Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:05, 11 July 2005

I have just started this WikiProject based on the standards that I myself have followed when contributing to the NFL articles. However, it is definitely not complete since I have not really been focusing on the playes, coaches, defunct teams, or the Pro Bowl. Feel free to contribute. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 4 July 2005 06:10 (UTC)

Good idea for a Wikiproject. File:Us flag large.png Phoenix2 4th of July! 16:56 (UTC)

Eventually I hope to write season-by-season franchise histories for every team. I got the AFC East done several months ago, and just finished the Pittsburgh Steelers tonight. I probably left out some details here and there (and put too many in in other places), but this should be good enough as a base to work with. Kirjtc2 6 July 2005 04:42 (UTC)

format for team pages

I am very glad this wikiproject is underway. One of the first issues I want to bring up is a feature of the current format for team pages posted on the wikiproject page. This is something I noticed and spurred me to want to create some sort of standard for NFL articles. One of the sections is for "Current players". It used to be called "Current stars" but I changed it because I felt it was too subjective - there were plenty of players listed who were definitely not stars (just-drafted rookies for instance). The problem now is that there seems to be no standard for who is listed under current players. The Packers article, for instance, lists every player on the team roster, including all sorts of undrafted free agents and CFL retreads, even though only a fraction of this bunch have their own articles. The Browns article, on the other hand, lists 11 players in this section.

I propose a general guideline for this section in team articles.

• All players that have articles in wikipedia should be listed
• All players who are starters (24 including kicker and punter) should be listed
• Any players who are not "official" starters but get significant playing time should be listed - for example, most defensive lines employ a heavy rotation that can often lead to seven or eight linemen getting playing time on the field.
• Any notable rookies (first round draft choices for the most part) should be listed.

These are quite broad guidelines that should satisfy all while keeping the list of "current players" encyclopedic. I am guessing that with such criteria about 30-35 players from each team will be listed among "current players."--Sophitus July 5, 2005 06:29 (UTC)

Yes, the formats are quite broad because there are so many users making various additions that I did not decide on a specific format yet. I do think we should have a seperate list for the just the starters.

Another idea I have based on Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Ice Hockey/Team pages format is to have a table of each team's season-by-season record. In fact, I have been working on some tables at User:Zzyzx11/Sandbox/A and User:Zzyzx11/Sandbox/N. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 07:24 (UTC)

There is also an ongoing issue for listing team stars that did not make the NFL Hall of Fame or the team's Hall of Fame. I personally feel that if a person didn't even make their own team's Hall of Fame, they are of little note. But, referring to them as "Not to be Forgotten" sounds very dreary to me. I prefer something along the lines of "Past Stars". Kainaw 5 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

Season-by-season record tables is a fantastic idea and I agree that "Past Stars" is better than "not to be forgotten". Ultimately, which players make such lists as "past stars" or "current players" will be somewhat POV. I don't think there is any way to avoid this without just including everyone, which is clearly not encyclopedic. I think that as long as we assume good faith edits and make sure there are no obviously not notable players, we can maintain good lists. If there are no objections, I will begin editing the "current players" sections of team articles according to the criteria I have listed above.--Sophitus July 5, 2005 21:15 (UTC)

"Main rivals" list

• An anonymous user has entered a "Main rivals" list on all of the team articles. Personally, I find such a list a little POV. But should we keep it or not? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 18:14 (UTC)
  • I saw we should keep it. It is POV, but the entries are mainly accurate and the information is relevant.--Sophitus July 5, 2005 21:19 (UTC)

I disagree. It is POV, and rivals change over time. Perhaps it it was called "historic rivals" or "traditional rivals" that would make a little more sense. --mtz206 July 5, 2005 23:44 (UTC)

Yes, it is POV. I say get rid of it. For example on the Kansas City Chiefs, "Main Rivals: Denver Broncos, Oakland Raiders, St. Louis Rams, San Diego Chargers, San Francisco 49ers" I can somewhat understand you have to list their AFC West division rivals but that is redundant information. In addition, the NFC competitors Rams and the 49ers are hardly their main rivals consider they only play them every 4 years or so. And why are the 49ers listed? Because of Joe Montana? --Krystyn Dominik 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

I agree with removing it. My first guess would be that 99% of the 'rivals' are the other 3 division teams. Beyond that, there are minor rivals that are brought out to give the announcers something to talk about - or just to try and sound cool, like "The battle of the Bays". Since when has Green Bay been all that worried about Tampa Bay? I agree that there are some bitter rivals. Using the KC example above, the primary rival was the Raiders for many years. In the 80s, it became the Broncos. Currently, I think there is more bad blood with the Broncos than any other team, but it isn't like it was when Elway was there and KC had, who... Elvis? Kainaw 6 July 2005 01:01 (UTC)

Team rivals change so often, based on who's hot at the moment. I'm a Patriots fan, and if you asked me ten years ago who our biggest rival was I'd say the Dolphins. Five years ago I'd probably say the Jets. Now? Probably the Colts or Steelers. I feel people would overlook editing a list like this when rivals change like that. I say remove it. Kirjtc2 6 July 2005 01:39 (UTC)

Alright, I've been convinced. "Main Rivals" is a subject too fleeting to properly include in articles. But how about "traditional rivals" as suggested by Mtz206 above. Taking a cue from Significant rivalries in the NFL, "traditional rivals" would include rivalries that are constant and unchanging. Thus, the Packers traditional rivals would be Chicago and Dallas, while the Washington's would be the Cowboys and Giants. This may not be the best proposal, but I put it out there for consideration before we go about deleting the "rivals" section from each team page.--Sophitus July 6, 2005 04:35 (UTC)

Team names

I agree with the 20xx-yy format for playoff games. Also, I feel that there should a format for team names. Over time, teams change cities and names. Because the team page is listed under the current name, it is often easier to use the current name instead of the name of the team when an event occured. For example, the KC Chiefs played their first game at Arrowhead against the StL Cardinals. If you used Arizona Cardinals, it would lose the information that both teams were from Missouri. If you just used St. Louis, someone might think it was the StL Rams. So, I feel that whenever a team name is used, it should be the team name at the time of the event, but link to the current team page (unless there are pages for the team in earlier forms). Kainaw 5 July 2005 19:58 (UTC)

• Oops, I forgot to mention that in the naming conventions because that is what I have been doing all along. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 5 July 2005 21:45 (UTC)

Player numbers

What about player numbers? Player names are often tied to specific numbers, especially active players. Knowing the player's numbers makes it easy to pick out players on a field. At least on the 'current players' list, the players could be listed as: Priest Holmes (31) RB. On a completely different topic, the NFL page doesn't explain the player numbering system and I can't fill it in because I don't know the exact cutoffs. I do know that a player number of 12 or less is a quarterback or kicker and a number higher than 90 is a lineman. That's about it. I've always wanted to know the exact number ranges for all positions. Kainaw 7 July 2005 16:21 (UTC)

The number ranges would be a good thing to add to the NFL article. I don't know it all off the top of my head, but I can remember some numbers. For example, all offensive linemen wear numbers between 50 and 79. However, I don't think we should list numbers alongside players (with the exception of retired numbers). Players' numbers change all the time and it would be difficult to continually update lists, not to mention that for the most part such information is not encyclopedic.--Sophitus July 7, 2005 20:30 (UTC)

Antwaan Randle ...?

Does anybody know the correct spelling of Antwaan Randle El's name. The title of the wikipedia article on him is Antwaan Randle-El, but he is referred to in that article as Antwaan Randle El, without a hyphen. Anybody know the correct way?--Sophitus July 7, 2005 22:11 (UTC)

• NFL.com lists it as "Antwaan Randle El". Zzyzx11 (Talk) 7 July 2005 22:13 (UTC)
  • Therefore, I moved it to that title. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 7 July 2005 22:17 (UTC)

Template:NFL

I was thinking about changing Template:NFL to sort the teams by divisions similar to what Template:NBAteams does (except without the logos). Any thoughts? Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:44, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

• I'm on....a dial-up Internet connection and it takes a while to load those PNG images. I'm against it. :-P There's nothing wrong with the current Template:NFL setup. It loads fast and easily viewable. --Krystyn Dominik 00:10, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
  • Argh, I didn't read carefully. I don't mind if you change the look of the tables similar to the NBA's. --Krystyn Dominik 00:11, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

player articles

I have finished editing the "current players" section for all team articles. I listed all starters as well as other significant contributors, and famous rookies and veterans. Most teams have around 25-35 players listed under this section, which I believe is comprehensive without straying far from what information is encyclopedic.

One thing I noticed while going through the team articles is the abyssmal state of many article on specific players. Many of them are poorly constructed, contain irrelevant information, have terrible grammar and construction, are far too short, and generally represent a poor side of wikipedia.

I have done some editing and revising of these, but it is an immense task. I hope that others will join me. The best strategy is to just go to team pages, look for the "current players" section and go through the blue links until you find an article that is in urgent need of editing. You can also choose some significant players who are redlinked and need to have an article started about them. --Sophitus 22:51, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

• I agree with your suggestions. Is there like an "official" infobox or template for the Player Pages? It seems like some people have already started their own infobox on Misplaced Pages's NFL bio articles e.g., John Elway, Joe Montana, etc., It would be nice if there is consensus what the infobox should look like and contain. --Krystyn Dominik 23:05, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

• WikiProject National Football League
• WikiProjects task lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists