Misplaced Pages

talk:WikiProject American football - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) at 00:06, 29 July 2009 (question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 00:06, 29 July 2009 by The Transhumanist (talk | contribs) (question)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

I have created this WikiProject in order to clean up the football strategy content. We are currently in the building stages. Please use this space to discuss any thing you feel would be relevent to this project and where we want to go with it. --Jayron32 14:54, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

My ideas for this project

OK. I have done some thinking about what this project should entail. Feel free to post your own ideas. Before we get started, we should reach some community consensus on this.

Our goal should be to provide a structure and organization to all of the information we have at wikipedia on American football strategy. My vision is a 3-level structure that looks like the following:

  • Category level-- There should be one category, called "American football strategy". All other that we deal with (American football formations, American football positions, etc.) should be collapsed into this one category.
    • Subject level-- We should be working to write single subject (as opposed to single topic) articles. Thus, the articles should be thing slike "American football positions", "American football formations" etc.
      • Topic level-- Individual topics should be sections within each article outlined above. Thus, "Quarterback" and "Linebacker" will be sub-sections of the article titled "American football positions." The individual articles that exist now should be merged and redirects set up (using the #section tag) to direct searches to the section of main articles.

This organization structure should help reduce the current hodgepodge to a more managable set of articles. As it is right now, certain topics, like say I-formation, have fully explained definitions in 4-5 different articles. We should reduce this to one article, if at all possible. This is only one possibility. I want everyone else that joins this project to give their own opinions on what should happen. Our goal should be to have 10 or so articles, all of which are "Good Article" quality or better, rather than the 100 or so crappy articles we have now.

Other things that need to be done (as I see it)

  • Create a unified style for all articles in the project. Do we write separate articles on offense and defense for each subject, or keep them as sections of one article (I am leaning towards the latter, but not strongly. If the articles become too large, dividing them may make more sense.) Each article should look like it belongs to part of the unified project, and should meet the highest standards of quality as set my the Manual of Style
  • Create a set of graphics to use in each article. I have been using the <code> </code> tags, but it looks cheesy. We should create graphics that fit each article.
  • References, references, references. EACH article should be heavily cross references with well-written external websites. Even if you write information from your own head, go out and find a website that verifies what you have written and reference it in either the references or the external links section. Good wikipedia articles do this, and our project should as well. Our goal should be to provide proof of the truth we write, as well as resources for people who want to get more information themselves. We should establish as canon of good websites, and list them on the main project page, for all of the various editors to use and cite in their own work.

Well, that's what I see. My plan is to do nothing but discuss these point and any others you have foir about 1 week before beginning on teh actual work of the project. I figure 1 week ought to give us enough time to hammer out a consensus on the project, and then we can get to work in earnest on the project. --Jayron32 18:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Lots of good discussion already on this talk page. I've gone ahead and created the Category:American football strategy and begun populating it, although there are still a lot more articles to add and I haven't done any subcategories yet, which as I understand are still up for debate? I'll try to get to some more things, and feedback, later on. --Daniel11 23:25, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Uploading diagrams

I have created a BUNCH of .PNG files to use a graphics in these articles. I am in the process of slowly uploading them (I have dial-up. It takes time.) I have started with Formation (American football). Check it out there and make any comments/suggestions to let me know what you all think. If these look good, I would like to use them in ALL articles, so we have a consistant look & feel to all of our articles. --Jayron32 17:57, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Some ideas

I have put some thought into Jayron's idea above for organization and like it. Here's how I envision the structure: 

                                (a) "American football strategy" 
                                              |
        -----------------------------------------------------------------------
        |                 |                |                |                 |
     (b)American     (c) American     (d) American     (e) American     (f) American 
        football         football         football         football         football
        positions        offensive        defensive        Special          Offensive
          |              formations       formations       teams            plays
          |                 |                |                |                 |
       -------------     -----------      ----------      ----------      ---------------
      (g)QB, WR, etc   (h)pro-set,I, etc. (i)4-3,3-4,etc  (j)kickoff,etc  (k)running, passing plays

My ideas(along the same lines as Jayron's) are thus:

(a) "American football strategy" becomes a much tighter article (and also a category) with less specific examples of strategy- the "meat" of the category goes into the second tier-which are the "subject" articles. btw, I'm not sure if I like the title "American football strategy." Can anyone think of a better name ? For the time being, I'll assume that is a working title. (b) Obviously, there has to be an article on positions. Alternately, I had thought about a merge with ALL offensive positions going into (c), defensive positions going into (d) and kickers, etc going into (e). Now I am leaning to an article on positions (although a brief description along with a link to article (b) will be needed in articles (c), (d), and (e). For the third "tier", all the current articles on those topics will be merged and redirects placed.

I'll wait for input on this suggestion, in the meantime, I am writing down a list of the football articles I find so that no matter what the Project community decides, we can swiftly act on the decisions made and merge, redirect, etc. in a semi-orderly way. American football here is currently a mess (some would say clusterf___)...

Jcam 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Another thought

After some more thought, I have decided that maybe it would be a better idea to include offensive formations and plays into Offensive philosophy, and defensive formations and schemes into Defensive philosophy. Jcam 16:42, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Final Thoughts for today

After further review...

Today I went through the list of articles and put down what I think needs to be done with them (see here ). Here's some final thoughts:

(1) The main subject articles which we should have for American football strategy are (imho): 1. American football positions 2. Offensive philosophy (American football) 3. Defensive philosophy (American football) 4. Scoring (American football) 5. Special Teams 6.American football rules (2) This is what should be done with those articles:

  • American football strategy- Should be tightened up, brief description of categories of other articles. If article were printed out, no more than 2 or 3 pages.
  • American football positions- listed by offense, then defense, then special teams. In depth information.
  • Offensive philosophy (American football)- should have sections on general strategy, positions(briefly), offensive formations(in depth), plays (further categorized into run and pass, possibly a section on trick plays).
  • Defensive philosophy- should have sections on general strategy, positions(brief), formations, special formations, schemes, etc.
  • Scoring- touchdown, field goal, safety, extra point, two-point conversion... in depth on when each happens etc.
  • Special teams- sections on field goals, punting, receiving, etc. section on trick plays on special teams.
  • Rules- Extend, improve per Manual of Style.
  • Glossary- complete with updated redirects to sections of articles above as applicable.

(3) Most of the other articles on single topics should be merged (with a redirect) into one of the above categories. Some of those will eventually be rewritten(and perhaps should), but at least a "top down" approach will be taken, instead of the haphazard one now. But it should be a complete article- if for example, the article for "line plunge" can't be written so that it fills a page when printed out, it should not be rewritten. For the most part, articles on positions, ways of scoring, plays, formations, schemes, etc should be merged(taking what is good from them) with a redirect to the subject article(which will be much improved hopefully.

actions taken today: I will let this sit for a few days, wait for comments, and go from there. I do; however, plan on merging Gridiron football with American football as these terms are the same.

Jcam 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets throw some more stuff against the wall and see what sticks

Good ideas all, Jcam. Some more stuff to consider:

  • 1) I have created graphics for a LOT of stuff. It took only a few hours on Paint to put them together. Check out the formations article for an example of the style of the graphics. I am working on uploading them. Right now, I have graphics for ALL of the following bits:
    • All formations currently in the formation article
    • All standard positions on offense and defense (I-form and 4-3 base sets with positions highlighted in yellow)
    • Many standard running plays and receiver routes with arrows and diagrams and such (again from the I-form base set)
    • Many standard defensive schemes (man, zone, cover 2, cover 3, etc.), color coded and such (based on the 4-3 base set)
    • Other graphics to highlight key concepts (the line of scrimmage, the box, the pocket).
I have a dial-up connection, so I am slowly working on uploading these. The point to make here is, with these graphics, the load times and page sizes could be huge if we don't split into "Offense" "Defense" and "Special Teams" for each major article. Would still only leave 10 or so articles, again a major improvement.
  • 2) We need to hammer out a naming convention for the articles and stick to it. I tend to shy away from parenthetical names. I think we should consider naming all articles American Football XXXXXXXX where XXXXXXX is the focus of the article (Special Teams, Plays, Offensive positions, whatever). The master article tentatively titled American Football Strategy should have headings that reflect the main article titles with short synopses and use the {{main|}} tag to redirect people to the expanded articles.
  • 3) Try this on for size: Positions (divided into 2 articles: offense and defense); Formations (divided into offense and defense); Offensive Plays (for individual plays & pass routes); Defensive Schemes(coverages, rush schemes, stunts, etc.); Offensive Strategies (for overall offenive strategies like West Coast); Defensive Strategies (likewise) Special Teams; Rules; Field.

So how does all of that sound? --Jayron32 19:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how much effort those graphics entailed, but it would probably be easier if you used a more sophisticated graphics package so that you could modify and reuse the basic elements. I haven't used Paint in ages so I don't even know what it's capable of, but I'd imagine it's far more difficult than with other programs, including free software. Also, perhaps some other type of software would be even more effective than graphics design software, but I'm not that familiar with it. --Daniel11 03:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, with Paint it took 2 hours to make about 60 pictures. Thats 2 minutes each. I just made the master file with all of the position circles and the cut and paste. It was super fast. A more sophisticated graphics package may make some nicer graphics, but I'd have to either a) buy it or b) download it and ALSO c) learn it. Paint did what I needed it to do. If you want to design better looking graphics feel free. I wouldn't be hurt. --Jayron32 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the way they look -- it's great that you're able to do that, and quickly, with Paint! --Daniel11 06:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears my template may be too late, but I'll try anyways. I put together a template at User:Mecu/FootballFormationTest where you can customize the formation for display for each formation you wish to show. However, looking at the photo work that the above has done, his might be better. However, if Jayron32 would make each position it's own circles, I could modify the template to make the markings larger as well as use these images, and then no one would have to make custom images if they wanted to show a new formation. Also, it would provide a uniform look to the formation display, since currently the Formation (American football) has different graphics. So, let me know if this sounds like an option. Lastly, when uploading images you created, it's better to upload them to Commons, not Misplaced Pages. --MECU≈talk 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I know almost nothing about American football but was intrigued by accounts of the Fiesta Bowl. Most of the newspaper sites I checked on-line explained some of the trick plays in words, but a novice could not understand them. Finally one of the many Wiki links showed a diagram of another trick play. I followed Wiki from there and like Jayron32's graphics under Formation -- only wish I had found the Formation article sooner (no, not a Oklahoma pun). Just my 2¢. Oh, and the visuals are helpful for use with non-English speakers. 69.150.73.155 14:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

More cleanup of the Formation (American football) article

I cleaned up the images some more, formatting the captions in the "wiki" way, and cleaned up the writing some. Let me know what you think. Feel free to clean up the writing some more too. --Jayron32 05:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello

Just saw this as a new project on the directory. I noticed that you don't have any templates just yet, which is too bad. I hope that you find {{American football}} and {{User WP American football}} at least decent first attempts at such. I also wanted to ask you whether you would have any interest in engaging in assessments as per Misplaced Pages:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment. It is some work, but it also allows you to keep track of any changes made in articles in the scope of your project and gives you an idea which articles are where in terms of existing quality. It also could help in determining which would benefit most from being worked on. Yes, I am a shill for the Version 1.0 people, but I am such of my own free will. If you have any interest in engaging in asessments, please feel free to contact me and I can try to help you a little in setting them up. Good luck with the project in any event. Badbilltucker 16:21, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


General comment

First, let me say that this comment should not be taken as an insult. I'm not pointing a finger at any individual or group for this problem. That being said, I use Misplaced Pages all the time. Of all the articles I visit, the worst ones are usually with regard to sports. Since I watch professional basketball and football the most, these are the ones I notice the most. It's obviously a giant undertaking to attempt to remove all the POV comments from the sports articles, but I just thought I would point out that many of the NFL and NBA bios as well other articles regarding these sports contain comments so POV that they're not only unencyclopedic but potentially misleading and erroneous.

I just edited the linebacker article which contained the blatantly POV statement that middle linebackers are usually the best player on the team. Trouble like this seems to be in way too many sports articles. Sorry I can't be constructive enough to actually offer a solution or help out more as no one likes a "complainer". Yet, there is my compaint. Chicken Wing 08:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Your complaint is valid; no one will hold it against you. No, that's certainly a problem on Misplaced Pages: articles with controversial topics that people don't watch a lot tend to, well, stink. Patstuart 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Avion Black

I was looking over Category:Candidates for speedy deletion when I found a very short stub article about Avion Black. A quick Google search shows he plays (or at least did at some point) for the Minnesota Vikings. I am not certain about his notability, however, which is why the article was nominated for deletion. If anyone could expand this article, that would be great. On the other hand, if it can be decided that this is a non-notable player, than the article can be deleted. Thanks. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Misplaced Pages Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Article tagging

Once I noticed your WikiProject, I:

Hope I was helpful :) —Disavian (/contribs) 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

NFL Draft Pages

I've noticed the NFL Draft pages are often inconsistent. While most years had 12 (or even 17) Rounds of the Draft and now I believe it's Seven, many of the draft pages are 1st round only, or all 12 (or even 17) rounds poorly formatted. I've been working on several off line and have recently joined this project so I've started to work on a more detailed version at User:Slysplace/nfl draft template. Please remember it's a work in progress and for the sake of Consistency all input is appreciated at User talk:Slysplace/nfl draft template. Please note I've also included a sandbox area where I am working on 1 draft at a time, but what you see may not necessarily be what I have off line. ] 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've successfully updated all NFL Draft Pages (1938 - 1999) to the same style as the featured articles of the NFL Draft (2003,2004,2005 etc...) Personally I like the 2002 style thats very similar but Sortable and if no objections I will update all of the existing wikitables to be sortable. I'm leary of touching those feature articles without a general concensus of approval. Also I propose a replacement of the succession box with the {{NFL drafts}} Template. Iv'e opened discussion here as well as my own draft talk page. Slysplace 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

What on earth is this user doing?

Should I revert all these changes? Discussion is at the College Football WikiProject. Thanks! Johntex\ 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yet more player stub types

The offensive linemen stub type is very large, and needs to be split. This could be done by position, or by "era" (that springs to mind, at least). Please see this proposal. Alai 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Formations

It's becoming a standard on Misplaced Pages to use the SVG format wherever possible. If we're going to be uploading images that display what formations look like, there are going to be requests to convert them to the SVG format. I'll look into this more tomorrow (it's terribly late and I need some sleep) and I'll leave another comment here to let everyone know what's acceptable and all that. Wlmaltby3 – /contribs 07:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

suitable for article?

is this suitable for an article? --Fredrick day 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

In your scope?

My brother happened across the article Steagles; it seems a little fishy to me (like hoax maybe), so I thought I would drop your project a line to see if this was a real time or just someone trying to pull a fast one on Misplaced Pages's servers. Also, if this is/was a real team, would ya'll add the correct wikiproject templates to the talk page? Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

---Didn't know where to put this, but you can't say that the play "inspired" the other plays listed, that would assume all players and staff on the field of one team had the original in mind. The article reads "similar plays" in the heading, but the wording on some of the individual explainations is not accurate. -Anon$

Diagrams - please verify

Can someone take a look at Image:American football Gaps and holes.svg that I made for American_football_plays#Offensive_Plays? I made it simply from the text-based diagram that was in the article. If this looks good, then I can redo some of the other diagrams as SVG ones. --BigΔT 17:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but where's 8 9 and 0? I've never heard of a "D-gap" though, though that could just be my ignorance. It might be better to separate the O and D terms, so that the D can then include alignment (0 1 2 2i 3 4 4i 5 6 6i 7, etc). Also, this isn't a "standard", just a custom. Some teams do it L54321012345R and other ways are possible, though this way is probably the most common. also, the WRs are too close, and aren't really needed for gap information. You would then need to put in LB/DBs to balance them. Perhaps the green squares could be moved on the offensive side of the line... that is, below where the blue circles for the line are? Might make it more clear then too. Just trying to add some helpful ideas, I think it's good overall. MECU≈talk 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving / renaming NFL Draft

I have posted the following comment in User talk:Koavf as I can not find justification of this users move of an entire series of list style pages. 

 I see you have moved all of the NFL Draft pages to National Football League Draft
 . 
 I can not locate discussion to justify this move of an entire series, however I can say that after countless hours of 
 personally repairing the series of pages full of redirects you have just created several more. I have 
 edited the NFL Draft Template accordingly however now the task of cleaning up 
 several if not all of the NFL Draft pages, Player pages, and NFL Articles which linked to these 
 Draft Pages remains and will not be easily edited by a single template. Can you please cite discussion 
 that warranted this move or justifies it? If so, my apologies, if not I encourage you to revert the moves 
 or help with the massive endeavor required in the cleanup of these redirects. Slysplace |  21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I overly concerned about the amount of possible redirect's? Should these moves be undone or the task of cleanup commence? Slysplace | 21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Brief rejoinder Here is what I posted on Slyspace's talk:
" moved them in accordance with similar examples (e.g. United Nations Security Council, not UN Security Council or UNSC.) If the main article is at "National Football League" then I figured all such articles containing "NFL" in the title should be consistently moved with the main title's name. Exceptions include NFL Blitz, for instance, whose name is just that. As for the NFL draft redirects, I sincerely apologize for the hassle. I personally looked at the "What links here" for every move, and fixed several hundred double redirects. I found several of the NFL draft redirects after the fact, when I accidentally looked at "What links here" for the article NFL Draft itself. Somehow, these did not show up after I initially moved them..."
I absolutely agree that double redirects are a hassle and should be avoided, so I went about doing so to the best of my ability. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've found two simple fixes so far to ease my concerns of the multiple redirects, 1st I edited the NFL Draft Template which removed 67 redirects from every page in the series, 2nd I've edited the Player Infobx template, which should resolve about 70% of the redirects on player pages (specifically & obviously 100% of the player info boxes). Now all that remains are redirects in the opening article statements, and from what I've seen the minor majority of player pages mention their draft specifically within the article. But there will still be some redirects out there to clean up. Slysplace | 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
it appears a secondary edit to the template was also required and is now Fixed. Slysplace | 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And yet one more template --- The draft stub template- FIXED ... might as well live with the move tat this point. Slysplace | 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


I've only just now found out about all these moves by Koavf, and I have to say, the moves concerning the NFL articles have been horrible. The draft is almost always referred to as the NFL Draft and not the National Football League draft. The most common name should be used, regardless if it is the most proper or not. China is named so, yet its official name is the People's Republic of China. I know this is a little different in terms of abreviations, yet the same logic applies. NFL Draft, NFL Playoffs, NFL-AFL merger are all the most used phrases for each topic, not National Football League Playoffs, etc, etc. The same argument applies to the NBA articles, but since this is the football WikiProject, I won't argue much for that here. Pepsidrinka 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

I believe the cleanup is complete espcially with regards to those edits I tried eraly on to resolve the redirects. All tempaltes have been either reverted or re-edited to the original format. The entire NFL Draft and NFL Season series has been cleaned up and re edited to the original NFL style it was previously. Hopefully I did not miss any of the articles I previously attempted to edit to accommodate the move. Slysplace | 01:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

MOVED NFL - AFC - NFC etc...

I may have been premature on my acceptance of the page moves to 'full names by User:Koavf, I believe I've cleaned up the entire NFL drafts series but I find every edit I make reveals another 100 required, the NFL Seasons Series may be now in worse shape as they link to several AFC or NFC pages which are also affected. I've so far edited 7 templates because of these page moves, and manually edited several pages but this is more than a one man task and obviously to late to revert.

National Indoor Football League

This article is being heavily editwarred over, with vague claims of it being defunct or fraudulent or the like being thrown around. I've knocked it back and tidied it up, but I know next to nothing about the subject. Could someone who understands this sort of thing look into it? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 21:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello

I'm joining. I am going to spend sometime cleaning up the format and layout of the homepage, if anyone has anythoughts or doesn't like something, just comment here and we'll get it worked out! Jmfangio 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguation names?

Is there a good reason for putting "(American football)" after every single article in Category:American football positions? While "Center" obviously needs disambiguating (just about every sport has it), the majority of the positions in American football are unique to American football and don't need to be disambiguated. We don't use parenthetical names when we don't have to. For example, Frank Beamer is just Frank Beamer, not Frank Beamer (American football). There's nothing wrong with a redirect from the disambiguation name since it could stop someone from accidentally creating an article on the subject not realizing that it already exists ... but the main article long snapper ought to be named long snapper. Am I missing something? --B 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

Variations

It would be nice to put a section about other variations of American football such as Arena, six-man, etc. or at least links to other pages about them Biglu30 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Greg Biekert

I found Greg Biekert on the uncategorized page and it looks like there are several past versions which had proper categories and a proper looking article and then there some vandalism as well in past versions. I'm not sure what all fits, so if someone would like to take a look at it, be my guest. DandyDan2007 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

CFD notice

See related discussion on a category here. heqs ·:. 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Discussion on use of logos

Please see Misplaced Pages talk:Non-free content#Logo inclusion in football club season infoboxes and contribute to the discussion, if you wish. Best, Johntex\ 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed recategorisation of team season articles

I propose a change to the categorisation of the American football team season articles. Currently we have the following hierarchy:

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

Category:1960 American Football League season by team
1960 Dallas Texans season
1960 Oakland Raiders season
etc
Category:1961 American Football League season by team
1961 New York Titans season
1961 Buffalo Bills season
etc

I propose that this be changed to (redlinks indicate new categories):

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

Category:American Football League seasons by team
Category:1960 American Football League season by team
1960 Dallas Texans season
1960 Oakland Raiders season
etc
Category:1961 American Football League season by team
1961 New York Titans season
1961 Buffalo Bills season
etc

We also currently have:

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

1956 Chicago Bears season
1957 Chicago Bears season
1958 Chicago Bears season
etc
2000 Green Bay Packers season
2001 Green Bay Packers season
2002 Green Bay Packers season
etc

which I propose be changed to:

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

Category:Chicago Bears seasons
1956 Chicago Bears season
1957 Chicago Bears season
1958 Chicago Bears season
etc
Category:Green Bay Packers seasons
2000 Green Bay Packers season
2001 Green Bay Packers season
2002 Green Bay Packers season
etc

Any objections? I think these are fairly sensible, straightforward and uncontroversial changes and normally I would just be bold and go ahead and make then, but it affects a lot of articles, so I thought I'd ask first. DH85868993 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I went ahead and did it. DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks.

To whoever added BAFL (British American Football League) to WP:AMF :) . Man from the Ministry (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Single-wing formation article requests input

I have expanded this article as far as I can. I would like help to improve the quality of this page. Thanks.Bill Spencer (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please place a link here for ease of assesing? Thanks so much! On a different note I posted a lot of disscussions threads on my page and I would love if anyone would like to debate the things that I have posted? Thanks!Historybuffc13 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting to link the article. I was looking for editors for Single-wing formation. Bill Spencer (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

All American Football League players

This non-notable league which is hardly a blip on the radar of football fans, is supposed to start sometime this spring. Although I can buy that the league and its teams meet notability requirements, what about individual players, such as Davin Dennis? I'm considering listing him for AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed semi-pro football project

There is currently a proposed project at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Semi-pro football to focus on those articles which specifically deal with content related to semi-pro football leagues and teams. Anyone interested in working in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Three-and-out

Can somebody from this project please put this stub on their watchlist. Someone who isn't satisfied with a mere one article for their film is over-writing it with content unrelated to American Football. Thanks. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The same article is at Three and Out, hopefully they'll be happy with just one article. May need to do more disambiguation stuff with this though. MECU≈talk 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Notability discussion invitation

The Misplaced Pages:WikiProject College football project is having a discussion of college football player notability in reference to professional football leagues. All members of your project are invited to join in on the discussion at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject College football#Players notability expansion?.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:56, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Ken Hall

Would anyone here be willing to tackle (no pun intended) this article? I was in contact with the article's creator but I can't seem to find the time to devote to cleaning this up. It basically just needs citation and a little cleanup of the prose. He is supposedly statistically the greatest high school football player of all time, so I assume that the citations should be relatively easy to come by. Thanks. howcheng {chat} 22:31, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 298 articles are assigned to this project, of which 93, or 31.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 14 July 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. More than 150 projects and work groups have already subscribed, and adding a subscription for yours is easy - just place the following template on your project page:

{{User:WolterBot/Cleanup listing subscription}}

If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page; I'm not watching this page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Invitation to notability discussion

WP:CFB invites all interested Wikipedians to participate in the general player notability discussion going on right now. The question at hand is, "what kind of guidelines can be set up to help clarify notability of active college football players?"--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

WP:NFCC

Following the nomination of the Nashville sound as a Featured article candidate, the uniforms have been changed to a GFDL compatiable format (Nashville_Sounds#Uniforms). I think this innovation should be adopted by this project, as the current use of non-free content for uniforms is a significant bar to any team artilces being rated good, or featured standard Fasach Nua (talk) 10:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

AFD Discussion

There is a WP:AFD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Walter J. West that is related to American football. Editors in your project may wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:03, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

There are two more AFD's which might interest the members of this project; Chattahoochee Valley Vipers and AIFL Ghostchasers. Thanks. Patken4 (talk) 19:33, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Moving football player articles

Please see Tavix (talk · contribs)'s contributions. Is there a consensus to move these articles? Corvus cornixtalk 02:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Fine. If nobody cares, then so be it. Corvus cornixtalk 04:18, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Large number of AfD's in progress

There are (at present count) 58 pages up for deleletion in AfD Discussions at the College Football Project. Since your project is listed as a related project, your project members may wish to participate. Please review Articles & Pages being considered for deletion immediately.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:26, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2002 Mountain West Football Season

Hello,

User:Stifle is attempting to set the precedent that college football conference season articles should be deleted as unencyclopedic. Your comments would be appreciated at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2002 Mountain West Football Season.

Thank you. SashaNein (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All inclusive infobox

I have created an infobox for active American football players, that is inclusive of all the major football leagues. It includes entry and debut information on af2, Arena Football League, National Football League, oh, and the Canadian Football League. As well, it contains draft information for the NFL and CFL. It also includes a place to list the players high school, which then has a place for awards, and highlights. Then the college section is the same as before, except it has it's own highlights and awards section. As does the professional section (originally the default section). It also includes six stat labels for the AFL, NFL, CFL and af2, in alphabetical order. As well as, an expanded external stats link section, to decrease the number of links in the external section. Not to mention the external links section is placed in alphabetical order, for the most part, not to mention a neatly organized hour glass shape, which was mostly by luck. Crash Underride 18:25, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

It's at Template:Infobox American football active. Crash Underride 19:33, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Naming

I was doing sports trading card articles and I had a question about what to properly name the sections so it would be suitable for worldwide readers. For football cards I have tried naming the sections just 'Football' but I have also tried Football(American). I did this to differentiate between soccer cards which I happened to title Football(Association). So I was wondering if it would be best to use 1. Football(American)/Football(Association) 2. Football/Soccer 3. American Football/Association Football or some other combination. Any suggestions? Libro0 (talk) 19:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Friendly Notice of an Article for Deletion

The article Paul LaVinn is being considered for deletion. You may participate in the discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Paul LaVinn.

This notice is intended to make editors aware of the discussion and to help make Misplaced Pages a better place, not to influence the discussion in question in any way. Please notify the discussion group that you came to the group from this notice. If you feel this notice is a violation of Misplaced Pages:Canvassing please let the posting editor know.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:36, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Major Notability Discussion

ATTENTION WP:ATHLETE is being re-written. There is a very big discussion here. The re-writing is focusing mainly on amateur athletes. You may well wish to participate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:50, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

American football positions

I think that on the article American football positions it should explain about the Athlete position, namely in high school football, where you have one player play, say Quarterback and Cornerback. Crash Underride 20:53, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Request for comment on use of team colors in sports infoboxes

Please stop by and voice your opinion in the ongoing discussion on the use of team colors in sports infoboxes. --Gman124 14:49, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Disambiguation by league or position

Hey guys,

Let's say we have three players all named Michael Johnson. One has played mostly offensive lineman, one has played mostly defensive lineman, and one has played mostly defensive back. Also, these three same players, one has played mostly in the National Football League, one has played mostly in the Canadian Football League, and one has played mostly in the Arena Football League.

I think it makes more sense to disambiguate the three players by the league in which they spent most of their careers instead of the position they played most of the career. My reasoning is that a difference in league is a greater distinction then a difference in position. Thus, the distinction between the players will be better recognizable, especially by non-football people who are not that familiar with positions.

I'm sorry if this was brought up somewhere else and discussed already. But I was unable to find this sort of discussion. Thanks for your input, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 03:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is if a player has mostly played in a particular league. When it comes to sport bios, the convention seems to be to disambiguate by year of birth - as a random exmaple, see David_Bishop_(disambiguation) to see what I mean. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:37, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Disambiguating by year of birth is a bad idea especially if they lived in the same era. It assumes readers will know the birthday of the person he or she wants to read about. What's important is that the disambiguation be something distinct, like a league. The David_Bishop_(disambiguation) scheme is not the greatest, but it doesn't look like they played in different leagues so I don't know if there were better ways to disambiguate. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 12:54, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Recent Edit to Women's football team page Tennessee Valley Tigers

I'm not on this project, but I have an inquiry. The Tennessee Valley Tigers was recently edited to remove columns with game times from the 2009 schedule table. Is this part of this project? Is Wiki moving towards a standardized format? I have edited the sports table to again include game times as well as game themes. I don't want to step on toes, but I feel that that is pertinent information that needs to be in the table. Also, the preseason game was removed from the table. I would just like to know why those items were removed if they were done as part of the American Football WikiProject. Thank you for your time. CTG —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrmsnTydGrl (talk • contribs) 22:27, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

If are anything to go by, it seems adding kickoff times is the standard, at least for American football teams (it seems soccer team pages don't have kickoff times on them). Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:55, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

AFD discussion

There is AFD discussion at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/UFL New York/Hartford that this related to American football. Add your comments to the discussion if you want to participate. Patken4 (talk) 20:57, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Famers in each Super Bowl

In the infobox for each World Series we've added a section for future Hall of Famers who participated. For example, in 1911 World Series it lists:

  • Athletics: Connie Mack (mgr.), Frank Baker, Chief Bender, Eddie Collins, Eddie Plank. Giants: John McGraw (mgr.), Rube Marquard, Christy Mathewson.

I don't have the time to do it, but I hope that someone in this Project can take it upon themselves to do the same thing for the Super Bowl infoboxes. Kingturtle (talk) 17:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Tons of new stubs

There are a lot of one-sentence stubs being created today due to the 2009 draft. There should be stub tags and unsourced tags added to all those which are appropriate, or they need to be expanded. Who then was a gentleman? (talk) 23:11, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to WP:ATHLETE

There is a proposed change to WP:ATHLETE found here. Interested individuals are invited to comment. Grsz 17:37, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport

I've started a discussion on the guidelines of Template:Current sport and their application here, for those who are interested. --Conti|✉ 15:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


Question regarding Most Consecutive Starts by a quarterback (NFL)

An interesting discussion has taken place on the article for Most Consecutive Starts by a quarterback (NFL). As you may be aware, the current record holder is Brett Favre. He has started every single game since 1992, up through and including the last game of last season. At the end of last season he retired. When I viewed this page the record was listed as 1992-2008 instead of 1992-Present. I made the modification and it has pingponged back and forth. What is the reasonable resolution of this issue?

Official NFL statistics (and common sense) indicate that the record is considered active until a player misses the first game (since at any time he could come back and continue his active streak). Generally, this is not an issue that has too much importantance, but Favre has signaled a willingness to return to football next season (thus never missing a game which would keep the record in tact). He has even asked to be removed from the "retired" list and listed, instead, as a free agent. I have cited records (http://www.pro-football-reference.com/leaders/gs_active.htm) which prove my point that the NFL considers this record "Active" and therefore the record should be listed as "Present", but people with differing opinions (but no citations) keep changing the article and requested that it be locked yesterday (which it was). What to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanrworrell (talk • contribs) 06:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 22:01, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Football disambiguation

Requesting comments at Talk:Football#Disambig for a proposed rework of Football. Regards, jnestorius 12:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability question

Hi, I work for the Articles for Creation group here at Misplaced Pages, helping IP users create articles. In that regard I stumbled upon Misplaced Pages talk:Articles for creation/Alex Tanney and well I wonder if he's notable enough for an article to be created, I figured I'd ask the people who'd know the best, this project. Is he notable enough for an article? MPJ-DK (talk) 09:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The most relevant guideline for sportsmen is WP:ATHLETE, and he fails this criterion as he hasn't yet played at a professional level (NCAA is stricly amateur). However, if there enough published sources out there which provide more than a passing mention of him (in other words, match reports wouldn't be enough), he would pass Misplaced Pages's general notability guidelines. This story in particular which details his MWC honours and records certainly seems to establish his notability. So my personal opinion is yes, this player IS notable enough. Bettia (bring on the trumpets!) 09:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Are there enough articles on this subject to justify an Outline of American football?

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist    00:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

P.S.: See Misplaced Pages's collection of outlines at WP:OOK.

Category: