Misplaced Pages

Latest revision as of 02:34, 17 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject National Football League and anything related to its purposes and tasks.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Shortcuts WP:NFLD WT:NFL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 21 days

This project page does not require a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League This page is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League

WikiProject National Football League was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 November 2013.

The Tip (American football)

I would like some opinions on this article. Right now, it is very much written as an article on the play itself, Sherman's tip in the end zone that was then intercepted. However, in the realm of notable plays, this doesn't seem to hold muster. Deflections that end in an interception happen often. And interceptions to end games, even playoff games, happen often. I am not seeing anything that truly makes this notable as just the play. That said, there are some confusing aspects that may come into play: the article uses {{Infobox NFL game}}, it is categorized in Category:NFC Championship Games and Category:National Football League playoff games, and it includes info commonly found for game summaries (starting lineup and officials). I am contemplating AFDing this, but if the article were rewritten to be about the entire NFC Championship Game itself, I think it easily holds muster. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:56, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

@Gonzo fan2007: Agree with all of your points 100 percent. I would support this article being renamed, retitled and moved to 2013 NFC Championship Game. Admittedly, the only notable part about the game, IMO, was Richard Sherman's post-game interview with Erin Andrews. Sherman's interception and subsequent post-game interview are only notable because they were the culmination of a closely contested conference championship game. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 01:48, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

It's been a few days, and no other editor has commented on this topic, despite the fact that it's been on this talk page for several days. Would anyone object if the article title was to be moved to 2013 NFC Championship Game? It seems like Gonzo fan2007 and I are the only two editors who have taken the time to comment on this article. That being said, I fully support moving this article title to 2013 NFC Championship Game, because IIRC, that game was more than just the ending. The ending was memorable, sure, but that specific conference championship game was closely contested throughout. CharlesEditor23 (talk) 03:49, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Being that this is not the championship (i.e. Super Bowl), can this just be handled at 2013–14 NFL playoffs, 2013 San Francisco 49ers season, and 2013 Seattle Seahawks season? Per the WP:PAGEDECIDE guideline (emphasis added):

Often, understanding is best achieved by presenting the topic on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so; at times it is better to cover a notable topic as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context (and doing so in no way disparages the importance of the topic).

—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Best 2nd place team?

I feel sure that the 1999 Tennessee Titans (13–3) have the best record of a team that failed to win its division, at least in the 16-game era, but I don't see this mentioned in the article and I can't find a reference for it. Where might I find a source for this? It feels especially relevant as Detroit and Minnesota both have 13 wins already in 2024, albeit we are now in the 17-game era. --Jameboy (talk) 14:23, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

The 1967 Baltimore Colts would probably be the overall best, but I don't know where you'd get a source. If the Lions and Vikings both reach 14–2 there may be some talk in game previews about the record being set by the week 18 loser, so you could probably pick up something reliable then. Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

@Jameboy: Would this work? It was published 2 days ago. Left guide (talk) 04:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It looks like it is behind a paywall as I can't read the article, but based on the headline, that seems to do the job, yes. --Jameboy (talk) 10:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't appear to be behind a paywall for me, so I'm not sure why you're seeing that. Here's the direct link in case it helps: https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/6016617/2025/01/04/wild-card-wins-nfl-history-vikings-lions-1999-titans/ Assadzadeh (talk) 11:23, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Some sites allow a few free views before requiring login. —Bagumba (talk) 13:59, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Dispute regarding images on T. J. Watt

Looking for a third opinion on whether there's too many images / use of specific images is appropriate on the T. J. Watt article. Reading the article, in its current state, causes 4 different section headers to be indented due to images spilling over on the left side between sections. There was an overzealous use of external links before, which I've removed quite a few of, but several images, specifically File:Watt 2018.jpg, File:TJWATT90.jpg, and File:Campbell Casey and Watt.png are blurry and don't improve the article from my perspective. We have enough high quality photos that we shouldn't be using blurry ones that aren't adding anything of value except to add images. There was also the recent addition of File:SOF honored at Pittsburgh Steelers Salute to Service game (241117-F-SI788-1942).jpg, which now sandwiches the text at the 2024 section between external media and an image, while also indenting the below section header for me.

The other editor claims the addition of these images makes the page more engaging, but I do not agree. Looking for an outside perspective from those who interested in the subject matter but not involved in the dispute. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:47, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

I also have similar concerns regarding blurry image usage and MOS:SANDWICH concerns with Mike Tomlin and other Steelers related articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:55, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

@Hey man im josh Blurry images should never be added. In this wide, wide world, there has to be something better to use. Saw it on the George Pickens page yesterday. I'm not familiar with WP's formal rules on adding or deleting an image, so I don't touch. But I will delete a blurry image in the body of an article. I agree with Josh, it doesn't improve an article at all. Nor do those super-skinny images, just saying. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:00, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed with blurry images should not be added, and there's usually an excessive amount of them on current/former Steelers' player pages, usually from the author trying to show off their grainy photos. Does not improve the article either. HappyBoi3892 (talk) 04:57, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Low resolution images with incomplete metadata claimed as "Own work" can be questionable. See Commons:But it's my own work!. If I'm in doubt, I usually click "No permission" (available on QuickDelete gadget on Commons), and the uploader can then verify the licensing by submitting written permission to VRT, any perhaps other proof like personal ID or the original image. I tagged File:TJ Watt 290.jpg.—Bagumba (talk) 09:14, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely not. That is my own work. Anything posted taken by others on my commons page is credited appropriately. Some images come from private Facebook albums I have posted through the years that I transfer to Misplaced Pages. Cramerwiki (talk) 16:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

VRT can help you sort it out. Unfortunately, others who have uploaded low-res images w/ minimal metadata can make life more difficult for honest contributors. —Bagumba (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Another relevant guideline is MOS:IMAGEQUALITY re: blurry images. Tall, skinny images can sometimes be managed by using MOS:UPRIGHT.—Bagumba (talk) 09:02, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Should have pinged @Cramerwiki to allow them to chime in, but I did leave a notice regarding this discussion at Talk:T. J. Watt. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

None of these images are blurry nor excessive. They are no different than what is found on multiple other athlete’s pages. I don’t know how you see these images and say they’re “blurry” when you can see exactly what the image is being taken of with visible details. I’ve been thanked by multiple users for additions of images and now suddenly it’s a problem? Cramerwiki (talk) 16:06, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Don't take it personal, others' intent is only to improve the article. I personally don't understand why photos were added that aren't a closeup and/or show his face. I would suggest keeping the best three and removing the rest. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:17, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Okay here's my question; I am following the standard set by other pages. Why is this suddenly a problem after a decade of having pages like Ben Roethlisberger's and Hines Ward's (for example) where there are multiple images usually equating to one per season and not being any different in quality from images I have supplied? Cramerwiki (talk) 16:20, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There is no standard as to the number of images that should be on a page. As examples, his brother J. J. Watt has seven images on his page, whereas his other brother Derek Watt only has a single blurry image. The purpose of a photo is mainly to show what the person looks like and at some point they become too much. If the other pages that you mention have multiple images too, then perhaps they need to be deleted as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:36, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

There are nine images on T.J. Watt's page. I strongly, strongly disagree that is excessive. Also none of them fall under the category of "Poor-quality images—dark or blurry" as per the guideline of "showing the subject too small, hidden in clutter, or ambiguous". Cramerwiki (talk) 16:41, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

The scale of Misplaced Pages is such that it's always a work in progress, and bad examples do exist. The established community guidelines are at MOS:IMAGES. A good standard might be to look at featured articles. However, be aware of Misplaced Pages:When to use or avoid "other stuff exists" arguments. —Bagumba (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

As stated at MOS:IMAGES "If an article on a military officer already shows its subject in uniform, then two more formal in-uniform portraits would add little interest or information..." So, how many images of T.J. Watt in a football uniform do we need? Assadzadeh (talk) 17:07, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Completely agree. Too many images as is and the blurry ones can go. Jauerback/_dude. 13:58, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

• Comment I have removed all the {{external media}} templates. These aren't meant to link to "fun" videos that show something happening. Rather they aren't meant to convey information that readers would expect in an encyclopedic entry about the topic but that we are unable to provide because the video is copyrighted or unable to be included for another reason. There is no way I would expect to find a video 0f his 100th sack, for example, in his encyclopedia entry.

Regarding images, File:TJ Watt.jpg is the least encyclopedic imho, and it should be removed. This would provide space for File:Watt 2018.jpg to be right justified. I would also recommend File:T.J. Watt (51653079007).jpg be cropped to his waist up, which will help with the length of the infbox and some downstream layout. Writing a longer, more complete lead would also help with some of the layout in the first few sections. I also question whether "1 touchdown" in his infobox is relevant, and why "(tied with Mark Gastineau and Reggie White)" needs to be included in his infobox. I think his college photo is relavent and we should try to work around it to find better formatting, instead of removing it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:17, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

I also agree with the 1 touchdown and 'tied with' being removed. But just before I removed them months ago .. I realized several other players have the same thing on their pages. If I did it for Watt, I would do it across the board, which could ruffle feathers. So I stopped. I'm a big fan of his and would do it for everyone else if there's consensus. Also, is it one touchdown only and tied with more than one player? Bringingthewood (talk) 22:54, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Just checked the other two players. Mark Gastineau has 2 touchdowns and just the word 'tied'. Reggie White has the same as Gastineau. I think that's why I stopped earlier before deleting everything. I have seen editors deleting defensive touchdowns, even as many as three or more TD's. If there isn't a problem, I would delete the names of the players 'tied'. That would make a mess if more were added down the road anyway. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:03, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

I made some changes to the article. I won't go back and forth on any of them, so feel free to revert if you aren't in love with any of the changes. When I have a few minutes, I will try to expand the lead. Overall, I think this probably is a good compromise with the images. The alternating left/right photos looks good in many articles, but those articles typically have more text and less portrait images, which help not to break the section headers. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:02, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Everything looks good to me, I won't be the one to change it. Just now I amended the White, Gastineau, and Strahan pages to look like Watt's consecutive/sack record lines in the infobox. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

I saw Watt's one touchdown removed, so I deleted the same from Seau and Garrett. Honestly, I'm going to stop now being that I tend to run with things. Someone will probably get pissed off in the future. Two touchdowns yes ... one no, still wondering about consensus with that. P.S. I think I handled it well .. Watt being the guinea pig. ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 03:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

If anyone wants to chime in on if we should continue to remove defensive touchdowns, if only 'one', please leave a comment. I'm seeing more and more players with that in their infobox. So far, T. J. Watt, J. Randle, M. Garrett, and J. Seau have been removed. I can remove the 'one' only from players if there's some sort of agreement here. Another question, if Garrett or Watt get to 'two' in their career, do we then add that line back? Bringingthewood (talk) 22:47, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be good to standardize on which stats are displayed in the infobox, like WP:BASEBALLSA/PL does. Using Rod Woodson, Speedy Duncan and Darrien Gordon as examples, there's no consistency on how return TDs (punt, kickoff, int, fumble) and return yards (punt, kickoff, int) are displayed, and whether they are itemized or combined. —Bagumba (talk) 01:39, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Consistency, that's the operative word. Special team stats may be tough, the conversation above sounds like a defensive player would have to have two or more touchdowns to be infobox worthy. Fine with me. But we can't have 100 players and 50 have one touchdown, the others removed because a few of us don't like it. I would either add the stats back to the four mentioned above ... or everyone should lose it. Being honest here, if T. J. Watt doesn't have it listed, Myles Garrett never will. I would just like to have that good old leg to stand on when I remove something. Too bad we can't just add certain things to the WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT. Example: No 'BOLD TYPE' for games played and started. Yes, it would take time and effort to remove all that, but we then can revert an editor and tell them to read WP. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Is this a defensive player thing to only display 2+ touchdowns? Does it apply to offensive and return specialist TDs? Why? —Bagumba (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Not sure, I asked that same question above. I understand what was said -not relevant -- not a skill player. But I also wondered if it applied to 2+ also. Personally, I wouldn't apply it to offense or return specialists, that really is their goal. Maybe the '1' upsets people because it elongates the infobox. I knew an editor that removed 3 and 4 touchdowns for a defensive player, it upset him. I just reverted what I did with Seau and Randle. I can't force others to like what I do .. because it's an opinion not a consensus. Watt and Garrett can stay with their stats removed. When an editor comes by and adds it back .. it'll then give me something to do. Bold for GP and GS should have a vote. Several editors go with not adding it. Again, now we argue with IP's due to our opinion. See the history on Myles Garrett. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:40, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't have a preference yet. I just wanted to know the rationale to help reach a decision. —Bagumba (talk) 02:51, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

For me, infobox stats are about relevance. For a defensive end/edge, touchdowns usually aren't that relevant or notable because they don't score many over there career. Reggie White didn't score 1 TD in his career. It's like listing touchdowns for a place kicker. I mean, cool, but not really relevant. I support removing all defensive touchdowns for these type of players. That said, if some guy played 2 seasons and happened to score a touchdown, then have at it. But for the very accomplished players who have plenty of other good counting stats to have in the infobox, having touchdowns is just not helpful. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 02:52, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

So I only follow the NFL casually these days. For Watt, how would I decide if TD belongs? His ibx shows him as a LB and not "edge". —Bagumba (talk) 02:56, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I think someone should fix Reggie White's page, he's listed as having two defensive touchdowns. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:00, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

We would definitely need consensus and something in writing if all defensive end/edge touchdowns will be removed. An outsider won't get that -- it's splitting hairs. Pfr might have a player listed as a DE, but he's really playing outside linebacker. A whole can of worms opened here. Nick Bosa is DE .. Pfr has him as EDGE. Watt is an outside linebacker .. but called an edge rusher also. See what I mean? Should be all or nothing. The less we make people think about something, the better we are.Bringingthewood (talk) 03:05, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm left scratching my head as to why touchdowns aren't a "relevant" stat for defensive players. I personally would err more in the direction of considering touchdowns the most relevant stat, regardless of position. But any step toward standardization would be good, in my opinion. OceanGunfish (talk) 07:46, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

I never said that touchdowns arent relevant, just that for some players they arent relevant for the infobox. The infobox is supposed to show the most pertinent info, not everything. Keenan Allen has an interception in his career, should that be added to his infobox? Obviously no, because in todays NFL interceptions by wide receivers arent common and arent the key information people are looking for when seeing Keenan Allens wikipedia page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:11, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

If it was just you and me, I could agree re: Watt's TDs. But for a crowd-sourced environment, what are the objective criteria for listing TDs or not for defensive players' infoboxes? —Bagumba (talk) 01:26, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I love all you guys, but I have to keep Watt and Garrett the way it was. We don't even have common ground over here. Positions, established players or not etc. .. I'm getting a headache. It's not fair to anyone having half-ass pages. Maybe we can start a vote and I give you my word that I will not buck the majority. But for now, it's not right. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:49, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'd recommend hashing out the various rationales before voting. —Bagumba (talk) 01:55, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave that for the smart people. I have no say if players A, B and D are eligible to have it ... but maybe player C on every other Thursday. Not touching this one. I'm just leaving the pages consistent for now. Just remember, as an IP user in 2022, I added bold to games played/started and I removed U.S. from the infobox. People can change. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough, though there is discussion in this thread about including defensive touchdowns if the player has scored more than one. I certainly am unclear about where the bar should be for infobox inclusion - if Travis Hunter ends up listed as and playing primarily as a CB, is there a percentage of offensive play participation that makes his WR stats infobox-worthy? It would be really helpful, at least to me, to have a standard to follow. OceanGunfish (talk) 03:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

As a reference point, this was Deion Sanders' infobox before stats were removed because of the silly switch to {{Infobox college coach}} from {{Infobox NFL biography}}. No receiving stats shown—he had 60 career receptions. —Bagumba (talk) 07:57, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I just changed it back. There was only a banner for the College HOF but not Pro... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 13:27, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

We need a consensus party in 2025. 1) Defensive touchdowns 2) Bold type for games played and started 3) Official or unofficial sacks in the infobox. My New Year's resolution ... keep all the NFL pages as inconsistent as possible? :0 Bringingthewood (talk) 21:13, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Even if we do get consensus, there aren't really enough editors watching these articles to "enforce" the consensus anyway. My watchlist is too big already. I've had to start removing stuff from it lately. If I used to go a day without editing, my watchlist would be all the way to the bottom... ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 21:26, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I hear you, WO-9. I just meant that when the scholars drop by and constantly change things and it looks like it was my opinion why I reverted what they did, which it was, I can at least say 'click on this and read it'. Like the removing of free agent .. that's very nice. Believe me, I know things will never be the same across the board in my lifetime, but there is an editor that changed dozens of players to unofficial sacks .. due to pfr. I can't say s*** to him, it's just my opinion and several others to be honest. That's all I meant. Trust me, the wrong day will come and I'll be the first to get blocked over this. Just trying my best not to see that day, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:15, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Decker Reported

The above nomination at AFD is pertinent to this WikiProject. Please feel free to participate. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 21:26, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

"player who was"

Thoughts on this new lead formation that has been popping up lately (not naming any names). I'm not sure about it... I understand why some people may write it like that and it reads fine but it's still a tad wordy/clunky in my personal opinion.

• See Bobby Layne (my emphasis added): "Robert Lawrence Layne (December 19, 1926 – December 1, 1986) was an American professional football player who was a quarterback for 15 seasons in the National Football League (NFL)." versus my proposed wording: "Robert Lawrence Layne (December 19, 1926 – December 1, 1986) was an American professional football quarterback who played 15 seasons in the National Football League (NFL)."

• See Leroy Kelly for this new lead formation on a living player (my emphasis added) "Leroy Kelly (born May 20, 1942) is an American former professional football player who was a running back for the Cleveland Browns of the National Football League (NFL) from 1964 to 1973." versus my proposed wording: "Leroy Kelly (born May 20, 1942) is an American former professional football running back who played for the Cleveland Browns of the National Football League (NFL) from 1964 to 1973."

I think "played" tells the reader that the article subject is a player. This isn't Simple English Misplaced Pages. And I don't believe "football quarterback " is a SEAOFBLUE either. It may be a puddle of blue but that's not enough of a reason to change all of the leads to "player who was". The leads used to be "American football quarterback" for like 20 years and it wasn't a problem.

The discussion that changed "American football" to "football" didn't even say anything about "player who was". There were only 4 !voters, one who said "no prejudice to replacing player with the exact position." and another who said "Instead of player, identify the position". All of that said, I'll go along with whatever consensus decides. I just think we need to get a firm consensus and end these lead debates once and for all. Perhaps we should post a link to this discussion at the manual of style or do an RfC to get wider participation. I don't want to have to go through and change 25K leads and then just have to change them all back again later. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:54, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, would "Gridiron football" be acceptable instead of "American football" and football? Alvaldi (talk) 19:49, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't think so. People don't really call it that. That's kind of a wiki-ism. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:55, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I only use that to avoid saying something like American Canadian football player in a short description. ~ Dissident93 20:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

It's all generically plain football in North America (MOS:TIES). An American's lead mentioning Canadian Football League gets the point across that they played outside of U.S. —Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• I've stated it elsewhere but I'm in opinion that the "player who was" is unnecessary and does not flow nearly as well. "Sea of blue" never seemed to be an issue for all these years.-- Yankees10 20:26, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support: I wasn't even aware this was a thing as I tend to stick to active players. ~ Dissident93 20:36, 31 December 2024 (UTC)
• The thing I most dislike about these configurations is the tendency to describe players in the opening sentence as a "professional" football player. Why can't we just call them football players? Many players are far more notable for their college careers (e.g., Tom Harmon, Archie Griffin, Herschel Walker) and had relatively unimpressive pro careers. Especially in such cases, the emphasis on "professional" in the opening sentence is a mischaracterization of such players' core claim to notability. Cbl62 (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  The exceptional college players can be tweaked on a per-case basis. Some drive-by editors don't handle nuance too well, and might rv for "consistency" or add "college" to the lead sentence of players more notable as pros. And former players who only went to pro training camps might be better referred to as a "former college player" in the lead sentence. —Bagumba (talk) 05:03, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  My preference would be to simply say "American football player" rather than "professional" or "college" in the opening sentence. Most professional players also played college football, and it's therefore not an either/or situation. The details of teams (both college and pro) are addressed in the following sentences of the lead anyway, and there's therefore no need to pigeonhole each player in the opening sentence as either a college or pro player. They are all in the broader sense American football players, and that seems like the more logical and encompassing descriptor for an opening sentence. Cbl62 (talk) 05:34, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  What would your revised lead for Archie Griffin be? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 06:17, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  The Archie Griffin lead fortunately no longer includes the word "professional"; User:Sergio Skol properly, IMO, removed the word a year ago with this diff. In the opening sentence of the Herschel Walker and Tom Harmon articles, deleting "professional" from the first sentences would be a good start. The opening sentence should give a high level overview of the person's significance, and in the case of both Harmon and Walker, their significance derives much more from their Heisman-winning college careers than their middling pro careers. Cbl62 (talk) 20:01, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

  Middling USFL MVP LOL.—Bagumba (talk) 07:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's not even in Herschel Walker's infobox for some reason... I just added it. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Aside: Related to USFL MVP is Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject American football § The 2 USFLs.—Bagumba (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Bagumba: Granted, "middling" is a bit much to describer Herschel's USFL career (though not for Tom Harmon and many others), but the point is that someone whose primary notability comes from winning the Heisman Trophy or other college achievements should not have a lead sentence that says he was a "professional" football player (completely ignoring the collegiate career). Do you object to rmoving the word "professional" from the opening sentence in such cases? Cbl62 (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  In regards to Johnny Lattner and others, do you think the first sentence of the lead should be re-arranged further if their chief notability is from their college days? The first sentence of Lattner's lead still says "was an American football halfback who played in the National Football League (NFL) for one season with the Pittsburgh Steelers in 1954." That makes it sound like his notability is still based on his pro career. It doesn't say anything about his college career. Thoughts? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:12, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it seems inconsistent to mention NFL but not professional. So either rmv NFL in that case, or add the college team too (but that might be winded). —Bagumba (talk) 01:19, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  I rearranged the Lattner lead. Frankly, the article could use a more detailed lead if and when someone wants to take a crack at it. Cbl62 (talk) 01:59, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Cbl62: And thanks for addressing another pet peave—"where" after a team name: ... played college football for the Notre Dame Fighting Irish, where he won the Heisman Trophy ... —Bagumba (talk) 03:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

  Do you object to rmoving the word "professional" from the opening sentence in such cases?: No problem when it's consistent with MOS:ROLEBIO:

  The lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described by reliable sources

  —Bagumba (talk) 01:25, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

• It's not that new Randomly, Don Martin (American football) had "American football player who played defensive back" from Day 1 in 2010. Dirtlawyer1 was reguarly changing to "player who was a" as early as 2014.. The relevant guideline MOS:SEAOFBLUE says:

  When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link, as in chess tournament (] ]). Instead, consider rephrasing the sentence (tournament of chess)...

  This is consistent with the accessibllity spirit of MOS:OVERLINK:

  For example, because inline links present relatively small tap targets on touchscreen devices, placing several separate inline links close together within a section of text can make navigation more difficult for readers, especially if they have limited dexterity or coordination.

  —Bagumba (talk) 04:18, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

I posted a link to this discussion at WT:MOS. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

• Personally, I dislike the "player who was" wording (too wordy) – I'd prefer WikiOriginal's suggestion of, to use the Bobby Layne example, "Robert Lawrence Layne (December 19, 1926 – December 1, 1986) was an American professional football quarterback who played 15 seasons in the National Football League (NFL)." BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:08, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• None of these are wrong per say but I agree that "player who was" is a bit wordy/clunky but that is of course a matter of personal opinion and its interesting to see how it looks different to other editors. Don't want to set it in stone though, I don't think that consistency across the topic area is something that we need to be striving for when it comes to lead layout or wording. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:31, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
• I'd go with WikiOriginal-9 and the Bobby Layne example also. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:18, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

• Hi, I'm one of the editors who has been making this change. I actually agree that this phrasing is a little clunky but I also think that MOS:SEAOFBLUE is clear that football quarterback is also not ideal.

I will stop making this edit until there is new consensus on a lead format. OceanGunfish (talk) 00:46, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• I always thought that the 'sea' consisted of three or more links together. If it's just back to back links ... then we didn't need the fancy SEAOFBLUE name. Just tell people to never link back to back. Seems more like a puddle to me. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:23, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's fine if it can't be avoided (for two anyway), but it's still preferable to re-write where the links have spacing if possible. I've never considered it a SEA issue myself. ~ Dissident93 01:31, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The specific example at MOS:SEAOFBLUE of a phrase to be rewritten is chess tournament. OceanGunfish (talk) 01:38, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  The easiest solution would be to just omit the link for American football as the positions generally cover it. ~ Dissident93 01:49, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  No loss for us if we know "that" football already. But if I was reading about a cricket player, and know little about the sport, I'd find it annoying to have to hunt for the basic sport link (or type it). —Bagumba (talk) 01:54, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hmm, but then we couldn't figure out if the lead was referring to their nationality or the sport. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  BLUE in the shortcut makes it sound like an arbitrary cosmetic rule. But the background is actual physical issues about clicking on one word thinking it's a link to the whole phrase, then having to click "back" in order to click yet again for the other word. The issue is compounded for those with limited vision or motor skills (if nothing else, everyone will get old ... someday if not already). —Bagumba (talk) 01:50, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Don't mind me, I'm looking for my fishing pole. You all decide on the venue. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:07, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Wait, do you even own one LOL. —Bagumba (talk) 02:10, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Ohhhhh, the comedians, lol. I do .. and I have a car also .. so I can go find where the fish live. Sad to say, we have lots of puddles here. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:20, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

• Actual word count Using the OP examples, here is the actual differences:
  • football player who was a quarterback who playedfor 15 seasons: 2 words and one "a"
  • football player who was a running back who played for the: 1 word and one "a"
• That doesn't seem drastic enough to ignore the MOS:SEAOFBLUE guidance to change the wording when possible, e.g. "chess tournament" (] ]) to "tournament of chess"—Bagumba (talk) 05:06, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  It appears chess tournament actually has its own article, so that guideline may need a better example now. Not that it changes the point you were making of course. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:22, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Imagine Yahtzee tournament. —Bagumba (talk) 14:39, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  I might just unlink tournament there, if it was me. Most people know what a tournament is. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, delinking was a listed option at the MOS, but probably not applicable for the football lead in question. —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi–protection request for Jake Bates January 1, 2025

I do not know if this is the right place but random IP's keep on changing Jake Bates's photo to copyrighted images, but if it can be semi–protected so other editors do not have to keep on reverting them. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 06:24, 1 January 2025 (UTC)

The most recent activity is by a single registered user. A block is more suitable, if that one continues. —Bagumba (talk) 10:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Yeshivish613 (talk) 19:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

NFL roster templates - when to convert to free agents?

I've noticed that some folks have been switching over some of the roster templates in Category:National Football League roster templates after a team has been eliminated from playoffs (see Template:Cleveland Browns roster as an example). This, to me, implies that the players are currently free agents. Per the NFL, this is not actually the case, and players do not become free agents until March 12 at 4pm EST. I do think it's appropriate for us on Wiki to represent these players as being free agents in the templates and, as is the norm, many players re-sign before free agency actually even begins. We also have a norm of not changing player articles from their current team until free agency begins for this same reason, and I think it'd be appropriate for us to hold off on converting these templates as well.

I'd appreciate others providing feedback on this, as I've reverted it on one template so far, but I don't want to go overboard if there's consensus that it makes sense to convert the roster templates immediately upon a team's playing season being over. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:58, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I remove all unrestricted free agents upon the start of the new league year (when free agency begins in March). So even if them being listed as "free agents" now might be officially misleading, it's better than keeping them listed throughout the summer. Maybe it should say "expiring contracts" or "impending free agents" to be more accurate? ~ Dissident93 15:37, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Those options would indeed be more accurate. But I also support the removal of the free agents from the template altogether when the new year starts. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

I implemented it on the roster template. ~ Dissident93 01:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm okay with the "Impending" change. I would push back on the removal of free agents immediately after the league year starts. I would like to give it a couple days after to let the free agency dust settle then they get removed. It's a lot easier on the editing side to just cut and paste rather than copy from a previous version and paste them back in, especially for players that have reported deals to re-sign but haven't officially signed. Removing them and having to add them back in is an unnecessary pain that can easily be avoided. If the reader sees them off to the side away from the rest of the roster, they will know they are separate and I don't think they need to be removed right after. I say give it thru the weekend then delete, but as someone who does some of the most editing on roster and player pages, it would help me a ton with my editing and own tracking of players. I do get that it could confuse people thinking that the players are currently free agents, but it hasn't been an issue that I know of. Maybe at the start of free agency the template goes back to "Unrestricted" because players become UFAs at the start of the league year. I don't want to get technical here, just want to do what makes sense for everyone. Jrooster49 (talk) 06:06, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Once their contract expires they are no longer members of the roster. Having an arbitrary time to keep them solely to assist editors here should be avoided. ~ Dissident93 02:33, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Or comment them out. —Bagumba (talk) 03:49, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

CTE and NFL team pages

This post will have a lot different content than what's typical for this WikiProject so if you haven't read up on CTE, I'd encourage you to take a look at https://concussionfoundation.org/cte-resources/what-is-cte/ or https://www.bu.edu/cte/. If you want to dive more into the medical details, I'd suggest https://www.bumc.bu.edu/camed/2024/12/09/study-helps-solve-mystery-between-repeated-head-impacts-in-sports-and-location-of-brain-degeneration-in-cte/ and https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6018081. I'll apologize upfront for the length, but there's a lot to cover.

From HOFer Mike Webster being the first diagnosed NFL player in 2002 to the league acknowledging a connection between playing tackle football and CTE in 2016 to today, we've seen enormous changes in the NFL with more surely on the horizon. On the field, helmets have new designs, kickoffs look much different, and players' full-contact practices have been greatly reduced -- mostly in attempts to reduce the number and cumulative impacts of collisions on players' brains.

Off the field, thousands of former players joined together in the largest-ever wave of sports-related lawsuits, which then led to a record $765M sports litigation settlement in 2013. Brain damage has contributed to tragic endings for iconic former stars like Junior Seau while headlines regularly show how brain trauma impacts former players in their 30s, 40s, and 50s. In many cases, these brain injuries change players' personalities and prevent them living normal lives; they're just fundamentally different from an old knee injury, however painful that might be. To address some decline in youth league participation because of parents' concerns, the NFL has launched a massive effort to create youth flag football leagues all over the US.

Amid all this, the Misplaced Pages NFL team pages are, as far as I've seen, largely silent on any impact these developments have had on teams and their players. I put together a short intro and a table for each team with the names of players who were diagnosed after death with brain damage from CTE (drawn from the top list at List of NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy), along with their position, uniform number, and years played on the team. I posted it below each team's tables of HOFers, All Pros, record holders, etc, and was told that I should post about it first here for discussion. I doubt that it would take more than 1% or 2% of a typical team page's total lines.

Here's the intro and table for the New York Giants:

Giants Diagnosed with CTE

The following Giants players were confirmed after death to have brain damage called CTE that is caused by repeated hits to the head, not just concussions, that happen while playing football. They are among hundreds of other NFL players to receive similar diagnoses, and over 90% of NFL players' brains autopsied so far have indicated such damage. This list comprises a small fraction of Giants with CTE, as the vast majority of former players either are still alive or never had specialized autopsies done on their brains, the first such autopsy was not performed until 2002, and the families of most deceased players keep their autopsy results private.

Building lists of players diagnosed with CTE by teams is not a new effort on my part, as newspapers and magazines around the country have been writing articles organized this way for over a decade. Here are several:

Dolphins

Vikings

Baltimore Colts

Many others are like this 49ers article, which is mainly about star RB Joe Perry but mentions that fellow 49er Forrest Blue also had CTE.

Separately, there was a suggestion that these team lists should instead be maintained on the centralized CTE NFL player list page. My response is that there isn't anything different between team lists of confirmed CTE cases and team lists of All Pros or Hall of Famers. Just like it'd be strange to see team lists on the centralized HOF page, team lists shouldn't be on the centralized CTE page. People care about their teams, and many will be interested to know which players on their teams have been confirmed to have CTE, with other info like years played and position to jog their memories, as well as links to their individual Misplaced Pages pages. The appropriate place for them to read about that is on the team pages.

I saw another concern raised about how valid the lists of players are. Each player has a footnote with the source indicating that the player was diagnosed after death with CTE. Many of these players have been on the first list at List of NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy for several years -- plenty of time to be reviewed by other editors. If anyone has a concern with whether any of those sources are reliable, then it seems to me that should be raised with edits or discussion about that individual source like on any other Misplaced Pages page.

You have my apologies for not posting about all this initially to this WikiProject, but I didn't know it existed as this is my first time doing anything on Misplaced Pages beyond making edits to a page. I haven't looked at my user talk page about any more recent concerns, but I'll try to respond to any additional issues raised there or here in the coming days. This seems like a long enough post for now.

1. Breslow, Jason (March 15, 2016). "NFL Acknowledges a Link Between Football, CTE". PBS. Retrieved July 24, 2023.
2. Belson, Ken; Mueller, Benjamin (June 20, 2023). "Collective Force of Head Hits, Not Just the Number of Them, Increases Odds of C.T.E. The largest study of chronic traumatic encephalopathy to date found that the cumulative force of head hits absorbed by players in their careers is the best predictor of future brain disease". New York Times. Retrieved July 16, 2023.
3. Young, Rodney; Turcios, Axel (July 2, 2023). "Study: Head impacts, not concussions, drive football-related CTE risk The study also found that linemen were more prone to developing CTE than players at any other position". Scripps News. Retrieved July 16, 2023.
4. Breslow, Jason M. (October 6, 2013). "The Autopsy That Changed Football". PBS Frontline. Retrieved August 12, 2023.
5. "Crist's 'fatal' disease complicated by CTE". The Bradford Era. July 12, 2021. Retrieved April 2, 2023.
6. Deardorff, Julie (May 2, 2011). "Study: Duerson had brain damage at time of suicide". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved May 2, 2011.
7. Ken Belson and Alan Schwarz, The N.F.L.'s Tragic C.T.E. Roll Call, The New York Times, March 15, 2016
8. Ken Belson and Alan Schwarz, The N.F.L.'s Tragic C.T.E. Roll Call, The New York Times, March 15, 2016
9. Eliott C. McLaughlin; Catherine E. Shoichet. "Family: Frank Gifford suffered from brain disease CTE". CNN. Retrieved July 27, 2017.
10. Ward, Joe; Williams, Josh; Manchester, Sam (July 25, 2017). "111 N.F.L. Brains. All But One Had C.T.E." The New York Times. Retrieved July 25, 2017.
11. "Report: Former NFL QB Earl Morrall had Stage 4 CTE". Sports Illustrated. February 3, 2016. Retrieved February 6, 2016.
12. Belson, Ken (February 12, 2022). "For N.F.L. Perfection, a Steep Price". New York Times. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
13. Ken Belson and Alan Schwarz, The N.F.L.'s Tragic C.T.E. Roll Call, The New York Times, March 15, 2016
14. Pennington, Bill (January 26, 2016). "Former Giants Safety Found To Have C.T.E." The New York Times. New York Times. Retrieved January 26, 2016.
15. Belson, Ken (February 12, 2022). "For N.F.L. Perfection, a Steep Price". New York Times. Retrieved September 13, 2022.
16. Habib, Hal (February 7, 2023). "Twenty-one former Dolphins had CTE, Boston University research study reveals". Detroit Free Press. Retrieved March 25, 2023.
17. "Rip Hawkins among four former Vikings who were part of NFL brain study Ross "Rip" Hawkins, the Vikings' leading tackler in each of their first four seasons, was one of the four former Vikings among the 111 deceased NFL players whose brains were studied by researchers from Boston University". Star Tribune (Minneapolis). October 17, 2019. Retrieved April 2, 2023.
18. "Vikings react to startling CTE study that included four ex-Vikings". Star Tribune. July 27, 2017.
19. Ron Cassie. "Head in the Game Brain diseases have shortened the lives of many of the city's beloved former Baltimore Colts. Can football survive CTE?". Baltimore Magazine. Retrieved March 25, 2023.
20. Barrows, Matthew. "Late 49ers star Joe Perry had chronic brain-trauma disease". Sacramento Bee. Archived from the original on January 6, 2013. Retrieved September 8, 2012.

PurpleComet (talk) 04:56, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I was one of the users who reverted your attempts to add this to individual team articles. Also pinging the other two users who reverted your attempts to mass add this information to team articles (@WikiOriginal-9 and @Assadzadeh) so that they may weigh in.

I don't think this information should be included in individual team articles, as it causes unnecessary bloat and it's not nearly as closely related to individual teams as a team's Hall of Fame players. There's also evidence that the damage that causes CTE can start well before a player even makes it to the NFL, so are we then to ask that this information be included for every college and high school program out there? There's implications that the CTE was essentially caused by playing for the team when it's listed on each team's article.

My response is that there isn't anything different between team lists of confirmed CTE cases and team lists of All Pros or Hall of Famers – There's a substantial distinction actually. Those are more closely related to the teams and are typically toted by the teams in a way that aligns them with the team's identity and historical success, and it's typically covered quite thoroughly with significant coverage. What it boils down to from my perspective is that this information is not closely tied to the team or the team's identity, as opposed to other information that is included in various team articles.

There's also the issue of WP:NLIST being passed if you split it up to a team-by-team basis. I'm not finding articles focusing specifically on lists of former players who played for a specific team, as opposed to general lists of former players that don't focus on a specific team. It would be an unnecessary WP:SPLIT from my perspective to make 32 lists for this and it would duplicate a lot of the relevant information between each list in doing so when it would be more concise to keep them combined. I think your best option is to revamp the List of NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy to be tables that include players' team history, as opposed to trying to shoehorn this information into team articles or split it into 32 additional lists. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:30, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think information should be included in individual team articles, as it causes unnecessary bloat....

To take the Giants example, a very rough count puts their Misplaced Pages team page at about 1240 lines as it appears on my screen, minus footnotes. My Giants table with the intro and heading would add 13 or 14 lines -- expanding the page length by slightly over 1%. That seems more than reasonable, given the impact brain trauma has had on teams, the league, and players.

There's also evidence that the damage that causes CTE can start well before a player even makes it to the NFL, so are we then to ask that this information be included for every college and high school program out there? There's implications that the CTE was essentially caused by playing for the team when it's listed on each team's article.

My short intro to the table clearly says "CTE ... is caused by repeated hits to the head, not just concussions, that happen while playing football", not "while playing in the NFL". We can rely on the intelligence of readers to understand that no player arrives in the NFL without having played many years of football and accumulated many hits to the head (in pursuit of their dreams of playing in the NFL), all of which contribute to the development of CTE.

It could also be argued, which I didn't in my posts, that the NFL is implicated in the brain damage suffered by players in pursuit of that same heavily promoted dream who never play past high school or college. We don't need to paint anyone or any entity as the victim here.

What it boils down to from my perspective is that this information is not closely tied to the team or the team's identity, as opposed to other information that is included in various team articles.

I agree that this is what it boils down to. Some of the other information on team pages are about team headquarter buildings, team finances, practice facilities, and the various radio and TV stations that broadcasted games over the years. Those are all fine details, but does anyone really think they have more impact on, say, the Chargers' team identity than the fact that Junior Seau shot himself as he was suffering from the aftereffects of playing football?

I'm not a Chargers fan, but I still remember the shock of reading that news in 2012. I can only imagine what it must've been like for someone who watched him every Sunday for over a decade when he was the team's superstar. The Misplaced Pages Chargers page currently does a disservice to the team's history by not including any details about the end of his life. Adding him in a CTE table like the example provided would help rectify that omission.

There's also the issue of WP:NLIST being passed if you split it up to a team-by-team basis. I'm not finding articles focusing specifically on lists of former players who played for a specific team, as opposed to general lists of former players that don't focus on a specific team.

WP:NLIST says "ne accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." In my original post, I included footnotes 15 through 20 with several articles about NFL players that were organized around players who were diagnosed with CTE from a specific team. The sources were New York Times, Detroit Free Press, Minneapolis Star Tribune, Baltimore Magazine, and Sacramento Bee.

It would be an unnecessary WP:SPLIT from my perspective to make 32 lists for this and it would duplicate a lot of the relevant information between each list in doing so when it would be more concise to keep them combined.

This WP:SPLIT concern about duplication applies equally to the team HOF and other team lists. If it's a general guiding principle, then it shouldn't be selectively applied against the CTE team lists.

I think your best option is to revamp the List of NFL players with chronic traumatic encephalopathy to be tables that include players' team history, as opposed to trying to shoehorn this information into team articles or split it into 32 additional lists.

As someone who's worked on that page, I disagree. The top list of confirmed CTE cases has the appropriate level of detail for general readers -- players' names and links to their individual Misplaced Pages pages and the sources that indicate their CTE diagnosis, as well as an age range when their CTE systems began to appear if provided in a source.

My sense is that someone who's already reading about a team's history will be more interested in the details provided in the team CTE tables. Providing the years and position played for the team will help some readers remember players they grew up watching. PurpleComet (talk) 05:53, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Continuing to complain about an inexperienced user after a sincere apology is offered doesn't seem so welcoming. #3 at the top of this page: Be welcoming to newcomers – You're clearly approaching this discussion with a chip on your shoulder, or interpreting those who disagree with you as being inherently unwelcoming. That's very clearly not the case here, so I'll point you towards assume good faith. I pinged those users because they initially disagreed with your addition, so they may want to be involved in the discussion. It's a common courtesy to ping involved users to a relevant conversation.

To take the Giants example... – Bloat is bloat to me. It's still not as relevant as the other information in these articles.

...that happen while playing football", not "while playing in the NFL". – That's exactly the point. It's not distinctly associated with the franchises.

It could also be argued, which I didn't in my posts, that the NFL is implicated in the brain damage suffered by players in pursuit of that same heavily promoted dream who never play past high school or college. We don't need to paint anyone or any entity as the victim here. – But that's the exact argument you're making when you include this on the franchise pages. You paint them as the main party associated with the CTE caused, and that's not appropriate or the place to make said argument.

I agree that this is what it boils down to. Some of the other information on team pages are about team headquarter buildings, team finances, practice facilities, and the various radio and TV stations that broadcasted games over the years. Those are all fine details, but does anyone really think they have more impact on, say, the Chargers' team identity than the fact that Junior Seau shot himself as he was suffering from the aftereffects of playing football? – Yes. That's all information more broadly associated with the franchise and unmistakably associated with the franchise and would be relevant information that someone might expect on the franchise articles. Just because there's a media section in an article doesn't mean it makes sense to broadly include anything relevant to a player's health.

This WP:SPLIT concern about duplication applies equally to the team HOF and other team lists. If it's a general guiding principle, then it shouldn't be selectively applied against the CTE team lists. – It really doesn't, these pass WP:NLIST without a doubt, whereas I don't find enough sources that discuss CTE on a team by team basis. You could find enough sources in a single year to support all of the split HoF lists. Frankly, if you move forward with a split CTE list, I'll end up proposing/starting a merge discussion. The more I've thought and it and discussed it the more it doesn't make sense to me.

My sense is that someone who's already reading about a team's history will be more interested in the details provided in the team CTE tables. – I actually feel the exact opposite. I feel strongly that's not what people are looking for or will find interesting on those pages. Those looking into CTE will be the ones who would find it interesting and would be interested in that information in a central location. You'd be doing a disservice to those actually interested in the information.

Why aren't we including Calvin Johnson's messed up hands? That all happened while playing football, and his fingers are hella messed up. It's because that's not broadly associated with the franchise or the franchise article. Just like other permanent damage that players end up with. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't find enough sources that discuss CTE on a team by team basis. You could find enough sources in a single year to support all of the split HoF lists.

I'm not saying any other list should be taken down nor do I dispute that there are a lot more HOF articles, which is to be expected. Those are announced annually and are expected by readers, and the usually feel-good articles are easy to write, as they can just be about the voting results and the details of the players' football careers.

By contrast, a player's CTE diagnosis after death doesn't follow any regular schedule and in most cases is never publicly announced. Writing an article about such a diagnosis requires interviewing grieving family members who may not want to talk to the press. Writing an article about multiple players with CTE diagnoses on the same team requires tracking down family members for those other players and getting them to talk about painful, very personal memories. Nevertheless, there are several articles from independent reliable sources that were organized around players diagnosed with CTE from the same team, which meets the requirement. It doesn't matter if there are more HOF articles.

Just because there's a media section in an article doesn't mean it makes sense to broadly include anything relevant to a player's health.

...Why aren't we including Calvin Johnson's messed up hands? That all happened while playing football, and his fingers are hella messed up. It's because that's not broadly associated with the franchise or the franchise article. Just like other permanent damage that players end up with.

The first reason it's not included is because it wouldn't meet the WP:NLIST standard you've mentioned above in that there aren't any news articles about players' hand injuries grouped by team.

Beyond that, brain injuries that change who players are and how they relate to other people are significantly different from typical sports injuries that hurt, inconvenience, and/or even lead to long-term disabilities. Family members repeatedly describe some early-stage CTE players' personalities changing as they lose the ability to control rage and aggression - occasionally with tragic results. Later-stage CTE usually results in early-onset dementia, causing players to get lost in their own neighborhoods or forget their loved ones.

Football's a violent sport and the possibility of long-term injury is generally understood, but CTE articles regularly show that players and their families didn't realize the possibility of brain damage. In many cases, the CTE diagnosis provides family members some solace to help explain why their loved one's behavior and personality changed so much.

On top of all that, any assessment of the league and its teams over the last few decades and those to come has to include the broad impacts caused by concerns about brain injuries, as I mentioned in my opening post. No other type of injury has resulted in such significant changes to equipment, practice regimens, and the rules of play, produced so many lawsuits and an enormous settlement, and pushed the league to rapidly roll out a new type of youth league. A couple weeks ago, there was a major Washington Post article raising concerns about how former players were being treated under the concussion settlement: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2024/12/29/nfl-brain-injuries-players-compensation/. Attention has focused this past week on perhaps the biggest controversy in the history of the pro football HOF, as voters decide whether to induct legendary tackle Jim Tyrer despite his murder-suicide that his family believes wouldn't have happened without suspected CTE from his playing days: https://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/43359812/a-worms-hof-voters-candidacy-chiefs-great https://www.kansascity.com/sports/spt-columns-blogs/vahe-gregorian/article298480818.html.

I actually feel the exact opposite. I feel strongly that's not what people are looking for or will find interesting on those pages.

I think more people care about it than you think, and more people than that would care about it if their access to information about it wasn't being restricted. Any NFL player is at least a minor local celebrity, and that still is the case after retirement. That's why I still remember several years ago standing in line at the bakery a few people behind a local HOF player I watched as a kid. I think most NFL fans care about their childhood heroes, even if they're no longer on the field. PurpleComet (talk) 04:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not saying any other list should be taken down nor do I dispute that there are a lot more HOF articles, which is to be expected. Those are announced annually and are expected by readers, and the usually feel-good articles are easy to write, as they can just be about the voting results and the details of the players' football careers. – That type of coverage is why they pass WP:NLIST as standalone articles, whereas these are not likely to do so.

I think more people care about it than you think, and more people than that would care about it if their access to information about it wasn't being restricted. Any NFL player is at least a minor local celebrity, and that still is the case after retirement. That's why I still remember several years ago standing in line at the bakery a few people behind a local HOF player I watched as a kid. I think most NFL fans care about their childhood heroes, even if they're no longer on the field. – People care, to a degree, but if they're not looking for information related to CTE then they're not going to be interested in its inclusion, hence why it makes sense for the information to be centralized as opposed to in various team articles. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Oppose splitting by team per hey man im josh. Comparing this to hall of famers by team is ridiculous. Hall of famers by team is a comprehensive, clearly defined list that is utilized by the HOF and by teams to highlight achievements by their players. Having CTE, although relevant to the NFL, is not something discussed related to specific teams, rather it is related to playing in the NFL as a whole. We could split this up in different ways too: by position or by years of service, but that is the point of sortability in a table. I don't see any benefit to splitting this up by team at this point and seriously question whether doing so meets our policies and guidelines. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:33, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

  Hall of famers by team is a comprehensive, clearly defined list that is utilized by the HOF and by teams to highlight achievements by their players.

  A team CTE list can never be comprehensive because, as the intro to the table points out, among other reasons the first specialized autopsy of a NFL player's brain wasn't performed until 2002 and could never be done on players who died before then. The intro acknowledges the incompleteness of the list, but that's not a reason to prevent showing players whose CTE diagnoses are verifiable by public sources.

  On the definiton, I didn't think it was necessary, but a team CTE list shows players who had collisions to the head in team-run practices or league-run games and then after death had a reliable public source that confirmed the individual player's CTE diagnosis. Is that definition clear enough?

  There's also an assumption in the comment that team pages should focus only on players' and teams' achievements. I agree that those achievements should be recognized but also think that some space should be provided for negative consequences of the games and collisions when those consequences are significant.

  Teams have their own private web pages and can choose what content to post there. The fact that they choose not to utilize team CTE lists shouldn't be determinant about what's posted on a Misplaced Pages team page.

  We could split this up in different ways too: by position....

  I think by position is a useful comparison to by team for CTE lists. One difference is that the few Misplaced Pages football position pages I looked at didn't have player tables like the team pages do. I've also never seen an article that groups players with confirmed CTE diagnoses by position, unlike by team for which I posted footnotes for several above.

  If Misplaced Pages position pages did have extensive player tables and there were independent reliable sources that grouped confirmed CTE cases by position, then someone could put together a list of players at a particular position who were confirmed to have CTE, and such a table could be considered for those position pages. Those conditions haven't been met for position pages so we're not having that discussion. This conversation is about team pages where the conditions have been met.

  On a related note, for anyone who's interested here's a recent study that looks at how head impacts are different by position: https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7612336/. PurpleComet (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

  • Oppose I don't think there is much that I can add to this discussion that hasn't already been said. As such, I believe that we've reached consensus that lists of players with CTE, broken down by team, don't need to be added to each team's page, but rather belong in a central location, as is already the case.

  Assadzadeh (talk) 23:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

All-Pro and Pro Bowl categories

So we have categories for National Conference Pro Bowl players, American Conference Pro Bowl players, and Unconferenced Pro Bowl players, but none for the more prestigious All-Pro players? And there's no need to have three categories for the Pro Bowl as none of that is mentioned on player pages. ~ Dissident93 01:47, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I'm not necessarily opposed to it, but we'd need to be specific about what that category is meant to apply to. For instance, we'd have to clearly note that it wouldn't apply to the NFLPA All-Pro team, which was voted on by players (often voting for people they like). Something to the effect of All-Pro selections from selectors whose selections are typically noted / included in Pro Football Hall of Fame pages, but of course written more elegantly. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

This category should exist but we should probably figure out what All-Pro selectors go in the infobox first. We can't ever agree on it. WP:NFLINFOBOX doesn't actually say what selectors to include. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:07, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Fred Hill and the 1965 NFL draft

I have removed a statement at Fred Hill that said he was drafted by the Baltimore Colts and then traded to the Philadelphia Eagles. I have also changed his drafting team at 1965 NFL draft from the Colts to the Eagles. He is listed as an Eagles selection at PFR, Databasefootball, The Football Database, Pro Football Archives, an article on the Eagles website, and the Pro Football Hall of Fame, as well as Template:Philadelphia Eagles 1965 NFL draft picks. I did find this bio at "AthleteSpeakers" that says he was picked by the Colts and traded to the Eagles "later that season," so if anyone has better sources for a Colts selection, I would be interested to read it, and I will self-revert. OceanGunfish (talk) 05:17, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the Colts thing came from. This newspaper clipping says Philadelphia. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 07:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes a team would draft on behalf of another, or the trades are not properly recorded, but I'm not seeing anything that indicates there was a trade involved for this pick for what it's worth. I know there's a bunch of... ahem... tom foolery for anything prior to 1970, so it's possible, but it doesn't seem likely from my perspective. I have had to correct a number of these sites though regarding who drafts a player, so it's certainly possible. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:56, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Benny Friedman#Requested move 4 January 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:31, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Terrence Cody

Terrence Cody has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Project-Class National Football League pages
• NA-importance National Football League pages
• WikiProject National Football League articles
• WikiProject National Football League
• WikiProjects task lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists