are very hard to get for any game. My only other game was 14 years ago. I kept the camera out for the first half but the snow was getting to heavy in the second half - plus darkness made the photos not as nice. I should have put it away after the first quarter. I still got around 550 photos. I should have most of the starters and special teams players. Royalbroil 12:12, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

I was just wondering if there was a standardization of NFL quarterback stats. I have noticed that some of the stats will list rushing yards/td's and some will have completions and attempts but most just have rating, td-int, passing yards, etc. I have noticed that a user, back in September of 2013, went and started trying to standardize by changing how the stats on articles such as Aaron Rodgers, Tony Romo, Jay Cutler, and some other popular starters, but just stopped. Not sure if he ever tried to get a consensus here before starting this. Would it be better to revert the sections he added to the infoboxes, or what? Also, I am referring to the stats inside the infoboxes not full stats listed elsewhere.MrAdaptive343 (talk) 02:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

:Based on this note on the user's talk page, it appears there was no discussion beforehand. Is there any particular set of stats you'd like to implement? I don't have a strong preference, although my first impression of the stats in Aaron Rodgers' infobox is that they look a bit cluttery (mostly where multiple stats have been combined into a single line).
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 09:46, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

::I have no preference, but I think that the articles the user changed need to have those stats put back to like they normally are, not like jumbled in one stat label like both the completions and the attempts and the percent, instead I think just the percent is sufficient like normal before he changed it. Just to match all the other infoboxes, and not just those five or so articles he changed. I think that it would be best for like a label for TD-INT, pass yards, pass rating, and rush yards/td's if sufficient (like Andrew Luck and Russell Wilson). What say you? MrAdaptive343 (talk) 21:21, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

:::If you want to change stuff back to the way it was before Frobishero's edits you're probably safe to do so, given that (s)he made those edits based on personal preference and hasn't edited since. If you want to start standardizing everything, I would go ahead and start doing that and see if anyone speaks up. I was also thinking we probably don't need career completions and attempts in the infobox: those numbers are hard to make sense of when they start getting into the thousands anyway, whereas the completion percentage is scalable over any sample size.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 19:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

::::My thoughts exactly. Thank you for your input. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 04:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

::::I have returned the edits on those he changed back to their original form. MrAdaptive343 (talk) 15:53, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Just a heads-up: I've started a team draft template for individual season articles at Template:NFL team draft. It's currently implemented at 1950 Cleveland Browns season. I hope people find it useful, and edits or suggestions to improve it would of course be great. --Batard0 (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

:It looks pretty good as a barebones template, but does it allow for notes to be added regarding traded picks? Have you seen the draft table at 2013 Minnesota Vikings season#2013 draft? I don't know if that table perhaps includes too much info, but I think it works pretty well for recent years. – PeeJay 10:26, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

::No notes at this point, but that's a good suggestion, since picks are often traded. I'll add them. --Batard0 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

:Also, wouldn't it be better to make separate templates for the table header, footer and each row? That way you would be able to make indefinitely long lists and wouldn't need all those numbered parameters. – PeeJay 10:28, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

::I considered this, and it could easily be done. Maybe we should. I just sort of like the idea of being able to have it all in one template so as not to complicate things too much for people implementing it. It's an easy copy-paste from the documentation, although it does make it a bit of a pain to modify things. No one team has ever selected more than 36 people in an NFL draft, and that's highly unlikely to ever be eclipsed. The max for one team these days is usually around 12. --Batard0 (talk) 12:21, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

:::That's true. But even having the same parameters for each row repeated just 12 times makes the consolidated template pretty crowded, so imagine what it will be like for people adding 36 rows to an article. Plus this way it's pretty easy to make changes; if the table needs reorganising, you just reorder the individual rows instead of renumbering up to 36 sets of parameters. – PeeJay 12:31, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

::::Yeah, I think I agree this is the way to go. Having just played around trying to add a notes column and screwing everything up, I think it'll be a lot easier for us if we want to make changes. I'll sandbox it to sort out the code and try to get it working, unless you have experience with this and can do it. I guess the organization would be one template called Template:NFL team draft start, another called Template:NFL team draft entry (could just move the current one here) and Template:NFL team draft end. Then you'd just repeat the entry template to add a pick. That make sense? --Batard0 (talk) 13:17, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, that sounds exactly like what I had in mind! – PeeJay 18:23, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::I agree that breaking it into three templates (header, entry, footer) similar to the way the templates used in the NFL Draft articles are structured makes more sense than having a whole bunch of numbered parameters. I also agree that adding a "Notes" column would be good. I do like the look of the Vikings example cited, but I wonder how much value the extra information (height, weight, contract, etc.) really has in the context of a simple table of draft picks. While height and weight are certainly important measurables, one could argue that speed (40 time?), quickness (3-cone drill time?) and intelligence (Wonderlic score?) are equally as or more important for certain positions. To be clear, I'm not advocating adding these things, but merely using them as an example to point out that choosing to list height and weight is a bit arbitrary. As far as listing the contract, under the current CBA the contract is almost completely tied to draft position, so there's not much room for that data to really add value. I guess the contract information would be potentially more illuminating for drafts in the recent past under the previous CBA, but the other issue is that information is going to be difficult to come by, particularly for some of the early drafts. I do like the way traded picks are noted in the Vikings example — it would be very nice if something like that could be implemented in the template. — DeeJayK (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

:::::::Thanks for the input. I'm going to be working on sandboxing and setting up the new structure in the next few days. Personally I agree with you about these measurables, etc. I think contract information might be appropriate and relevant to the drafts, but we should take into account the fact that there won't be a lot of information available for older draft classes. I'll get to work on this; I'm sure once the basic structure is in place and working it will be easy to adjust if people want it to be different. --Batard0 (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

A heads-up: I've now sandboxed and restructured the template as discussed. It's implemented now at 1950 Cleveland Browns season. The relevant templates are Template:NFL team draft start, Template:NFL team draft entry and Template:NFL team draft end. If there's a consensus, we could add other columns (or make optional additional columns), etc. --Batard0 (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

:Looking good, man, but out of interest, why is the font set at 90%? IIRC, WP:ACCESS says we shouldn't reduce the font size unless it's absolutely necessary, even for aesthetic purposes, as it would make the text harder to read for partially sighted people. Finally, as for additional columns, how about adding "Height", "Weight", "Contract" and one for the pick number within each round, as per the table at 2013 Minnesota Vikings season? The former info might not be available for drafts earlier on in the league's history, but let's remember that this table should eventually be rolled out across all season articles for all teams. – PeeJay 20:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

::@PeeJay...did you see my reasoning above re: "Height", "Weight", "Contract"? Feel free to discuss/dispute my opinion. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Sorry mate, I didn't see it until just now. I'm happy for contract to be completely optional, but I think it's useful to know how much each team values the players they draft – contract terms are almost as important as the pick used to select a player. As for height and weight, I think they are far more integral as measurables than any of the other things assessed at the Combine; a player's vertical jump or 40-yard time can be affected by how they feel on the day, but their height and weight (to a certain degree) are pretty much fixed and help give an idea of whether the player fits the prototypical model for players of their position. I would understand if these weren't included, but just from looking at the Vikings page, it doesn't seem to do any harm. – PeeJay 22:24, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

::::These are good points, and I think it's a borderline case. I wouldn't really object either way. If I had to choose, I suppose I'd lean toward not including too much information that readers could get simply by clicking to the player's article. If we do go with height and weight, I'd note they're not going to be available for players who were drafted but didn't make a roster for a couple decades of drafts (I'm guessing, but maybe 1936 through 1960-ish). Not sure if we need to work around this…I guess those could simply be left blank where not available, or we could code in a default "N/A" notation. Contracts make sense to me because they're directly related to the draft, although it'd have to be optional because we don't have this in reliable sources for any selections in a lot of earlier drafts. --Batard0 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::As far as adding measurables to the table, just having that data not do any harm to the presentation seems like a pretty low bar. The goal should be to include information that adds value. I'm not sure that I'm convinced that adding height, weight and contract necessarily does that in this instance, but I don't feel strongly enough about that to argue more fervently that they should never be included. I would argue that if they ARE included in the templates that they be made optional so that those entire columns could be displayed or not based upon the situation. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:46, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::I tend to agree with this approach. If the standard for inclusion were avoidance of harm, we'd have a lot of indiscriminate (but un-harmful) information in the encyclopedia. The standard should be whether it makes the encyclopedia better. I'm not entirely convinced it does, in this case, but I also agree that it's a rather minor issue. --Batard0 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

::Responding to the earlier point about text size, I noticed in other similar templates for schedules and other sports tables that the 95% font size seemed standard, so I copied it out of there. It makes no difference to me personally, and I'm not sure why it seems to be the usual thing across these tables. --Batard0 (talk) 06:39, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Another question: the template currently allows for the addition of whether or not a player is in the Hall of Fame. Should a parameter for if a player makes the Pro Bowl be added? The draft pages currently have both. NFLisAwesome ^{(ZappaOMati's alternate account)} 20:51, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

::One suggestion on the college links in the sample implementation is that I'd love to see the links go to a page that is more relevant to the player's college football career. In cases where the page exists, it would be nice if the link went to the article on the college team's previous season (e.g. 1949 Notre Dame Fighting Irish football team). In cases where the single season page doesn't exist, I'd link to the article on the college team (e.g. Notre Dame Fighting Irish football) or barring that to the article on the school's athletic teams in general (e.g. Notre Dame Fighting Irish). In each case, the link should be "piped" to display only the school name (e.g. Notre Dame). The reason why I think this approach is preferable is that if someone is looking for information on a particular football player and you click that college link, you're much more likely to want to know about how that player performed in college, given that the context of the page has to do with football. Even if one does want more general information on the player's school, a link to the school's main article is generally easily found near the top of the more specific article. The NFL Draft templates contain some logic to generate these more specific links, but whether that is worth the extra complexity for this endeavor may be debatable. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:57, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

:::I was hesitant to put in a "Pro Bowl" notation out of fear people might assume it meant they made the Pro Bowl that year, instead of at some point in their careers. Is that a valid concern? Is there a way around it? And I agree that the schools should be piped to the football programs, generally. I suppose this is up to the implementer to do correctly. The template is pretty simple at the moment, but I don't think we need to avoid complexity – as long as it works! --Batard0 (talk) 06:22, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

:::: I don't think someone could say every player with a Pro Bowl notation would believe all of them made the Pro Bowl that year, especially in a star-studded draft class, though it could happen. Maybe we could add a note like "Future Pro Bowler" or (following the Hall of Famer parameter) add a symbol to recognize the Pro Bowl and have a superscript next to it stating the year? Those are just my suggestions. ZappaOMati 15:11, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::Sounds good. Why don't we put in a superscript that says "Future Pro Bowl selection"? I'll try putting that in there now for a start… --Batard0 (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::This is now added. It's in use in the sample implementation. --Batard0 (talk) 16:20, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::::While I like the idea of denoting Pro Bowlers, this presentation strikes me as too subtle. My preference would be to change the background color of the player's name in addition to the asterisk (as is done in the NFL Draft articles). I would also suggest that the "Notes" column would be a good place to add a list of years in which the Pro Bowl was achieved, since the number of Pro Bowls tells us at least as much about a player's career as whether or not he made at least one. On a bit of a tangent, my preference generally would be that we recognize All-Pros (as determined by the AP) rather than Pro Bowlers. The All-Pro is a more exclusive and (to me, at least) more legitimate award since the Pro Bowl balloting can be a bit of a popularity contest (e.g. Jeff Saturday last year). Also, in recent years many players have chosen to skip the Pro Bowl with "injuries" which dilutes the award further as lesser players are named as replacements (e.g. Matt Cassel & Josh Freeman in 2011, David Garrard in 2010). — DeeJayK (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

::::::::Do you think we should have three colors to denote 1) made the roster, 2) Pro Bowl and 3) HOF? I guess readers would assume that anyone who's a Pro Bowler or HOFer would have made the roster. I can already see an issue with this, however, in that I know of players who were drafted, didn't appear on a roster because of military service, then returned to have Pro Bowl or HOF careers. Any suggestions about how to make this clearer? I think the All-Pro suggestion is a little difficult in one respect: what are the criteria? A lot of news orgs have come up with All-Pro lists over the years. Do all/any of them count? What about first- versus second-team All-Pros? The Pro Bowl designation is flawed in some ways, but at least who qualifies is obvious. --Batard0 (talk) 17:06, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

{{unindent}}I like the way the "made the roster" is denoted by a different color for the entire row (although the color choice might be a bit too subtle according to my admittedly color-blind eyes). For Pro Bowl and HOF I would suggest a unique background color on the name cell only accompanied by a symbol (asterisk or dagger or whatever). I think we can pretty well assume that if someone makes the HOV they also made the Pro Bowl at least once, so I don't see any harm in those designations overlapping — the HOF background color should take precedence and you'll still have the symbol to denote Pro Bowl. I don't really want to take this discussion too far off-topic with my All-Pro v. Pro Bowler mini-rant and the issues you bring up are valid (though I think the AP All-Pro team is probably the gold standard). At this point I'm resigned to the widespread bias toward using Pro Bowls to measure players and I'm not really sure why I can't just let that go. :) — DeeJayK (talk) 17:32, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

:That sounds like a good solution. Any suggestion on what colors should denote Pro Bowl or HOF? I think if we go with colors, the symbols become a little redundant, no? Perhaps I'll try something out and then everyone can decide whether it works or if the colors should be different, etc. I took the green color from other similar boxes...it seems to be somewhat standard, at least from what I looked at. --Batard0 (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

::I don't mind the redundancy of colors and symbols for two reasons: 1) in the case where a player is a HOFer, it makes it clear he is also a Pro Bowler, and 2) I think it's a good idea in the interest of accessibility for those who are blind (since screen readers don't interpret bg colors) or colorblind. As far as which colors to choose, I'm probably not the best resource due to my own limitations with color. If the green is a WP standard, then I'd go with that. I'd definitely defer to colors that are in widespread use elsewhere. Maybe the ones in use in this example? — DeeJayK (talk) 18:24, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

In an effort to simplify this template and with an eye toward standardization across the project, I've implemented the use the the {{tl|NFLPrimaryStyle}} template to define the table header colors. I also implemented the suggestions I made above around color-coding of Pro Bowl and HOF players. Please take a look and feel free to let me know what you think about this change. — DeeJayK (talk) 23:24, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

:I've also made some changes in the {{tl|NFL team draft end}} template so that one can suppress the display of those elements of the table's key that are not applicable for that particular page. For example, if a draft has not (yet) produced any Pro Bowl players or Hall of Famers, these optional parameters allow you to suppress those values in the key. The default behavior remains the same (i.e. the entire key is displayed). For an example where this suppression is implemented, see 2008 Pittsburgh Steelers season#Draft. As always, please let me know what you think. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

::Thanks for implementing these changes. Looking excellent. --Batard0 (talk) 19:18, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks for taking a look. I'd welcome any input, particularly regarding the color choices (which I admit were basically random). — DeeJayK (talk) 19:49, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

::::The color choices seem fine to me – if anything, I think we should try to align the colors with other standard colors in the encyclopedia. But it's hard to do make it the same as, for example, the main annual draft articles, because the variables are slightly different. I suppose we could have the same colors for Pro Bowl and HOF, but I don't think it's really a big deal. --Batard0 (talk) 05:28, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::I did try to use similar colors to the NFL Draft articles/templates. I've also further simplified the header of the template by removing the "teamcolor" parameter — the year provided is now used to select the period-appropriate color scheme. If no year is provided the colors will default to the team's current scheme. Thanks. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:11, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

{{od}}

Hey, I just noticed: some of the newer pages for the 2014 season's draft tables (before the usage of this template) usually linked to the teams' first-round draft pick list. Is there a way for us to add that to this template? ZappaOMati 03:57, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

What if, this year, we had articles entitled List of NFL Draft prospects at quarterback (and the other positions), where information on the top prospects' draft possibilities and analysis could go, and then after the draft, there could be 2014 NFL Draft Class at quarterback, with information on what actually happened. My concerns are WP:NOT as well as where we draw the line at "draft prospect". Do you think it'd be worth the effort/survive an inevitable AFD? Go Phightins! 20:07, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

: As I stated on your talk page, "draft prospect" could be players that have declared for the draft beforehand, and eventually, all players that were at the Combine would also become prospects. Not sure about whether or not it'd be trivial or what-not. ZappaOMati 21:27, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

::I'm not a fan of that idea. As you point out, Go Phightins, WP:NOT comes into play very much with articles like that; Wikipedia is not a stats almanac, it's not up to us to record the draft prospects each year and how they perform once drafted. Leave that to sites like Pro Football Reference so that we can use their info to cite proper prose in biography articles. – PeeJay 21:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

It's that time of year again, where coaches come and go. Currently, as of 02:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC), the Texans and Bucs have agreed to terms with Bill O'Brien and Lovie Smith, respectively. However, they have NOT yet been officially announced as the head coaches yet by the teams. It would be appreciated for people to help monitor the coaches', teams' and 2014 NFL season pages until they're officially introduced as HCs. ZappaOMati 02:58, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

: OK, looks like O'Brien will be officially introduced tomorrow. [http://nfl.si.com/2013/12/31/bill-obrien-to-be-named-texans-new-head-coach/] Until then, do NOT add him as the HC. ZappaOMati 03:04, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

{{resolved}}

As of December 28, 1995, Randall Cunningham and his wife were due to have their first child on December 31 in Las Vegas, according to [http://articles.philly.com/1995-12-28/sports/25670914_1_randall-cunningham-eagles-playoff this source]. Does anyone have access to either Philadelphia or Las Vegas newspapers going back to 1995 to figure out Randall Cunningham II's birth date and birth place? If you can find a WP:RS please drop a note at Talk:Randall Cunningham II/GA1.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:23, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:Thanks to {{u|GrapedApe}} and {{u|Go Phightins!}}-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

There has been a pending merger on Template:Infobox NFL coach for the best part of a year because User:Dirtlawyer1 requested that it be held over until a discussion regarding the future of the NFL biography infoboxes had occurred here. I'm not aware of any discussion having happened, so it occurs to me that we should either have that discussion now or press on with the merger. American football is one of few sports yet to merge its biography infoboxes, and I see no reason why that should be the case. Surely it can't be that much of an issue? – PeeJay 23:50, 25 August 2013 (UTC)

:Why don't we have a discussion of it now, then? What needs to be resolved? It seems fairly clear to me that the infoboxes should be rolled into one. This should include Template:Infobox gridiron football person too, no? How are Canadian football bio infoboxes generally treated? They should quite likely be included in the overarching football infobox, because they're similar enough. I've also noticed that the gridiron football person template includes military service details, while the main NFL player one appears not to (at least I think this is the case; please correct if wrong). --Batard0 (talk) 14:16, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

::I'm hoping that User:Dirtlawyer1 will be able to answer the question of what needs resolving, since he raised the initial objection. As for your suggestions, I really don't think that military service info should be included in a sports infobox; a person's military service is not relevant to their sporting career and should be included separately. I do agree, however, that all gridiron football biography infoboxes should be merged. There are quite a lot of people who have switched codes from Canadian football to American football and vice versa, so that makes a lot of sense. If only it were possible to merge those infoboxes with those of other codes for people who have played rugby union or Australian rules football! – PeeJay 14:31, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

:::I agree about the military thing in that it's clearly not relevant to a person's sporting career; I simply noticed that military info was added to a couple articles I've edited and helped promote to GA (e.g. Dante Lavelli). At the same time, I can't see any real problem with it. In fact, having a separate box for military service arguably creates unneeded clutter. I'm agnostic but thought I'd bring it up, as it seems like the kind of thing that ought to be resolved before a wholesale merger takes place. I also concur on having a unified infobox for Canadian and American football given the large number of players who have played both, Warren Moon being perhaps the most prominent example. I've never seen a player who played pro rugby or Aussie rules and American/Canadian, but I suppose there have to be at least a handful. --Batard0 (talk) 16:39, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

::::You're right, it does make the article look more professional to merge the military service infobox with the sporting one, but I'm not sure it's even needed as part of the infobox. And don't worry about the rugby/Aussie rules merger, I was just being facetious. – PeeJay 21:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

:::::Hey, guys. I just saw this discussion (and that my name had been invoked). Give me a couple of days, and I will respond at length over the holiday weekend. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 13:00, 29 August 2013 (UTC)

::::::User:Dirtlawyer1, sorry to rush you(!) but it's been more than a couple of days... – PeeJay 11:04, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

:::::::User:Dirtlawyer1, why do I get the feeling you're avoiding this on purpose now? – PeeJay 10:55, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

::::::::User:Dirtlawyer1, two months? Srsly? – PeeJay 22:28, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

:::::::::I think he's on a bit of a hiatus. Jweiss11 (talk) 01:57, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

Just as a point of information, the relevant templates under discussion are as follows (please add others if any are missing):

• Template:Infobox NFL player
• Template:Infobox NFL coach
• Template:Infobox pro football player
• Template:Infobox gridiron football person

We would probably need to come up with a generic template name into which to merge these, if that's the ultimate consensus. I'm not sure what that would be. --Batard0 (talk) 08:17, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

:This was already decided at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_30#Template:Infobox_NFL_coach. The result was {{template|Infobox NFL biography}}. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

::Yes, but that template is still located at Template:Infobox NFL player and does not currently support all the functionality of the other templates. User:Dirtlawyer1 asked for some time to discuss the merger of the other infoboxes, and I attempted to give him that opportunity with this thread. I think the time has come to say "To hell with him" and just do the merger regardless. – PeeJay 14:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

:::I agree with moving on from this merger, especially with the issues it gave me last night trying to create an AfC. As for the name, {{template|Infobox NFL coach}} and {{template|Infobox NFL player}} were going to be folded together into a new template called {{template|Infobox NFL biography}} according to the TfD, specifically merging coach with player and the moving to biography. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

how come NFL players have things like franchise record in a game and NFL top 100 players and rookie of the month in their accomplishments? NBA does not have those things they only have the actual rewards they have like mvp and roy which is the way it should be. i think it's very sloppy and should be removed from nfl players accomplishments category — Preceding unsigned comment added by T23tran (talk • contribs) 22:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

:Are we talking about the infobox?.--Yankees10 22:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

yes in the infobox. i feel like people are trying to add ever little thing to it and i think its unneccessary — Preceding unsigned comment added by T23tran (talk • contribs) 00:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

:I agree. The infoboxes really are a mess compared to the MLB and NBA ones.--Yankees10 00:35, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

thank you. so do you know how to bring this to the attention of the editor of these things or will he see this thread on his own — Preceding unsigned comment added by T23tran (talk • contribs) 00:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

:Are you referring to a certain user? Otherwise anybody that edits Wikipedia can make these changes. There isn't just one person.--Yankees10 01:06, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

yes but isnt there someone who "oversees" things. when i tried to make a change to an nba players infobox someone told me that people deemed it not worthy enough to put in and took it out — Preceding unsigned comment added by T23tran (talk • contribs) 01:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

:No, theres not just one person. There is many people. The people that "oversee" are the ones that have the articles on their watchlists.--Yankees10 01:33, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

i see, thanks. so is there something i can do to recommend to them to change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by T23tran (talk • contribs) 03:14, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

:You can bring it to WP:Basketball.--Yankees10 03:37, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

::I assume T23tran is referring to the NFL infobox issue with his latest comment — this seems like the correct forum for that discussion. I'm not sure I agree there's a problem with the current state of the NFL player infoboxes, but then I'll admit that I very rarely look at any MLB or NBA player articles for comparison. Perhaps someone can share an example of an article with an infobox which seems particularly bloated? — DeeJayK (talk) 21:24, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

I support the removal of those Top 100 lists put together by NFL Network from any infobox that lists them as an accomplishment. Those lists aren't even supposed to be awards; they're supposed to be projections for the upcoming season.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 05:00, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

: I would support that — I don't recall seeing an article that lists those, but I definitely wouldn't consider them "accomplishments". Again, an example or two would go a long way to furthering this discussion. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:57, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

::I think the top 100 lists should not be included in any infobox; it's trivia, at best. In general, I agree that anything that isn't a significant accomplishment shouldn't be in the infobox. But I think it would be wrong for us to make a blanket statement about what shouldn't be in infoboxes, since that has to be considered in the context of a given player's career. For a first-year player, a player-of-the-week award might be a significant accomplishment. For a Hall of Fame member, it's surely not. --Batard0 (talk) 05:31, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

:: Actually, DeeJayK, there are pages that list the Top 100 (2011, 2012, 2013). ZappaOMati 16:28, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I wasn't very clear, but I was referring to player articles that list those achievements. I was looking for examples. I'm not surprised that there are some, but was just noting that I hadn't come across it or noticed it. It seems okay to me for those "Top 100" lists to have their own articles. — DeeJayK (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

::Andrew Luck, Colin Kaepernick, Robert Griffin III, Marshawn Lynch, Vincent Jackson, Jacoby Jones...there's quite a few. →Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 10:20, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

:::Thanks for the examples. This gives us somewhere to start the discussion. In glancing at these, I wholeheartedly agree that the "Top 100" lists shouldn't be included in infoboxes. Is there any other category of "accomplishment" that should be up for discussion? — DeeJayK (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

: Yes, let's compare NFL's Robert Griffin III to NBA's LeBron James. LeBron is the most decorated basketball player of this generation and his infobox is just as long as RG3's. (T23tran (talk) 03:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC))

::That seems like a very helpful comparison. Looking at that, which of Griffin's accomplishments and highlights would you want to remove? Listing three "Rookie of the Year" awards seems over-the-top, but how do we legislate that? Maybe we decide that only the "official" AP award is the only one that should be infobox-worthy? I personally don't mind the NFL player of the week awards, as long as they're not listed individually (the way they're listed for RG3 seems okay). I would definitely recommend skipping the "Pepsi NFL rookie of the week" since that's determined by fan balloting and can be a bit of a popularity contest. The NFL Rookie of the Month is right on the border in terms of inclusion in the infobox for me — I could go either way with that. Obviously the Pro Bowl seems like it is worthy of being included in the infobox. Same with the Heisman. The All-America and all-conference awards are again on the border for me. The Davey O'Brien and Manning awards seem a bit like gilding the lily after the Heisman. Perhaps we impose a sort of hierarchy of college football awards where only the highest distinction earned is listed (e.g. if you win the Heisman, then you wouldn't list the O'Brien or Manning)? What sort of "rules" do we want to try to put in place? — DeeJayK (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

:::I don't know about a blanket policy against non-AP awards. The similar awards given out by other organizations could be considered highlights in some players' careers. I do agree that there's no sense listing the same award three times when a player receives the same award from three different groups, but that doesn't have to mean the award should be left off entirely if they only win it from the Sporting News or whoever.
I'm thinking we should expand that hierarchy idea to include a player's entire career, not just college, so the focus is on choosing the most notable things each individual player has accomplished rather than drawing a line in the sand where awards stop being infobox-worthy for everybody. The big question is, how long do we want to let the career highlights list get before we start trimming the fat?
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 04:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

: I support only having the official AP Rookie of the Year as the only one and I actually don't mind keeping the O'Brien or Manning award. I propose we only keep the yearly accolades from college and the NFL (Heisman, Big 12 First Team, AP Rookie of the Year, Pro Bowl, etc) and remove weekly and monthly honors (Pepsi rookie of the week, NFC rookie of the month, etc) and especially the NFL top 100 listing. The annual awards are a lot more prestigious and that is the way the NBA and the MLB does their profiles. Plus, it will make maintaining players profiles a lot easier. (T23tran (talk) 02:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC))

::To me, it really comes down to volume. If a player has a short career and never makes a Pro Bowl or wins any significant annual award (e.g. MVP, Defensive Player of the Year, etc.), but he was named Player of the Week once, then that would seem like it would make sense to include that accolade in the infobox. For players with more significant achievements I would support the idea of skipping the Player of the Week/Month awards in the infobox as long as any accolades that are removed from the infobox are covered in the article elsewhere. Maybe instead of trying to determine which accolades are "infobox-worthy" instead we just set a maximum number of accomplishments to include. Maybe we say that the infobox should include no more than the 10-15 most significant accomplishments? — DeeJayK (talk) 21:26, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

: Ultimately it is not up to me so I'll settle for the best thing we can get. We agree about only having rhe offical AP awards tho correct? and also removin the nfl top 100 ranking completely? (T23tran (talk) 04:29, 19 December 2013 (UTC))

::Your input is as valuable as any other editor's, so please advocate for your best-case scenario. As far as limiting the inclusion of only AP awards, I'm not sure we've reached any consensus on that. Personally I would lean toward Thatotherperson's suggestion that perhaps we establish a sort of hierarchy of awards where only one award of each type (e.g. Rookie of the Year, All-Pro, etc.) is listed for any given year. So that if a player wins the AP, PFWA and Sporting News Rookie award (as is the case in the RG3 example), only the quasi-"official" AP award would be included in the infobox. However, if a player were to be named the top Rookie by the PFWA, but not the AP, then listing the PFWA honor would be appropriate. It seems that there is general agreement among those who have weighed in here that the NFL Network "Top 100" rankings should be avoided. Perhaps the best course of action on that front would be to take a proactive approach by removing those accolades from a number of articles, while linking this discussion in the edit summary. That way if anyone is offended by the removal they can come here and state their case as to why those rankings deserve inclusion in the infobox. — DeeJayK (talk) 14:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

:: Okay, that sounds good to me. I'm in support of all of that. Thank you. (T23tran (talk) 15:15, 19 December 2013 (UTC))

:::I've removed the Top 100 from the six player articles linked above and a few others, with links to this discussion. We'll see if anybody new chimes in. As for the hierarchy, I think we can all probably agree that a select few awards should be included no matter what. I would include Heisman, Pro Bowls, and any of the following AP awards: League MVP, Super Bowl MVP, first-team All-pro, Rookie of the Year, and Defensive Player of the Year. (I'd include Offensive Player of the Year, but it feels like a consolation prize after MVP.) Anyone disagree with automatic inclusion status for those seven awards? Anyone want to expand the list? I would be open to automatic inclusion for being named first-team All-American in college, and maybe for being on a Super Bowl winning team.
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 08:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

:::: Awesome work, I would agree to putting all the awards you mentioned including offensive player of the year and also feel like Comeback Player of the Year should be included as well. (T23tran (talk) 23:06, 20 December 2013 (UTC))

:::::I'm not sure Comeback Player of the Year is guaranteed to be a career highlight for anyone who wins it. There's going to be a few players here and there that win so many awards, those kinds of things could become a little less significant. It will probably qualify in most cases though, so it's probably not an issue that will come up much. Anyway, the more I look around, the more I'm realizing there's too many different awards on these lists to include them all in any sort of official hierarchy. We might need to have a more general discussion about the value of awards vs. records and which types of each belong in what order. For example, which is more impressive: a year-end team award or a league-wide monthly award? A career franchise record or a single-game league record? Should we try to split the infobox 50/50 between awards and record for players who have plenty of each to choose from?
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 10:15, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

:::::: I think it is a career highlight for anyone because CPOTY is apart of the official AP awards given out. And also, in my opinion, I feel like the infobox should be yearly awards only given how that is how the NBA and MLB players infoboxes are. (T23tran (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2013 (UTC))

::::::: Okay, but what makes that the right way to do it? The fact that other sports are doing it that way isn't a reason by itself. The list is called "Career highlights and awards", not "Yearly AP awards".
Thatotherperson^talkcontribs 19:45, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

{{unindent}}I concur that the way that other projects treat accomplishments should have very little bearing on the way they are handled here. It doesn't appear that we are going to reach consensus here on the inclusion of weekly/monthly awards or limiting certain awards (e.g. the non-AP yearly honors). In the interest of wrapping up this discussion and reaching some conclusion, I would make two suggestions:

1. NFL Network "Top 100" mentions should NOT be included as achievements, and
2. Perhaps some numeric cap (10?, 12?) on the number of achievements listed in the infobox is in order

I would suggest that if there is general agreement on these two points we update the Infobox documentation to codify these stipulations. What do you think? If we implement a numeric cap on the achievement list, what is the correct number? — DeeJayK (talk) 18:42, 27 December 2013 (UTC)