Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Score order in articles about players

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived.

I am at odds with Bluerules over a formatting issue. He insists that in articles about a player, the player's team's score should go first, win or lose. I maintain that standard American English always has the winning team's score first. Which of these is the preferred style, using this sample sentence from Trey Lance?

  1. Lance remained the second-string quarterback for the next five weeks until Garoppolo suffered a thumb injury in a 17–20 loss to the Tennessee Titans.
  2. Lance remained the second-string quarterback for the next five weeks until Garoppolo suffered a thumb injury in a 20–17 loss to the Tennessee Titans.

I thank editors in advance for their input on their matter. —C.Fred (talk) 17:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason to deviate from standard practice for articles about players. Every article on American sports should use the American standard for reporting scores, which is pretty much always "winner-loser". The second choice is the correct one. --Jayron32 18:07, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
The "standard practice" is the first choice. This has nothing to do with "American English"; it's about the subject of the article. Because the article is about one side of the sport, the score is presented as "subject-opponent" and that's the correct one. Bluerules (talk) 20:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
If it's "standard", why do essentially only these two articles follow the practice? Other articles, as well as newspapers, magazines, and sports biographies follow the "winner-loser" presentation. —C.Fred (talk) 20:18, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I did some digging and found another case of an article using "subject-opponent" format before it was changed using the same argument. I would not be surprised if this happened with articles. Bluerules (talk) 20:47, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
@Jayron32: Can you find a printed authority for that, since Bluerules is edit warring for their preferred style and even denying article tagging? —C.Fred (talk) 20:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't "prefer" the style - it's the style I've seen more frequently on the project. If the standard has changed, then I'm not against the new standard. Bluerules (talk) 21:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
And it's a style I've not seen on the project. —C.Fred (talk) 21:48, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
It's still a style that I'll keep finding if I had the time to search through more revision histories. Bluerules (talk) 00:11, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I don't doubt that it was used before by some editors. What's more important is the rationale, and whether there is consensus for it now. —Bagumba (talk) 00:21, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
Which I'm not going to argue against. If the consensus backs another approach, it's a small fix. Bluerules (talk) 03:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Winner–loser It's my experience that reliable sources for the major American sports leagues write scores in the winner–loser format.—Bagumba (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
    Clarify To be clear, based on others' subsequent comments, I support winner–loser in prose.—Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
Okay, while not player pages, every article I've checked for a team's season uses the subject–opponent format for the scores. That might be what led to player pages using the same format.
With this in mind, I find subject–opponent more consistent for player articles because like team season articles, we're prioritizing one side of the game. But if other editors prefer to treat player articles differently from team season articles, that's not an issue for me. Bluerules (talk) 03:14, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Winner–loser in prose, subject-opponent in tables if it helps to distinguish between a win and a loss. I don't usually see subject-opponent style in prose in US sources, and some style guides are against it. See this summary of AP sports style. (The SABR Style Guide doesn't explicitly say it, but in the discussion of other concepts, examples are written in winner-loser format - "7-6 loss".) I'd support it in tables where it may make it easier to determine at a glance whether the game was a win or a loss. As a random example, see 1991 Dallas Cowboys season, where they use the normal prose style in the prose but subject-opponent in the week-by-week table. Larry Hockett (Talk) 04:09, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, sources vary when listing in tables: pfr: subj–opp, ESPN: w–l, NBC: subj–opp.—Bagumba (talk) 04:40, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Winner-loser in prose. Cbl62 (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
From what I'm seeing, the subject–opponent format is used on team season articles because it's in a table. If it's in prose, the consensus backs winner–loser.
This begs one question - which format should be used in infoboxes? From what I've seen, the infobox for team season articles uses subject–opponent. Bluerules (talk) 14:48, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by "infoboxes". Maybe bowl games results? If you're talking about the schedule charts, the standard has been subject-opponent. I was opposed to that but that consensus was implemented years ago after a long discussion and vote and I see no reason to revisit it. So for me winner-loser in prose, subject-opponent in schedule charts. Cbl62 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Every team season article has an infobox on the top right. Playoff scores are included in the infobox if the team makes the playoffs and every NFL team season article I've seen uses subject–opponent. For example, the 1991 Dallas Cowboys season article hyperlinked above says the Cowboys won 17–13 and lost 6–38 in the infobox. Bluerules (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Winner-loser in prose - I'm not sure why this is even a debate. Think about how we say it in common parlance. "Oh yeah, my team lost 24-7 last night", not "My team lost 7-24 last night". – PeeJay 15:02, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's a debate because that's how team season articles are formatted. We're writing from an omnipresent perspective that sometimes prioritizes a subject, not our own perspective. Bluerules (talk) 17:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    I do not see how it's that big a difference in perspective to go from "They lost 24-7" in a team article to "His team lost 24-7" in a player article. —C.Fred (talk) 18:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not saying it's a big difference - I'm saying subject–opponent maintains focus on the subject. Bluerules (talk) 01:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    That's why it's useful in tables, where space is at a premium. In prose, however, the convention is winner-loser in American English, and I see no reason to put a burden on the reader with an unfamiliar style. —C.Fred (talk) 01:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    If the format was a burden and unfamiliar to readers, it wouldn't exist in the first place. It exists when the article is about one side of a contest and that's where an argument for consistency lies; if subject–opponent is already used for the article, then it's more consistent to use it for the entire article. Bluerules (talk) 01:27, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yeah, that’s not how team articles should be formatted either. In tables, we put the subject’s score first because it makes it easier to understand the table, but in prose it is always the winning score first. – PeeJay 00:01, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    The tables using subject–opponent is still subject–opponent formatting. If it's already present in the article, there's a case for it to be used elsewhere, even if the consensus doesn't support it. Bluerules (talk) 01:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    So are you suggesting to switch tables to the ESPN style and use winner-loser everywhere in the article? —C.Fred (talk) 02:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Bluerules No, the presence of subject–opponent formatting in tables does not make a case for subject–opponent formatting to be used elsewhere, if that elsewhere is prose. See my comment below. Jweiss11 (talk) 04:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, the presence of subject–opponent formatting in tables does make a case for subject–opponent formatting to be used elsewhere because it maintains a consistent format on the article. If readers see the scores in one format, it is natural for them to assume all of the scores in the article are the same format. This is about being informative, not "the natural way of writing or speaking". Bluerules (talk) 12:28, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's hardly informative to present content in a way that is unfamiliar to readers. In normal speech, people give the higher score first, always. Good writing should reflect the way people speak. Tables are not meant to reflect speech, so we can present information differently there. – PeeJay 16:13, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's hardily informative to present conflicting formats in the same article. That creates confusion. If this format was unfamiliar, it would not be in these articles in the first place. Good writing does not reflect the way people speak because people speak significantly more casually. On an encyclopedia, we write formally because an encyclopedia is not meant to reflect speech. Bluerules (talk) 20:35, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Then let's look at what has been written: all reliable sources (written in American English) use the winner-loser format in prose. By your logic, we should go with that, even if it means expanding tables to add a "W" or "L". —C.Fred (talk) 20:42, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    "All reliable sources" are not encyclopedias. The format they use should not determine the format an encyclopedia uses when they are held to a different standard - they wouldn't usually use subject–opponent because they don't focus on a subject the same way an encyclopedia does. Bluerules (talk) 20:48, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Of course not. They write articles about subjects, and focus on the subject. Wait, what? If we take your logic to the extreme, the subject of an article could never be the object of a sentence; we'd have to rewrite all those sentences in passive voice, to focus on the subject.
    In other words, "focus on a subject" holds no water as an argument, and it appears that nobody else wants to arbitrarily change an American English convention. —C.Fred (talk) 20:52, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, the sources used for the scores are biographies on a specific subject focused entirely on that specific subject. Wait, what? That's not correct. The sources are news articles about an individual game. They're typically not even about the same subject as player articles. You are comparing apples and oranges. Player articles are about the player. The "reliable sources" either provide just a snippet about the player or are about an entirely different subject. Focusing on the player simply means prioritizing them when writing about events - the Mac Jones article focuses on his performance in the loss to the Bills, not the Patriots defense failing to stop the Bills from scoring a touchdown on every drive. And when we're prioritizing the player, their team's score applies more to them than the other team's score.
    In other words, focusing on a subject is a perfectly valid argument and if nobody wanted to "arbitrarily change" how the scores are presented, the team season articles wouldn't have presented the scores this way in the first place. Bluerules (talk) 02:57, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    But if you really want to use how other encylcopedias write as a yardstick, here's encyclopedia.com on Bill Parcells: "The Patriots made the playoffs in 1994, Parcells' second year; two years later they played in Super Bowl XXXI, losing 35-21 to the Green Bay Packers."[emphasis added][1] —C.Fred (talk) 20:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, we shouldn't use how other resources write information to write our own. That's plagiarism. Bluerules (talk) 02:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Merely applying another's style is not plagiarism. —Bagumba (talk) 04:00, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Relying on another source to write articles is plagiarism. It can be a suggestion, but it's not supposed to be the basis for how articles are written. Bluerules (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Following another source (or multiple sources) in terms of how to style data is not plagiarism, not by any stretch of the imagination. Copying sources verbatim is copyright infringement, but following general conventions on how to present information is actually encouraged. Presenting information in ways differing from sources would be us imparting our own values onto the data. – PeeJay 16:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    This is about copying other sources, which is plagiarism. We have discussions like these to determine what's best for the project, whether it be similar or different from other sources. Bluerules (talk) 16:12, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Copying other sources is not necessarily plagiarism, and it certainly isn't plagiarism when what we're copying is sports results, which can only be displayed in a certain number of intelligible ways. – PeeJay 18:10, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Even if it's not plagiarism, information should not be presented in a certain way simply because another source presented the information this way. We present the information the way we feel is best for the project and if there's a disagreement, that's what these pages are for. Bluerules (talk) 18:28, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Actually, it's probably recommended for us to present data in the same way that most sources do. That way we have a leg to stand on when it comes to accusations of bias. It's very unlikely we would come up with a wholly different way of presenting the info anyway, especially not one that improves on the way most sources do it. Any improvements would be very minor, and changing the way we say scorelines would not be an improvement. – PeeJay 19:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    Again, following other sources can be a suggestion, but never a guideline. We determine what's best for the project on our own, regardless of whether it follows what another source does. Bluerules (talk) 01:14, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    Again, following other sources can be a suggestion, but never a guideline: No, it can become a guideline by consensus. —Bagumba (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
    That wouldn't be us copying the source simply because the source said it. That's still our determination. Bluerules (talk) 12:46, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Right, and we have already determined that the way the source does things is the correct way, so that's why we follow the source. How is this still a discussion? – PeeJay 16:40, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    You asked why there was a debate over the format. I pointed out that while one format may not preferred, it is still used across the project, regardless of what other sources say. The source isn't always considered the "correct way" in different contexts and I don't see the issue in making the formatting more consistent. Bluerules (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    The use of the subject–opponent format is in the vast minority and should be corrected wherever it is seen in prose. Anyone who uses it in prose doesn't understand how English works. – PeeJay 23:36, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
    Literally every team season article uses subject–opponent and the amount of team season articles is vast. For all this talk about prose vs. tables, there haven't been valid reasons given for why a written format in a table suddenly becomes taboo when it's used in prose. Team and player articles focus on a subject and to disregard a format that places focus on same subject disregards consistency and the focus of the article. Bluerules (talk) 05:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Bluerules: We abbreviate in tables also. We would not say "The Bears won their first 12 games, until they L 24–38 to MIA" in prose. Not only would we spell out the abbreviations, but we would also present the score in the same order it is in standard English.
    Subject-opponent order is a shorthand that can streamline table presentation (although a quick look at tables shows a result winner-loser format, e.g. "L 38–24"), but it is not standard in written (American) English. —C.Fred (talk) 11:20, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Can you point me in the direction of some of the articles that use a winner–loser format in tables? I know for a fact that the Vikings season articles don't use that format. – PeeJay 11:41, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    This has nothing to do with abbreviations. We still use this allegedly taboo format in the tables and infobox of team season articles. It's not presented in the order you say it is.
    This was never about "(American) English". This is about consistency and drawing priority to the subject of an article. A quick look at tables actually reveals they are in subject–opponent format. The 1991 Dallas Cowboys season article hyperlinked above very clearly uses subject–opponent for the table ("L 31–33") and the infobox ("Lost Divisional Playoffs (at Lions) 6–38"). Again, a reason why a written format in a table suddenly becomes taboo in prose has not been provided. If this was about "(American) English", the format would have never been used. Bluerules (talk) 12:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Umm, it was always about the way we write the English language. Prose should reflect the spoken word. – PeeJay 12:31, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    No, it was about what was most appropriate for the article. The wording was not based on American or European English, as initially implied. The purpose of the prose here is to present information as effectively as possible, not have a conversation with readers. Bluerules (talk) 14:29, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    @Bluerules: In what context do team season articles use subject–opponent? Umm, I'm pretty sure it's only in tables. If they're using it in prose, those instances are in the vast minority. Writing "team X lost 34–26" is not "disregarding the focus of the article", it literally keeps them front and centre; they are the subject of that sentence, and the score is written in the order you would say it. How are you still not understanding this? – PeeJay 11:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Team season articles also use subject–opponent for the infobox and the format's existence on these articles demonstrates it's not the "vast minority" you claim. If we're talking prose, that's another story, but like I mentioned above, there still haven't been valid reasons given for why this acceptable format in a table suddenly becomes taboo in prose. The use of this format is still vast. Placing the team's own score first literally keeps them front and center by prioritizing their own score. Placing the other team's score first takes focus away from the team. This is written language, not spoken language. It's minor, which is why I'm not going to edit against the consensus, but it still disregards the focus of the article. Why is this such a big deal? I've already said I'm not editing against the consensus, but I have every right to demonstrate why there is a case for subject–opponent. Bluerules (talk) 12:27, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Lol, infoboxes are not prose. How many times do we have to keep making this distinction for you? Anyway, have you never actually spoken English before? If you're telling your friend your team lost today, you wouldn't put the smaller score first. You just wouldn't. That is reflected in the way we write prose in the article. You keep talking about this being a consistency issue, but if a reader isn't capable of discerning the differences in style between tables and prose, perhaps they would be more at home on the Simple English Wikipedia... – PeeJay 12:34, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    Never said the infobox was prose. You said you were pretty sure the format is "only in tables", which is incorrect. I'm saying there haven't been any valid reasons provided for why text in a table and infobox suddenly becomes taboo when it's transferred to prose. It's just been blanket statements and misrepresentations. Anyways, do you not know writing and speaking are not the same? Our goal here is to present information as efficiently as possible, not simulate a conversation. If that leads to variations between what a person would normally say (we wouldn't write "we lost", even though that's what we would normally say) and what presents the information most efficiently, the latter is preferred. To use a different format for mere text is inconsistent. A minor inconsistency, but regardless of if it's an issue for readers, it's still an inconsistency. Bluerules (talk) 14:39, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    It's clear you're never going to understand how any of this works. Enjoy the rest of your day and take pride in your nonsense position. – PeeJay 17:40, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
    The fact that this apparently taboo format is prevalent on the project demonstrates my position is valid. Don't forget to read WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS next time. Bluerules (talk) 02:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Bluerules, several days ago I gave you a coherent explanation of why the subject-opponent format is okay in tables, but not in prose. Your claim about "blanket statements and misrepresentations" is itself a misrepresentation. Please stop whining about "personal attacks" and accept that your argument here is poor and you've lost this debate. It's over. We don't do subject-opponent format in prose anywhere on Wikipedia. Any instance you do find in prose is a grammatical error and should be corrected immediately. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
You did not provide "a coherent explanation". You made an argument that overlooks the inconsistencies created by using two different data formats in the same article. The purpose of the project is to provide information, not simulate speech, and switching between formats can cause confusion. Other editors did not elaborate on a distinction between prose and table / infobox text, so the blanket statements and misrepresentations statement is completely accurate. Please recognize WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS is an actual Wikipedia guideline and you repeatedly violated it with your "[my] whining", "accept [my] argument is poor", and "lost this debate" comments. No matter how much you dislike my argument, that does not justify attacking me. No matter how much you dislike me pointing out you are not permitted to make personal attacks, you are still violating Wikipedia policy by making personal attacks and will be reported accordingly if you persist. I will not change a consensus, but I will maintain my position and sending a comment to complain about me will not change that. If subject–opponent was truly grammatically incorrect, it would not be anywhere on Wikipedia, but it is. Other editors simply prefer a different format and that's their right, just as I have my right to demonstrate the validity of subject–opponent throughout the article. Bluerules (talk) 03:37, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Bluerules describing your behavior here and evaluating your arguments are not personal attacks. "Simulating speech" is irrelevant because the same standard here applies to written English (as I explained with "natural way of writing or speaking"), and this is indeed a written project. The claim that "If subject–opponent was truly grammatically incorrect, it would not be anywhere on Wikipedia, but it is" is also absurd. Misspellings, grammatical errors, and deprecated formats persist all over Wikipedia; that doesn't make those errors valid and undue for correction. Go ahead and report me for imaginary infractions and see what happens. However, we would be better off if you simply understood that you're engaging in obstructive behavior and wasting a lot of other editors' time by obtusely failing to receive clear arguments. Jweiss11 (talk) 03:56, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • I am suggesting we keep the format consistent. If subject–opponent was the recommended format, stick to subject–opponent. Bluerules (talk) 12:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
    It could still be consistent if consesnsus was to choose one consistent format for prose and another consistent format for tables, even if it is not one's preference for universal consistency. —Bagumba (talk) 04:05, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    And I recognize that's why the consensus has been for "winner–loser in prose" after I brought up the season team articles. Like I said, I'm not going to change the format against the consensus, but I still maintain there is a consistency case for subject–opponent. Bluerules (talk) 16:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
    "Describing behavior" is the very definition of a personal attack. You are supposed to focus on the edits, not the editor, but you chose to target the editor. Pronouncing that I must "accept [my] argument is very poor" and I "lost this debate" are not "evaluating arguments"; they are further attacks that draw focus towards the editor over the edits. You and others made arguments about how the project is supposed to reflect the natural way of speaking, but now you want to claim that's irrelevant. Writing is, of course, the priority, but writing does not always exactly follow speech - nor should it have to when it can provide information in ways more coherently than spoken language can. The notion that subject–opponent not being grammatically incorrect because of its prevalence is "absurd" is a strawman. Subject–opponent has not been deemed an invalid error due for correction because it is all over the team season articles. It doesn't fall under the "misspellings, grammatical errors, and deprecated formats" category because no one is correcting it and it is still used on the project. I would prefer not to report you for blatant infractions, but if you persist in violating WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS and continue to not recognize why your comments fall under this infraction, you will have to educate yourself on this guideline. There is nothing obstructive about voicing my stance. It would be obstructive behavior if I edited against the consensus, but that is not what I'm doing. It's more obstructive to leave comments attempting to force another editor to accept your views. No one is forcing you to write these comments; you chose to engage with me with refutable arguments. If you truly feel your time is being wasted, you can leave this discussion. Bluerules (talk) 13:20, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Winner-loser in prose per Bagumba's reasoning. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:58, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Winner-loser in prose no matter what kind of article it is as that is the natural way of writing or speaking about games scores. In infoboxes and tables, it often makes more sense to use subject–opponent format for consistency between rows and other tables. Infoboxes and tables are not read as flowing language, so the natural way of writing or speaking about games scores is irrelevant there. Jweiss11 (talk) 02:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
Notification of this discussion was left at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League.—Bagumba (talk) 04:15, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Winner-loser for sure. I'd do that everywhere with the exception of a table that specifically had columns for PF and PA. Useight (talk) 16:11, 22 September 2022 (UTC)
  • Thank you to everybody who chimed in. There is a clear consensus that, in prose about American football, the winner-loser format is the style that Wikipedia shall use. —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports articles lacking sources containing significant coverage

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

  • Two points. First, the RfC was limited to sports biographies, not "all sports articles." Second, the template has been nominated for deletion. See TfD discussion here. It would be prudent to await the outcome of the TfD before rolling this template out. Cbl62 (talk) 16:55, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

TFD

You may be interested in this discussion on the deletion of XFL roster templates. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:33, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Orlando Guardians

You may be interested in this deletion discussion on an XFL team. BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

"Super Bowl Champion" for reserves and practice squad

Hi all. Not sure if this has been asked before but just wanted to see what the general consensus is when it comes to adding "Super Bowl Champion" to the career highlights of players who were on the reserves or practice squad list. I know for baseball we only add the title if they were on the specific World Series roster, so I wanted to see if it was different here. Troutfarm27 (Talk) 03:38, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, we do add it to the reserves/practice squad players. BeanieFan11 (talk) 03:41, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
    Got it. Thank you! Troutfarm27 (Talk) 03:47, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello,
Please note that Offensive backfield, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing!
Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments are used by Wikipedia editors to rate the quality of articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project decides to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Reason for Seasons lists containing relocated teams

Hi there, this is just a curious question from someone trying to gain rationale over on ice hockey. Why do the season-by-season records, coaches, and players of NFL teams such as the Las Vegas Raiders, Los Angeles Rams, and Tennesee Titans include their relocated counterparts? Such as the Tennessee Titans including Houston Oilers players and coaches and their records. Why not split the articles? Conyo14 (talk) 07:07, 1 June 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 20:52, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

American football stubs

Wikipedia guidelines were changed early last year to require that all sports biographies have at least one piece of WP:SIGCOV (not counting database entries). In recent months, there have been efforts to draftify en masse sport substubs that do not comply with this requirement. Accordingly, we have begun a campaign to improve American football biographies that could be targeted in a similar RfC. See full list of most vulnerable American football articles here. The list is not intended as criticism of anyone, as such stubs were permitted prior to the change in policy. Instead, the purpose is to encourage each of us to clean up these stubs so as to avoid draftification or deletion. I am hoping that all American football project members will revisit some of these articles to add the required SIGCOV. Thanks, Cbl62 (talk) 01:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

"Template:American football" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Template:American football to the template Template:WikiProject American football has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 August 7 § Surprise WikiProject redirects (A–D) until a consensus is reached. SWinxy (talk) 00:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Roster templates for USFL

Could someone with knowledge of USFL templates please check recent edits in the following articles:

The pattern of using NFL-templates in these articles is suspicious, because USFL-specific templates exist. Courtesy ping: User:Danjobilly1.

I only noticed this, because I was removing these articles from non-article Category:United States Football League (2022) roster templates. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2023 (UTC)

the 2023 rosters were still updating with the current 2024 rosters with the offseason transactions so I used the same template as the ones from 2022 to set the final rosters in place without any of the new transactions. They were the same template as the 2022 ones which is why I used them. Danjobilly1 (talk) 13:38, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

NFL rulebook has moved

The NFL rule book has moved from where the "Motion" article linked to it (http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/24_Penalty_Summary.pdf) in its footnote 7.

I have not searched for other such invalid references, as I am sure that can best be done by an automated procedure.

I recommend that all "external references" to the NFL rule book should use this web page: 

https://operations.nfl.com/the-rules/nfl-rulebook/

which contains a link to a downloadable PDF and presumably will be kept valid more reliably than other sources. Soargain (talk) 22:38, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Bill Ellenbogen

Hi, an editor, Bogens, has contacted me about the Bill Ellenbogen article. He says he is the subject of the article and would like it to be updated using information from a book, Where Have All Our Giants Gone. I don't get a sense that he is doing this for self-promotion reasons. He says he doesn't have the technical skills to add references; he has a CoI in any case. It's not something I can help with, but I thought someone involved in this project might like to have a look. Best wishes, Tacyarg (talk) 16:36, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United States Football League (2022)#Requested move 11 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Football League (2022)#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann(Talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_American_football/Archive_2&oldid=1222056093"