Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Including college team number (in infobox, or elsewhere)

Hello, is there a consensus on whether it's acceptable (wrong? encouraged?) to add a player's college number to the infobox - I added a few like so:

College: Michigan State (2020–2023; #99)

My edits were reverted. Is there a reason not to include this? I'm open to any ideas regarding placement or formatting, as I'm just interested in preserving this information somewhere easier than checking each player's team roster. Brad (talk) 05:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I feel like if you do it for one, you have to do it for all. Maybe that’s why it got reverted. It wouldn’t look right for it to be on one player's page or a few and not all the others. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 06:20, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Personally I don't see it as being relevant enough for inclusion in the infobox of an NFL player. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

And that. The only time it’s worth mentioning in the infobox is if the college retires their jersey number. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:38, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Adding jersey numbers next to year numbers as illustrated causes a lot of numerical clutter that is difficult and awkward to read. Portions of MOS:NUMNOTES indicate that adjacent numbers of different values are generally to be avoided. From a formatting standpoint without opining on the merits, if this is to be included, it should have a separate parameter. Or alternatively, it could be placed before the school name. Again, this is just a formatting/MOS comment, and not an endorsement of the proposal. Left guide (talk) 02:22, 26 April 2025 (UTC)

Inconsistent application of nationalities in lead sentences?

Recently, I did a double-take when reading Andrew Mukuba, whose lead sentence calls him "American." This stuck out to me because, per the sources in the article, Mukuba was born in Zimbabwe to parents who were Congolese refugees; the family immigrated to the U.S. after being granted asylum when Mukuba was nine years old. But I recalled a player with similar circumstances whose lead sentence does not call him American. Kwity Paye was born in a refugee camp in Guinea; his mother is Liberian and had fled the civil war in that country. Paye and his mother immigrated to the U.S. when Paye was six months old. The lead sentence of Paye's article simply calls him "Liberian."

Then there's Andrei Iosivas, born in Japan to a Filipino mother and a Romanian father, who immigrated to the U.S. as a teenager. He's called "Romanian-Filipino-American" in his lead sentence, though old versions of the page call him "Japanese-born American".

I've reviewed MOS:NATIONALITY which says that the nationality in the lead should usually be the country, region, or territory where the person is currently a national or permanent resident and that neither previous nationalities nor the country of birth should be mentioned in the opening paragraph unless relevant to the subject's notability. My reading of this is that all three of these players should be called (only) "American" because they are all residents of the United States whose notability does not come from the nationalities inherited from their parents or their birthplaces. (Paye, at least, is a naturalized citizen.) Does anyone disagree? OceanGunfish (talk) 14:27, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

My general statement would be that anyone not either born to an American parent or in the US should be cited that they are American. For Iosivas' page, Essentially Sports is not reliable. For other countries, it's not a given that being born in a country or to a parent with citizenship of a country automatically means the child is a citizen. It varies by country. As for excluding citizenship in the lead, use your best judgement. However, invariably on basketball pages, some "patriot" will add a "missing" country, even if it's trivial to their notability. Good luck. —Bagumba (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

WT:MOSBIO notified. Left guide (talk) 16:42, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Not unrelated to the present discussion is the on-going discussion Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Biography#The_Catalan/Spanish_label_again_in_Catalan-related_biographies There are a few existing RfC results that have concluded that a description like "Catalan politician" are preferred in the lead, though "Catalan" refers to Spain. Many argue that since the politician (for example) was of Spanish nationality, they should be described as "Spanish politician". This may be in contradiction with cited sources and the preferred identity of the politician, who might prefer the identity "Catalan". (An American Indian politician may prefer the label Navajo politician.) These are quite controversial issues in Spain. My own interpretation is that going strictly by legal citizenship is a superficial approach, and editors should try to better reflect the identity of the subject. Not to mention it is often better writing; describing the subject more efficiently. Anyways, this particular apparent consensus would seem to be in contradiction to the guidance described above (though I didn't read it carefully). The US is perhaps unique being a nation of immigrants; yet everyone is an (Ethnicity-)American (generally, including football players) Bdushaw (talk) 18:33, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

... yet everyone is an (Ethnicity-)American (generally, including football players): Except generally, ethnicity should not be in the lead (MOS:ETHNICITY). —Bagumba (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes - I can see that could be a problem. These questions are not easy to resolve definitively and generally. Bdushaw (talk) 19:07, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

I've given quite a bit of thought to labels in leads (see Wikipedia:Crime labels), and I've thought more about the problem posed above. Three guiding principles could be: "is the label consistent with the notability of the subject?", "is using the label good writing?", and "is the label more misleading than helpful?", in addition to the usual "is the label supported by reliable sources and the article text". In my view, the latter, while important, is not definitive; issues of UNDUE, etc. In the specific example above, one would have to ask, e.g., does the subject continue his ties to Zimbabwe? Or does he give Zimbabwe no further thought? If there is still a strong association, then perhaps "Zimbabwe" in the lead is appropriate, if not, then not. I would disagree with any hard and fast rule that says one has to specify the legal citizenship of a subject as a label; that has far too much potentiality to be misleading. Then there are nuanced questions of whether the label refers to a strictly legal fact, or whether it is a strong cultural identity (ethnicity?). In terms of good writing, labels are just shortcuts which can be easily misunderstood, or understood in a surprising variety of ways, unintended by the editor. They are a little dangerous. For nationality, as suggested above by Bagumba, it can be difficult to establish definitively the nationality of a subject. It is unclear to me that Mukuba is formally an American citizen (Does he still hold a work visa? Has he gone through the citizenship process?). I've been looking at the article Xavier Cugat and I have no idea what his citizenship status(es) were; he's called "Spanish" in the lead...that's not true; he's American, if anything. Also in terms of good writing, stacking labels can lead to problems, e.g., "American professional football player"...does that mean he is an American AND a professional football player? or a player for American professional football? (I once read on a package of cat food the label "Professional Cat Food", which I thought hilarious.) In the example above, I suspect the solution is to avoid the nationality, something like: "..a football safety [ok. What's a safety? Is "professional" really needed?] for the National Football League originally from Zimbabwe". It is often better to just avoid the label, and spend the words in a brief phrase later that clearly specifies the situation. That's the general result where crime labels are concerned. My ruminations. Bdushaw (talk) 14:39, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

We might as well just start rolling a dice. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:23, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

Can't argue with WO-9 there. Maybe we can remove professional and I can get a few more hundred edits in. I spoke about 'salmon' months ago. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:14, 4 May 2025 (UTC)

I think I'll just start doing football leads depending on which way the wind is blowing each day. Could be "former American football quarterback" (old style), "American former professional football quarterback" (new style), "American former football quarterback" (new style sans pro) "American former professional football player who was a quarterback" (Bagumba style) I haven't checked the weather forecast yet for tomorrow, so I'm not sure what it will be. I'll keep you posted. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

What WO-9 is saying is correct, (and that's why he said it, lol), no need to get a good editor upset. I can say, WO-9 is a lot nicer than I would be with this situation. We have to get a happy medium here. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:12, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

I know. We have this same discussion every few months, lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:17, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

That we do, lol. Bringingthewood (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Sure, you are correct that such discussions are as repetitive as they are pervasive and exhausting. I advocate for clearer guidance to fend off the incessant arguing (what a waste of time!). But it's a mistake to trivialize the problem - I am continually surprised by new dimensions to the question; labels are important. And don't forget the beer and buffalo wings! Bdushaw (talk) 13:07, 5 May 2025 (UTC)

Placekicker or kicker

Hello everyone, I was wondering if American football placekickers should now be renamed to kickers, as a lot of editors are already doing changing it. I have been reverting them, so just wondering if that's right or wrong. Thanks. WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 14:37, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

Placekicker is more of an archaic term that we really only use as its article title over Kicker (American football) for WP:NATURALDAB reasons. Kicker is the modern-day common name for them, so I don't have an issue with piping links to display just that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:52, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

My understanding is that the term placekicker (the role of attempting to score points by kicking the ball through the uprights) is used to distinguish from kickoff specialist (which seems to be evermore increasingly obsolete), with someone doing either or both more generally referred to as a kicker. The less that kickoff specialists exist, the less the distinction between "placekicker" and "kicker" seems to matter. Left guide (talk) 21:27, 6 May 2025 (UTC) edited Left guide (talk) 00:55, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, the new kickoff rules made kickoff specialists obsolete as kicking into the endzone is now an automatic touchback with possession starting at the 35 yard line. No team is going to take up two of their allotted 53 roster spots with kickers unlike the past where it might be needed as certain field goal kickers could lack power on the longer kickoff (80 yards) but made up for it with accuracy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:32, 6 May 2025 (UTC)

@Left guide @Dissident93 So you both suggest just using [Placekicker|Kicker]? WhyIsThisSoHard575483838 (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

I personally don't care much what happens article-side, just chiming in to point out a relevant distinction you may not have been aware of. Left guide (talk) 00:56, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

If I was starting a new article on a kicker then yes, but I tend to leave existing links alone. Seems like nobody opposes others doing it though. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:06, 7 May 2025 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Ricky White#Requested move 29 April 2025

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Ricky White#Requested move 29 April 2025 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 16:11, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

Nomination of 2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2013 Green Bay Packers–Dallas Cowboys game until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Left guide (talk) 20:57, 8 May 2025 (UTC)

College team names in career history

Shouldn't we be using the full name of college teams in the infobox's career history section like we do in the lead now? WP:EASTEREGG may apply here for schools like Washington, Arizona, Minnesota, etc. as they share names with professional teams (which we always list in full). The only argument I've seen against this is nothing more than WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:41, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

D93, it would make a lot of colleges stretch to two lines. It's been like this for 20 years, as you know. Literally no reader has ever seen "College: Arizona" in the infobox and thought it was for the Arizona Cardinals. We didn't even use to include years for the colleges but you're suggesting we include years and nicknames? Should we spell out the whole high school names too? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:01, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The example I would imagine is being referenced here is this by the way. Not the actual section of where they went to college but in the 'pastcoaching' section. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 03:03, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

Yes, coaching careers mix the two formats for those who coached both in college and the pros. For example, Jim Harbaugh shows a stint with plain "San Diego".—Bagumba (talk) 07:07, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

I am aware, the example provided is D93 reverting my removal of the college nicknames from the infobox. Thetreesarespeakingtome (talk) 12:06, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

The slightly more ambiguous case with Harbaugh is that his playing career lists "San Diego Chargers", then his coaching career shows only "San Diego", and that San Diego college team is a bit more obscure, not being in a power conference. —Bagumba (talk) 12:20, 10 May 2025 (UTC)

It just makes little sense to me to have two different formats in the same section (and the lead) when spacing isn't an issue. @WikiOriginal-9 To be clear, this only applies to schools listed in the career section for coaches/executives and not |college=. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:07, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

At Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 39 § College coaching stints in bio infoboxes, the rough consensus was to at list the full team name at least when it was ambiguous between college and pro teams, e.g. is "Houston" referring to the Houston Cougars or Houston Rockets? That discussion also mentioned football coach Jack Pardee, whose college coaching stint at Houston is listed as "Houston Cougars". —Bagumba (talk) 05:18, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Recurring theme -- All-Pro, American etc.

Hello all. Regarding this Trey Hendrickson, and the All-Pro listing. Did we all come up with a reason for revert .. or to let it go? I brought this up some time ago, regarding AP only. Just wanted to make sure what we're doing regarding the infobox. This is also like the All-American selectors and pre-1980 sacks that I let go over the last month. Didn't want it to spiral out of control. Thank you. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Do you mean non-AP honors, like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 26 § Non-AP sourcing? —Bagumba (talk) 00:44, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, like Hendrickson, the person added 2x .. with PFWA only in 2023. It's been done with non-AP All Americans also. Players were changed to 4x adding non-AP, and some vice versa. Not sure where the stance is on this. I almost reverted the Hendrickson edit, but wanted to ask about it first. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:55, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

• AP was not the only official historic All-America or All-Pro selector. Why would we limit infoboxes to AP selections? Cbl62 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

I get that, fine with me. I saw it reverted in the past, just wanted to make sure. I'm guessing some didn't want one page saying 4x .. all AP selections, and another stating 5x .. Sporting News and PFWA (No AP). Cheapens it in some eyes. They should stop the DPOY Award on TV stating AP. Gives them high ground to stand on and a mess for us. Honestly, the AP is the one everyone goes by, we know that. (Again, I don't agree with them). Bringingthewood (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Question of my own, what would this mean for someone like Derrick Henry for example? In his infobox it says first-team all-pro only in 2020, but he was named first-team all-pro by The Sporting News in 2020, 2022, and 2024 and they are considered an official selector. Would this mean I can change his infobox to say 3x first-team all-pro? Or add another bullet point below saying "3x SN first-team all-pro? Then again how would this all look in the infobox considering it already says second-team all-pro in 2024, but now also saying he was first-team all-pro in 2024. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:54, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:NFLINFOBOX says

When listing All-American and All-Pro selections, there is no need to list the selector. If a player is selected to both the first and second team, whether by the same or different selectors, the player is listed as a first-team selection. List it as "First-team All-XXXX (19XX)".

But I don't believe it's been applied for All-Pros. —Bagumba (talk) 13:12, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Yeah I can’t speak for all NFL athletes' infoboxes, but I’m pretty sure most of them only have the AP selections shown. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 14:36, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

It was sort of applied at one point in time but people always change it back to AP-only. I'm not sure what the best way is. Dissident93 and I discussed adding notes to the highlights in the infobox earlier this year in a few topics. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 18:08, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Lol lots and lots of questions. In the case of Trey Hendrickson, judging by the 2023 All-Pro Team, the AP didn’t select defensive ends, so should his all-pros not even be mentioned? I feel like that is unfair. Should it be noted that the PFWA named him first-team all-pro?

For other athletes who have been named all-pro by many selectors in the same year, are we going to add all of them to the infobox with the selectors notated? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:45, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Notes clarify things like this without the clutter. It may not be the best solution, but it's better than the status quo. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Has this been implemented? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Jayden Daniels looks like an example, with footnotes in the infobox. But more importantly, it's itemized and sourced in the body. —Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

That is something different as that pertains to OROY, not All-Pro. My question is what should we do if for example, a player was selected as a first-team all-pro only by the Associated Press in 2022, then in 2023 is only selected by The Sporting News. Would only the 2022 first-team all-pro be in the infobox? Would the TSN all-pro be notated? Or would you write "2× First-team all-pro (2022, 2023)"? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:23, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Daniels was an example of how multiple selectors could look combined on the same line, based on a non-All-Pro award. Your questions should be dealt with in the following order:

1. What selectors should be listed for All-Pro?
2. Should different selectors be combined "2× First-team All-Pro (2022, 2023)" or enumerated "AP first-team All-Pro (2022), "SN first-team all-pro (2023)"?

—Bagumba (talk) 05:58, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

College has the concept of consensus All-Americans, so the college WikiProjects dont limit it to AP. A difference is that the college basketball project seems to limit mention to the consensus selectors, while the college football project sometimes lists other selectors. —Bagumba (talk) 09:00, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Oh my bad I didn’t know we were only talking about college, I thought this discussion was for NFL too. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 11:40, 12 May 2025 (UTC)

Let's not go down the road wrong road here. Some of the additions are fine, how about we let them go and see how it turns out? Remember, we can fix whatever is unwanted. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:12, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

That didn't take long. This is why I originally started this section. Please see Trey Hendrickson's All-Pro revision history (May 11-13). This has been going on for some time across Wikipedia NFL pages, some say AP and some say ALL selectors. This also goes for All-Americans. Bringingthewood (talk) 20:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Lol this is why you can’t leave things open-ended. We need to reach consensus so we have consistency across the board. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 21:10, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Exactly. Here's hoping! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:33, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Please don’t hold your breath sir, I fear you will pass out.🤣 GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

Flag icons for international games

So flag icons are being added to schedule tables for the 2025 NFL International Series games but unless I'm misunderstanding MOS:FLAG/MOS:FLAGCRUFT, they are being misused as the icons are only meant for players/teams representing nations internationally like the Olympics and World Cup. A team playing in a stadium located outside the U.S. isn't that. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 17:38, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

The flags are there because these international games are special games. These link to the country, not any national team. It's clearly in the venue section. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 17:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

A flag icon should generally only be used to identify things or people representing the entity depicted by said flag (i.e. diplomats, Olympians) per MOS:FLAG:

Flag icons may be relevant in some subject areas, where the subject actually represents that country or nationality – such as military units or national sports teams. In lists or tables, flag icons may be relevant when such representation of different subjects is pertinent to the purpose of the list or table itself.

A stadium hosting an intra-league NFL game doesn't meet that criteria, regardless of where it is located. Left guide (talk) 18:53, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

This practice was done all the way back in 2007 when the first game was held in London. We would have quite a bunch of pages to change. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 18:57, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

WP:CONTENTAGE Left guide (talk) 18:59, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

But still this wouldn't just be NFL international games affected though, I've seen these for NBA, MLB, and NHL international games as well. Yes if there is a consensus later on, we can fix all of it but for now we'll leave them be. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:41, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

But it's not really going against the style either, the stadium is in a country that is outside the US so it could be seen as that. There's a reason it's called International. HalfOfAnOrange (talk) 19:44, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

I typically dislike overuse of flag icons. That said, the way they are used now seems fine. If they were able to the table of individual games, then I would think that is too much. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 13 May 2025 (UTC)

It's still directly against the guideline and WP:LOCALCONSENSUS shouldn't overrule that. However if it's been done this way for nearly a decade without much fuss, then it's probably maybe it's not worth enforcing as it would likely just be added back. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:24, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Dissident93: To try to avoid WP:LOCALCONSENSUS, I've notified the guideline talk page at WT:MOSICON. Left guide (talk) 01:35, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

To be clear, is the issue with the table at NFL International Series § International marketing and expansion (2022–present) or schedules like at 2025 Los Angeles Chargers season § Schedule? —Bagumba (talk) 01:46, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba: My comments were based on the usage at team season articles like 2024 Jacksonville Jaguars season#Regular season, since the Jaguars have historically been regulars in these types of events, at least the London ones. Left guide (talk) 02:17, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

I'd say it's fine on the International Series page as it aligns with its scope per MOS:APPROPRIATEICONS, but they are being misused within team schedule tables per MOS:DECOR / MOS:FLAGCRUFT. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:20, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Agree. Left guide (talk) 03:59, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Usage at pages like the Chargers' schedule is also missing the country name with the flag. The name of a flag's political entity should appear adjacent to the first use of the flag, as no reader is familiar with every flag, and many flags differ only in minor details. (MOS:FLAG) However, I don't get feeling the exact country is all that relevant to the team's season. For that matter, venues are probably trivial too, with the key info being whether it is a home, away, or neutral site game. Neutral site games could just have a footnote to the venue, while the road team's stadium is available at the opponent's team page. —Bagumba (talk) 04:56, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Looking at the 2025 Chargers article, if that flag wasn't there there wouldn't be any indication to the reader that the Chargers are even playing an international game this year. In the case of Week 1, since I don't see "at" before [Kansas City Chiefs], I just assume that the Chargers are at their home field in the LA area. I don't actually have any reason to look at the venue column. That "Sao Paolo" over there without the flag is very easy to miss. I don't care though. I thought I'd just leave these thoughts from a reader's point of view. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 04:41, 15 May 2025 (UTC)