Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

RFC: Should NFL conference championship games be considered notable enough for their own article?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. The arguments were split evenly in number. Support !voters argued, generally, that the nature of championship games conferred inherent notability, that WP:NSPORTSEVENT is a flawed guideline, and that there is sustained coverage of championship games. The opposition pointed to WP:NSPORTSEVENT and the possibility of a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS around inherent notability. Even after a belated crosspost to WT:NSPORTS to obtain non-project feedback, a clear consensus did not emerge. Iseult Δx talk to me 07:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Should NFL conference championship games be notable enough for their own articles? ~2026-37153-4 (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

These games, not all of which are Conference Championships, are still mentioned several decades later and therefore meet notability guidelines. By contrast, there many Conference Championship games that are forgotten and hardly mentioned by the media within a few years and therefore do not have enduring historical significance. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some worthy conference championships include 1998 NFC, 2024 AFC, and 2018 NFC. (Not 2014 NFC that should be deleted.) Eg224 (talk) 00:26, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the 2014 NFC was pretty notable given the major comeback that occurred. However, I do agree that if we don't rule CCGs are inherently notable, then there are some existing pages that should probably be deleted (along with the ones I created). Red0ctober22 (talk) 02:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am a Packers fan so i HATE that game. Lol Eg224 (talk) 16:43, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notification has been left at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) § Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League has an RfC—Bagumba (talk) 21:40, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia has articles for every college football conference championship game, and beyond that every single minor college football bowl game. It's ludicrous that there isn't a dedicated article for every AFC/NFC championship game. We have articles for every ALCS and NLCS in baseball. The NFL should follow those examples and complete the list for both conferences. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "inherently notable". Just because something awards a trophy does not mean a separate article is needed. I've never heard of Wikipedia having standalone pages for anything "in the records book". WP:LASTING means having "a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance", not that a banner is put up. I think merging some bowl games would be a good idea, it's ludicrous to have so many pages on forgettable games by teams who barely had a winning season. The baseball league championships are at least series with four or more games included in the article. — Reywas92Talk 03:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear definition of what is a historically significant NFL game. From the Wikipedia page for historical significance: Historical significance is typically assessed by judging an event against pre-defined criteria and numerous criteria for assessing historical significance have been proposed. However, these criteria are always subjective, and therefore debatable.
If a team puts up a banner in their stadium, that is an indication that it is significant to that team. If the league awards silverware for winning a CCG, that is an indication that is it significant to the league. That is why these are being mentioned as a indicator as being significant. Cfgauss77 (talk) 12:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By "WP:INHERENT notability" I'm referring to "obvious notability" where the article is about a subject that is so well-known that everyone views it as notable, and therefore, no one is likely to ever challenge its presence. NFL CCGs are easily among the most obviously notable American sporting events of the year.
Here are a few examples of WP:LASTING, WP:SUSTAINED coverage showing "a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance" for four teams:
I'm sure similar retrospective coverage can be found for every(*) team in the NFL and every historical conference championship game. And that's ignoring the massive amounts of contemporary coverage of these championship games, which are consistently watched by 50+ million Americans and are among the top-watched tv broadcasts of the year, topped only by the Super Bowl. PK-WIKI (talk) 20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - In the Super Bowl era, I don't think there's any reason to deem conference championship games as inherently notable. If they receive a lot of coverage in the aftermath, that's a different matter, but we shouldn't be indiscriminately creating articles for these games before the fact. – PeeJay 13:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with this statement. Not every conference will have sufficient notability for a stand alone article and we wont know until after it has taken place. WP:SUSTAINED supports this "sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might pass WP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfy WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfy WP:NOTPROMOTION." Tepkunset (talk) 20:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I agree with the suggestions that conference championship games are not inherently notable, but can be notable. I think a stronger argument would be made for the notability of the rounds themselves. I would support something like 2026 Conference Championship Round to cover both games. Esolo5002 (talk) 22:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI: There is already 2025–26 NFL playoffs § Conference Championships —Bagumba (talk) 22:45, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, PK-WIKI showed there is WP:LASTING coverage of conference championship games. ESB5415 01:56, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    They haven't shown that these games are inherently notable, but they have given compelling reasons for those specific games to perhaps have articles. What exactly would an article about a specific Conference Championship game include that can't be included in the article about that season's playoffs as a whole? – PeeJay 14:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What, in your opinion, would show the inherent notability of all the games? Does someone need to go through for every team to find sustained coverage? I can later this week if needed, but to me PK's work shows it is unnecessary. ESB5415 02:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Inherent notability is where the subject is assumed to be notable without needing to wait for sustained coverage. That's what I take inherent to mean, anyway. – PeeJay 16:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, that's fair. I think that the sustained coverage for every conference championship games shows that they have inherent notability. Like, if we were on Wikipedia in the late 1960s when conference championship games were new, I would agree that we would need to wait for sustained coverage to determine if they deserve articles. But because every conference championship game has this type of sustained coverage, they should be inherently notable. ESB5415 20:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to check though, is there actually sustained coverage for every single conference championship game? – PeeJay 17:41, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    As I stated somewhere below, I feel it doesn't always depend on the notability of the game itself, but instead the winning team and the storylines present. Take Super Bowl LV for the 2020/21 season. Nothing really notable about the game itself (aside from Mahomes getting sacked a ton of times), but so many lasting and important storylines that came from the Bucs winning: Brady gets his 7th ring in his first season away from New England, the Bucs win it all in their own stadium, Bruce Arians wins his first ring as a head coach, Brady vs. Mahomes debate, etc.
    When you look at conference championships, certainly not all games themselves receive sustained coverage, but the winning teams usually do, being remembered with banners, rings, even sometimes anniversary reunions, similar to celebrations for Super Bowl-winning teams. Many people could name a lot about the 2015 Carolina Panthers, but how many people could name something that happened in the 2015 NFC Championship Game? Probably not a lot because it was such a blowout. Red0ctober22 (talk) 20:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd say that's a pretty good argument that the conference championship games aren't inherently notable. – PeeJay 10:56, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    What I am saying is that the discussion should be about whether or not conference championship games are considered the championships for a "major league" as Wikipedia:Notability (sports) describes, because then inherent notability is present. We shouldn't be searching every single AFC/NFC title game to see if the game was notable, because just like the Super Bowl, not all the games themselves were particularly significant. Red0ctober22 (talk) 15:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all as notable. The conference championships were the Super Bowl before the Super Bowl, and were the sole measure of NFL and AFL champions. After the merge they still retained the "conference" distinction and, importantly, they have their own trophies (indicative of both importance and notability). Randy Kryn (talk) 12:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    That's a fine argument that they could be considered inherently notable prior to 1967 but not really afterwards. Every article should be justified on its own merits, not just considered inherently notable without substantiation. – PeeJay 14:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I think we should recall the fact that not every Super Bowl has notability or lasting significance to it. How many times do you see people (aside from Patriots fans) look back on Super Bowl LIII and discuss the lasting impact of that game? Yet, we still have an article for it, as regardless of how "good" of a game it was, the significance and prestige of winning the Super Bowl cannot be denied. Instead of debating the conference title games themselves, I think we should instead look at whether the accomplishment of winning the AFC/NFC is significant and notable enough to deserve to be highlighted in its own individual article. Red0ctober22 (talk) 17:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Would you say that some SBs fail WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE? —Bagumba (talk) 17:46, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it depends on what we are referring to when we say the Super Bowl. Let's take an example of Super Bowl XXIV, where the 49ers blew out the Broncos, 55–10. If referring to the game itself, then no, there is absolutely not any continued coverage at all. No real impactful or interesting moments occurred aside from the 49ers just absolutely dominating Denver on both sides of the ball. What is notable are the storylines and the accomplishments that came with the 49ers winning. For example, Joe Montana ties Terry Bradshaw with the most SBs won by a QB, George Seifert wins his first SB as a head coach, John Elway loses yet another Super Bowl, and the 49ers go back-to-back and cement themselves as a dynasty of the 1980s.
    With that, I argue the accomplishment of winning a conference championship, while obviously not as prestigious as winning the Super Bowl, still has a significance to it. To use a personal viewpoint as an Eagles fan, the 1980 and 2004 teams who won the NFC but lost the SB are still highly regarded and talked about in the fanbase and local sports media, and the 1980 and 2004 NFC title games are remembered as the highest achievements for these teams, even if the actual games themselves weren't really that notable. I even recall they gave out rings to the 2022 Eagles team, even though they won the NFC but lost the Super Bowl. Now of course, if you compare this to more successful franchises like the Patriots, where I am sure not many fans care that much about the 2017 team that won the AFC but lost the Super Bowl, but winning a conference championship is still a highly regarded thing in my opinion. Red0ctober22 (talk) 18:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Having looked over the situation further. I've noticed there's only 'ten' such articles (1997, 1998, 2010, 2018–20, 2022–24) for NFC Championship Games & 'six' such articles (1970, 1975, 1995, 2022–24) for AFC Championship Games, with no attempts to do all the year articles. Best to change those few back to redirects to their respective Year NFL playoff articles. GoodDay (talk) 18:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually started the process of filling in the gaps by doing the 2022 to 2024 ones, with the intent on eventually getting all of them, but I stopped once people started merge discussions. If we rule here that conference championship games are notable, I plan to continue. Red0ctober22 (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain that WP:BASEBALL would never agree to deleting all their Year AL/NL Wild Card Game/Series, Year AL/NL Division Series, AL/NL Championship Series articles. As for the NHL? there's no Year Wales/Eastern Conference Final or Year Campbell/Western Conference Final articles. In the CFL, there's no Year East/West Division Final articles. But yes, if the consensus to keep Year AFC/NFC Championship Game articles prevails? then all 1970-present should be created. GoodDay (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with the NHL or the CFL is that the Wales/Campbell conferences and East/West Divisions never existed independent of the NHL or CFL, respectively. When you won the Wales or Campbell conferences or the East/West Division, there was always the Stanley Cup Final or Grey Cup to move on to. This wasn't always the case with winning the National League/American League or winning the AFC/AFL or the NFC/NFL pre-1970, so there is a historical element. Red0ctober22 (talk) 19:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AFC/NFC compared to AL/NL, isn't a good comparison. The former were never separate leagues, where's the latter were. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, there is no deadline to complete Wikipedia. Stating that just because some articles are created from a set while others aren't those articles should be deleted/redirected is somewhat bizarre. This is how Wikipedia is developed. Its a natural progression where some articles are started and others get inspired to keep it going. How else would a whole series be written? Do you truly expect someone to write 100+ articles all in a short period of time? Some of the NFC Championships games I have written have taken me multiple weeks to compile sources, write the article, and copyedit it before putting it in the article space. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles are kept? than more will be created. Otherwise, they'll merely be redirects. GoodDay (talk) 15:07, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You opposed because I've noticed there's only 'ten' such articles (1997, 1998, 2010, 2018–20, 2022–24) for NFC Championship Games & 'six' such articles (1970, 1975, 1995, 2022–24) for AFC Championship Games, with no attempts to do all the year articles. I'm merely stating that that is a poor reason to oppose and to state that existing articles should revert to redirects, because we are in the middle of the writing process now. All you would be doing is stopping the article writing process now, when in a few years there may be articles for every game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've withdrawn from this RFC. GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes per PK-WIKI. They receive routine coverage within the markets of the teams involved for years to come. They are no less notable than the college football playoff semi-final and quarter-final games. Calwatch (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I actually now believe that this RFC is premature and its scope is too focused. Rather, we should have a larger RFC, hosted at WP:NSPORTSEVENT that creates a larger discussion about what American football games should be considered or assumed to be inherently notable. The comparison of minor college bowl games and NFL conference championships games is so out of sorts, that that is the question we should be answering. I would prefer this RFC get closed as no consensus and a new one get created with a more defined question and located in a more appropriate talk page. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so sure about that; one shouldn’t affect the other; although the discussion is likely heading to NC anyway. ~2026-59319-2 (talk) 13:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per PeeJay. Unless there's a specific reason why they become notable, e.g. Deflategate, then they aren't of sufficient importance in the Super Bowl era to warrant heir own articles, any more than a FIFA World Cup semi-final would.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 5 February 2026

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. Moved as an uncontested request with minimal participation. If there is any objection within a reasonable time frame, please ask me to reopen the discussion; if I am not available, please ask at the technical requests page. (closed by non-admin page mover) Vestrian24Bio 04:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

– the standard name of a nested group is task force not subproject. Gonnym (talk) 07:54, 5 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 10:26, 12 February 2026 (UTC) — Relisting. TarnishedPathtalk 04:19, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Could just delete it or redirect it. No one uses it for anything. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:14, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Centralized discussion about the parameters/awards found in Template:Infobox gridiron football biography

As proposed by @Hey man im josh:, above we need to solidify the parameters and awards found in Template:Infobox gridiron football biography. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

@AloofStorm5476:, @GoodDay:, @Bagumba:, @Left guide:, @Assadzadeh:, @BeanieFan11:, @Bringingthewood:, @GOAT Bones231012:, @Dissident93:, @Let'srun:. Pinging editors in the above discussion. I will also post on the CFB project.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I've suggested this before, but I don't think we need an award section in the infobox anyway. Most of them get omitted in the lead and often aren't cited elsewhere in the article anyway. Any major award should just be written as prose in the lead. But this view is probably in the minority, so I'd suggest that if the section must remain that we only include major awards with less redundant formatting. We already did this with Jayden Daniels during his FAN (which stalled because of nomination bureaucracy, but we saved like 4-5 lines by combining them as a footnote for the generic award). We could go even further and omit all lesser awards that have the same scope as for example, the Heisman Trophy, because how often does a Heisman winner not win the other several other POTY awards? The Davey O'Brien Award, Manning Award, Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award are all the same thing and just bloat the infobox as the majority of the time they get awarded to the same player every year. When sources/media discuss Jayden Daniels, they really only bring up his Heisman and ROTY award, so why doesn't Wikipedia? — Dissident93 (talk) 19:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find value in the major awards, such as All-Pro, Pro Bowl, OPOY, DPOY, and MVP being listed in the infobox. If we were to reduce the entries. Ultimately, I think our biggest issue is the college awards. If we limited it to the Heisman and first/second/third division teams, we'd see a lot of improvement. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My recommendation? Use the NHL player infobox format. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Would you please provide us a link to the NHL player infobox format so that we can see for ourselves? Assadzadeh (talk) 18:56, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Template:Infobox ice hockey biography-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but unless I missed it, the template doesn't state what accomplishments should be listed. So, I looked at Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux as two examples. Neither infobox lists the Stanley Cups and major awards each player won. For Lemieux, it only lists the medals he won representing Canada. The other information is buried under the Awards section. For Gretzky, nothing. By contrast, Peyton Manning lists his Super Bowl wins, Super Bowl MVP, and NFL MVP in the infobox, although there are a lot of other awards and accomplishments that should be deleted. For example, is it really an accomplishment that he's in the Sports Hall of Fame of the four states where he played high school, college, and pro football, or a mere formality? Bottom line: I don't agree that we should Use the NHL player infobox format, but do agree that we need to heavily trim down the awards section by limiting the number of college awards allowed in the infobox. Assadzadeh (talk) 22:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The NHL infobox is terrible and should itself be expanded. The Wayne Gretzky infobox tells me almost nothing about his career and the article suffers as a result. It fails MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE in that it does not adequately summarize the key facts from the article. PK-WIKI (talk) 09:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep awards: I would be open to trimming it down, but I am more concerned that WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE currently leaves itself open to the addition of awards that most editors here wouldn’t include. The way it says "etc." everywhere doesn’t help. We need to firm up EXACTLY what should be included and not have it be so open ended. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removing awards. The more I think about it. I think the hockey project had it right. Does Tom Hanks' article mention his Oscars? Yes. Is it in his Infobox? No. Does it really matter to a general reader that Brett Farve was second team All-South independent in 1990? That by the way erroneously links to the Sun Belt Conference. The fact that Farve led the league in passing yards should be mentioned in relevant prose, along with winning the MVP award. Is it going to matter to a reader that Bill Belichick only won one Greasy Neal Award? Does Bill even know where that trophy is?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  • I oppose removing all awards, but I think we could heavily trim down the awards section by limiting the number of college awards allowed in the infobox. We could also, explicitly, limit the NFL awards to All-Pro, OPOY, DPOY, Pro Bowl, MVP, and maybe a couple others. My perspective is that college awards and franchise teams (Lions All-Time Team as an example) are responsible for the most bloat. If we limited college awards, it'd make sense to limit it to All-American/all-division selections and do away with the hundred or so individual conference awards that are often included. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a middle ground to be found, because the infobox can contain a lot of relevant information that aids those unfamiliar with the sport if it's streamlined. Hey man im josh (talk) 20:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why I'm all for including every award an NFL player has won in their infoboxes is because there are a lot of players wikipedia pages that does not include any awards or honors and it would be a pain to create that entire section for hundreds or even thousands of wikipedia pages. Imagine how long that would take. By including it in their infoboxes, it can save a lot of time! Please do consider this! AloofStorm5476 (talk) 22:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every award might be a bit scary. Do you know what the size of the infobox will look like? The infobox material is also supposed to be mentioned in the article .. do you know what the length of some articles will look like? That reminds me of the stat sections for quarterbacks who rarely rush. Too many trivial items. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I believe it is important to highlight every award a NFL player has won! You have to realize while yes their are players such as Tom Brady who have a lot of things in their infobox, there are players who have little to no highlights or awards in their infoboxes, I'm not saying to decrease the amount of items in Brady's infobox I'm just using him as an example. I want to include all awards in their infoboxes! Another thing to realize is that not every NFL player has won each award but I can see the issue if an NFL player did in fact win every single award. To put all this in simple terms, I don't agree with the project or wikipedia with excluding items. AloofStorm5476 (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what award dedicated sections are for. To include every player of the week award for example would end up being way over the top. We don't NEED every player to have a massive list of awards, if they don't have the MOST notable awards, we simply don't NEED to include them. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Frankly, most of this information should be included in prose when relevant. There is a reason that award sections are not universal to boot. Since you're new here let me tell you, believe it or not, the people in these discussion are the more friendly of the types of inclusions of this material as to others it seems like WP:TRIVIA. There is a large amount of the editing community that think we have too much detail and want to delete a lot of material already here, including articles such as all of these awards. If we adopt the hockey philosophy we can put this issue to rest. To be blunt, the Infobox isn't a Topps Trading Card.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 22:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! Not a Topps Trading Card, I like that. It also saved me a lot of typing. ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 23:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I do believe it's not a trading card, to have all awards removed doesn't seem right. Adding everything under the sun is too much bloat. I believe Josh and GOAT mentioned trimming it down. If WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE was precise and to the point, with awards agreed upon after consensus, it could all work out in the long run. If it's vague, it leads to confusion and eventually an argument. Bringingthewood (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing away with the following line item from WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE would be a good start:
To minimize the amount of college awards and highlights, we could also get rid of most of the repetitive Player of the Year type awards by making it one bullet point with a footnote listing all the organizations that have honored them as such. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That might be the worst idea yet! I disagree with that! AloofStorm5476 (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Similar is done in NBA bios (WP:NBANPOY), e.g. "2× National college player of the year (2001–2002)" —Bagumba (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • One alternative middle ground could be to have specific parameters for awards there is consensus to include, rather than a completely open-ended "highlights" field which allows individual drive-by editors to add any awards they want. I think that would cull the systemic bloating. I suspect having the "highlights" field makes it virtually impossible to enforce any consensus due to the crowd-sourced nature. Left guide (talk) 22:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • My view remains that we should be flexible in determining what is a career-defining accomplishment based on the nature of the career.
  • We should be stricter in what we allow for superstars to avoid turning the infobox into a total mess. Maybe put a cap of 10 highlight entries per infobox and discuss which are truly career-defining for that particular player. For example, nobody can seriously contend that "Second-team All-SEC (1996)" (or "Colorado Sports Hall of Fame") is a career-defining highlight for Peyton Manning. (Manning currenlty has 48 bullet points in the highlight section.)
  • In the case of a lesser player without big-time highlights, a looser standard would be more appropriate. In the context of Manning, a second-team All-SEC honor is clearly not career-defining or infobox-worthy. But for a lesser player with few or no highlights, it may well be.
My bottom-line: Career-defining depends on the career. What is career defining for Tom Brady is very different from what is career-defining for lesser players. Cbl62 (talk) 23:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But look at the NBA project. It has had NBA Include and Exclude for quite some time now and editors are still constantly having to revert, change and standardize articles. New editors and IPs come along and try to ask to add whatever Random Capitalist Sponsor of the year for new statistic to all of them, even if they have already been excluded. We spend entirely too much time discussing it. The whole reason that this has become an issue is because of the variability of the awards listed in the infoboxes. To play the UNO reverse card, how many hundreds or thousands of articles will we have to check to ensure this standard is maintained? How often do we have random additions to articles that stay there for years? I mentioned one error earlier, not to mention the possibility of WP:OR added entries.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" as I see it is that infoboxes for superstars are bloated. E.g., Peyton Manning with 48 separate bullet-pointed highlights. Why doesn't a fixed cap of 10 solve that problem? Cbl62 (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be enforced? What is to keep random as Bagumba calls them "drive by editors" from coming along and adding the award found in one player's Infobox and put them to other infoboxes? What would Jweiss say about consistency.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." — Ralph Waldo Emerson. (See also Wikipedia:Emerson and Wilde on consistency.) Flexibility is the real key. The cap might require debate about what's really career defining for a particular player, but that can be decided by consensus. In Manning's case the hierarchy would likely go something like: 5× NFL Most Valuable Player (2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2013); 7× First-team All-Pro (2003–2005, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013); NFL 100th Anniversary All-Time Team; Indianapolis Colts No. 18 retired; Maxwell Award (1997); Tennessee Volunteers No. 16 retired; NFL records Most passing touchdowns in a season: 55 (2013); Most passing yards in a season: 5,477 (2013). The other 38 bullet points can go in a highlights section but shouldn't clutter an infobox. Cbl62 (talk) 23:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think having specific individual parameters is a good idea. The consistency would be automated and organically built into the infobox system at one location (the template and its talk page) rather than the current untenable situation of having to manually patrol thousands of articles. It would require far less volunteer hours of cumulative maintenance. Left guide (talk) 23:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Massive infobox bloat (which I see as the real problem) is only an issue for the highest tier of players, e.g., those listed at The Top 100: NFL's Greatest Players, NFL 100th Anniversary All-Time Team, and possibly the all-decade teams -- probably 250 or 300 players in all. If we put a cap on the highlights, those 250 or 300 articles would not be so difficult to monitor/patrol. Cbl62 (talk) 23:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well, is there a technical way to limit the amount of lines or characters a given template parameter can use? Left guide (talk) 23:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: "drive by editors": They're a fact of life. And Wikipedia encourages bold edits. It's up to regulars in the know, such as WikiProj members, to patrol and make sure consensus is followed, while accepting that consensus can change sometimes too. —Bagumba (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Peyton has a lot of Hall of Fame inductions included, which according to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format#Miscellaneous notes, should not be included. That would take out five right there. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 02:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest more explicit guidance like at WP:NBAHOFS:

Other regional halls of fame, e.g. school (University of Florida Athletic Hall of Fame), state (Kansas Sports Hall of Fame), etc., can be mentioned in prose.

—Bagumba (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have my own issues with the NBA's project Include and Exclude! It's the same thing as the NFL ones AloofStorm5476 (talk) 00:27, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is already listed as an All-American, an obscure conference award like Ameche–Dayne Running Back of the Year shouldn't be included (perhaps shouldn't be listed even if they weren't AA). We might even exclude all-conference selections for AAs. Are we on-board for patrolling the inevitable drive-by edits that add them back for "consistency"? —Bagumba (talk) 17:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those conference specific awards are what I credit the absolute most for the bloat. Division/conference specific awards (possibly aside from the All-Conference selections themselves) should all be excluded. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're bloat for a lot of the accomplished players, yes. But for the greater part, there's way more players for whom all-conference is the top highlight of their career. —Bagumba (talk) 18:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse a flexible approach per Cbl62. Lesser players shouldn't have their 2-3 infobox items removed just because we want to cut down on the bloat at Tom Brady. PK-WIKI (talk) 08:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse removing awards - Such sports bio infoboxes shouldn't be trophy cases. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Brady and Peyton Manning are the two most accomplished QBs of all time. We shouldn't be using them as example infoboxes. Brady, like LeBron James, basically defied aging. Brady could still be playing in the NFL today if he wanted too. A lot of NFL players only have a college all-conference team for a highlight in the infobox (and a lot not even that). Keep in mind that there are over like 25K NFL players all-time. Brady and Manning are extreme outliers. Brett Favre's highlights look managable to me. Although Sports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year doesn't seem that necessary since it's not a football-specific award. Also, it is not standard to include state hall of fames or college hall of fames in the infobox, so I have removed those five lines from Manning's infobox.

These highlights have been pretty stable ever since @Lizard the Wizard: created WikiProject National Football League/Player pages format in 2016. The infoboxes used to include stuff like NFC champion, NFC Player of the Year, AFC Player of the Month, AFC Player of the Week, Indianapolis Colts passing yards leader, etc. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I would also remove individual publication's "Athlete of the Year" or "Sportsman of the Year" awards and individual team's "Hall of Fame" or "Ring of Honor" mentions, but leave No. retired. As for a player such as Peyton Manning who's now mostly known for his NFL career, is it even necessary to list all the college awards that he won any longer? If yes, then perhaps the "Awards and highlights" section should be divided into "professional" and "college" subsections. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having a number retired by a team is a pretty significant honour in the NFL, and I'd be on board with keeping it while removing individual teams' hall of fames/rings of honour. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea would be to only exclude team HOFs for players w/retired numbers. Very few players get numbers retired, and its only those bloated bios that really need trimming. Team HOF is otherwise the top highlight for most players, and generally mentioned in obits. —Bagumba (talk) 18:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure if this discussion is going to die on the vine. But if there's a vote coming soon, I guess we can vote and group together to figure out an infobox (do and don't list). I'm really not looking forward to Mr. Lowercase Sigma Guy coming along and archiving it in a month. This is way too much **** to sweep under the rug. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option B Assadzadeh (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option B Bringingthewood (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option A AloofStorm5476 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Option B Feels the most logical from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Option B Hundreds of different parameters for awards would be very annoying. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@WikiOriginal-9: I don't believe the phrasing of "parameters" was meant to actually say we would want to use the parameter feature, but to establish guidelines on what we'd be including instead. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Left guide specifically mentioned having "specific parameters for awards there is consensus to include, rather than a completely open-ended "highlights" field". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Poll on some specific awards

Discussion above at #2 Awards missing from NFL Player infobox plus Fedex Air and Ground Player of the year and #Centralized discussion about the parameters/awards found in Template:Infobox gridiron football biography indicates that there is some disagreement on the awards currently included in NFL bio infoboxes. See also User:Assadzadeh/sandbox/Football/NFL.

WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE currently includes:

Other NFL recognized awards (Art Rooney Award, Bart Starr Award, NFLPA Alan Page Community Award, etc.)

A related guideline, MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, reads:

The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

Please !vote below on whether these awards should be included or not.—Bagumba (talk) 07:05, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE per below. Left guide (talk) 12:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yall just don't know ball or understand these awards. Most NFL players don't have a subsection in their wikipedia pages dedicated to highlights, awards, and honors so it's gonna be a long process to create these subsections for thousands of NFL Players. What would you rather do, create a whole new subsection or include the awards in their infoboxes? AloofStorm5476 (talk) 15:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Bios aren't limited to lists. Writing one sentence in the body that "X won award ABC" never killed anyone. There is no deadline. —Bagumba (talk) 16:24, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
A list would be better for organization and simplicity. AloofStorm5476 (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Lists supplement prose; they are not a replacement. Per the MOS:PROSE guideline:

Prose is preferred in articles because it allows the presentation of detail and clarification of context in a way that a simple list may not. It is best suited to articles because their purpose is to explain.

—Bagumba (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So if the Bart Starr Award gets removed from Gill Byrd's infobox, would it be kosher to add an awards section? It would be pretty much identical to the infobox though. Seems a little redundant. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:25, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The average casual NFL fan doesn't know what a Bart Starr Award is for, let alone readers who aren't even fans. However, do not use links as a substitute for explanation; if a technical term can be simply explained in a few words, do so (MOS:NOFORCELINK) —Bagumba (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like we have consensus on those listed so far. What other awards should be removed from the navboxes?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:02, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sin that the NFL project has a ton of members, and we have less than ten voting. Which pretty much means we become the police on this. As long as we have it in black and white, thank you WO-9 for adding the current status to WP:NFLINFOBOXNOT, whatever else is added we can revert without a headache. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's a sin that the NFL project has a ton of members, and we have less than ten voting. Not really, consensus can only be determined by who shows up, and participation is always voluntary; membership is entirely informal and doesn't bestow either expectation or privilege. FWIW, I've found that pro sports WikiProjects tend to have a very high level of activity. Ditto for pop culture topics like video games, movies, and music albums. Most other WikiProjects are pretty dead in comparison tbh. Left guide (talk) 22:37, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, it is voluntary. I guess I looked at it like someone shows up late, gets reverted and says oops. I'm good for something like that. Glad we're voting now! Bringingthewood (talk) 22:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone that shows up late can try to establish a new consensus. However, WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT can get old too. —Bagumba (talk) 23:33, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@UCO2009bluejay: I think we should discuss conference specific college awards, see Big Ten Conference football individual awards and other entries in Category:College football conference awards and honors. I think we should discuss all-conference selections differently, as there are different feelings on these and we don't need to muddy the waters regarding a discussion. The smaller bites we can break this up into, I think the better. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:38, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Leave me out of College Football awards. I really don't know much about those awards as I don't follow it. AloofStorm5476 (talk) 16:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
WP:IDONTLIKEIT arguments are generally not convincing. —Bagumba (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I have already invited them to join this discussion. For the vast majority of my time here I have been more CFB focused. The college projects have been more horizontal in nature than vertical. I have always contended here that removing all is the best option precisely because of the variability that exists in the college awards. But I know that is not consensus at this time. So I agree. I would say Conference specific awards are low hanging fruit. UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Art Rooney Award

Bart Starr Award

NFLPA Alan Page Community Award

I made a bold edit

Right now, Cam Newton has eight college football awards in his infobox for the year 2010. All of those but one (the Manning Award for QBs) are given to the college football player of the year. If someone won the Heisman, listing all of that stuff is redundant. There are also three awards in his infobox right now for NFL MVP. ("NFL Most Valuable Player", "SN NFL Player of the Year", and the "Bert Bell Award") I have cut 15 of his awards down to 2 lines, NFL MVP and Heisman. If someone only won one of those secondary awards, it could be an infobox highlight but it's just clutter for Newton. Thoughts? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Lol guess the two ideas I had wasn’t too bad after all. Yes, I would be in favor of implementing this, but there are a couple of issues I have. For example, if a player received college Player of the Year honors twice by the Associated Press and only received the Heisman once, do you remove the AP award for one of those years? both? none? Same would go for any NFL MVP awards. I’d also imagine there will be a constant problem with drive by editors who see awards missing and add them back repeatedly if we go through with this. This wasn’t mentioned, but I think Athlete of the Year honors for those years should stay in the infobox as those awards are different than a league Player of the Year/MVP award. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 20:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If someone already won the AP NFL MVP, I'd just be inclined to remove the Bert Bell Award entirely. Adrian Peterson was NFL MVP in 2012. It doesn't really matter much that he also won the Bert Bell Award in 2008 and 2012. Drake Maye wasn't AP MVP though, only Bert Bell, so I'd probably just leave it in his infobox personally. I know what you mean though about drive-by editors. It's funny, Peyton Manning's infobox from 2008 only has the major awards but it also has a link to "Other awards and honors". WP:NFLINFOBOX says to remove the "Other awards and honors" link though. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:18, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I support this approach. Rather than blindly listing every award in an infobox, we should evaluate/weigh which awards/record are actually career defining for the particular player at issue. Awards that may be career defining for a mid-level NFL player (and thus warrant inclusion in the infobox) may not be career-defining for an elite player like Newton. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cbl, you always have good sense about stuff. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AP award or not, does the Bert Bell Award really get much coverage by independent, mainstream sources? —Bagumba (talk) 08:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're in the article Bert Bell Award. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 14:11, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Which of those provide secondary coverage of the award itself rather than a routine "(Player X) wins award" news report? That may be the type of sourcing Bagumba is referring to. Left guide (talk) 14:37, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I hear you, but you could put a lot of the awards/highlights currently in the infobox in that same boat. Certainly most of the college highlights. For example, Doak Walker Award is pretty much the same thing, "Player X wins Doak Walker Award". Same for all conference selections like All-SEC, All-ACC, etc. NFL awards as well. NFL Comeback Player of the Year, Offensive Player of the Year, etc. There’s a whole slew of awards in which the only secondary coverage received is a routine "Player X wins award". GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't necessarily expecting non-routine coverage. However, a cursory check had left me wondering if this receives mainstream coverage in recent decades, though there does seem to be historical coverage. I might have also thought it was minor because it isn't featured on List of NFL Most Valuable Player awards. And how many readily can distinguish this from the Bert Bell Memorial Trophy? —Bagumba (talk) 17:24, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly didn't even know what the Bert Bell Award or Bart Starr Award even were until this discussion. I've never been able to memorize all of those random awards (not that I've tried). Those college player of the year awards are really ridiculous. There are so many of those dang things. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:56, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We've already reached consensus on removing three awards. Should we have another poll on what other awards should be deleted as well? Assadzadeh (talk) 18:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, so unnecessary. I still think we should just consolidate it into one "College Football Player of the Year" (unless said player won the Heisman) line item in the infobox and just add a footnote with a hyperlink to each award won. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 19:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Well now that you mention it, Bert Bell Award should probably be added to List of NFL Most Valuable Player awards. As for the Bert Bell Memorial Trophy, that award has been defunct for nearly 30 years, has a slight difference in official name, and is given out by two different organizations. Should be decently distinguishable. I’ve know the Bert Bell Award for a while, but I will admit the Bart Starr Award is kind of a new one for me. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Bert Bell, the Pro Football HOF does mention Drew Brees' award from 2009.[1] They also show it in Barry Sanders' profile, listed on the "Career Highlights" tab as "MX" (Maxwell) for 1991 MVP.[2] The Maxwell winners are also listed with other NFL MVPs in Total Football II: The Official Encyclopedia of the National Football League (p. 388) —Bagumba (talk) 08:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@BillFlis, MrArticleOne, and JJonahJackalope:: Courtesy notification reagrding this thread, as you've commented before at Talk:List of NFL Most Valuable Player awards regarding the Bert Bell Award. —Bagumba (talk) 08:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve made a bold edit at List of NFL Most Valuable Player awards just now, adding the Bert Bell Award to the list. If no good, just let me know and I’ll revert myself. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:09, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, the Bert Bell Award bills itself as the "player of the year",[3] but the sources I listed above lump it together with the MVPs. —Bagumba (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
And already reverted PolarIce628 is really out of control. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 20:29, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of PolarIce628 did anyone else notice that they just joined 4 hours ago and have already started adding a bunch of meaningless awards, such as PFWA Good Guy Award? Can someone who's familiar with the process check to see if they're a sockpuppet? In the meantime, I'm going to revert their edits until they join the conversation, which I note they have been invited to do by WO-9. Assadzadeh (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You cannot revert my edits, I am adding official NFL awards. PolarIce628 (talk) 21:54, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please read through the discussion above before adding any more awards. This is why we're trying to come to a consensus as to which NFL awards are notable and should be added. In the meantime, can you confirm that you are not a WP:SOCKPUPPET? Assadzadeh (talk) 21:58, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I confirm I am not a WP:SOCKPUPPET PolarIce628 (talk) 22:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Great, then welcome to the group and please join the conversation. Assadzadeh (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Editor has now been warned about edit warring and strongly encouraged to join the conversation here. Assadzadeh (talk) 22:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Sporting News and Professional Football Writers of America official NFL Awards should be added because they are fully recognised by the league and its players. Associated Press is not the only news agency covering the National Football League. PolarIce628 (talk) 22:53, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that this discussion is about the notability of which awards and highlights should be included in a player's infobox. However, it is not preventing editors from adding such awards and highlights in prose. As an example, please refer to Cam Newton and note the section Accomplishments and records, which is a duplicate of the infobox. As such, the infobox needs to be simplified by removing many of the non-notable awards, which is why we're discussing, and instead added to the section, if missing. Assadzadeh (talk) 23:04, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
We might remove Joe Burrow's 2019 college awards as well. PolarIce628 (talk) 23:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Done. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:41, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
16Bills61, can you please join this conversation? This user added the same award to Philip Rivers and Larry Fitzgerald within the last hour. OceanGunfish (talk) 00:14, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Both 16Bills61 and PolarIce628 are blocked. Bringingthewood (talk) 00:29, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts PolarIce628, 16Bills61, HockeyLover4Life and 8RingsOfChampions have all been blocked. Assadzadeh (talk) 00:52, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my bold edit caught on. LJF2019 is adding the redundant awards back. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:20, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I don't really care though. I was just trying to find a compromise. Don't blame me when more draconian measures are enforced by others. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If someone won the Heisman, it's definitely less interesting and probably already presumed, that they were all-conference that year too. —Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with that! AloofStorm5476 (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what the article body is for; the infobox and lead are to simply summarize that. — Dissident93 (talk) 16:49, 9 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Some people don't understand that this is an encyclopedia, not a shortcut for answering bar room trivia debates.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:40, 10 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

John Rowan (American football)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Draftify.

I created a stub on this NFL player back when playing a single game was enough to establish notability. My efforts to build a fuller biography, and to find WP:SIGCOV have been unsuccessful. Indeed, I've found that reliable sources seem to have mixed up biographical details of completely different persons. I am inclined to send this to Articles for Deletion, but before doing so I thought I would post here to see if any of our expert researchers can find SIGCOV that warrants keeping. Cbl62 (talk) 00:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Player specific categories

This is going to be a mess real fast Category:Aaron Rodgers, Category:Tom Brady, Category:Brett Favre. The reason I noticed this is because a bot added the WP:NFL project banner to the 2003 Insight Bowl.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:23, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Eponymous categories for bios are a mess. Do we dump every annual Pro Bowl and playoff article in there too? —Bagumba (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If they remain over time, yes. — Dissident93 (talk) 19:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bagumba: Eponymous categories for bios are a mess. Was there a discussion where these were approved? Cbl62 (talk) 20:31, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not that I can see, but will every player that has an article eventually have categories to be linked to these pages? UCO2009bluejay (talk) 21:45, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
AFAIK, there is no mandatory approvals process for the creation of categories. That said, anyone is free to contest its existence by pursuing deletion at WP:CFD. Left guide (talk) 05:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'll admit I created one, for Aaron Rodgers, following generally what was done for Brett Favre. Wouldn't be against deletion, but if they do remain, than at least there should be some clear guidance on what to include and not include. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:31, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move at Talk:Heath Miller#Requested move 11 February 2026

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Heath Miller#Requested move 11 February 2026 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. CNC (talk) 22:23, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. Watt good article nomination notice

The article T. J. Watt has been nominated for good article status. Left guide (talk) 07:52, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from the reviewer will be coming soon regarding this. Any help with making this pass, now or eventually, is appreciated. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:26, 22 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Team Colors

For quite some time we have had much editing and discussion related to team colors. These discussions have bled across multiples arenas (pun intended) of Wikipedia, including navboxes, other templates, rivalry pages, and team pages. It seems that even with much discussion, we still end up having editors, often new to Wikipedia, coming in and making changes that don't seem to follow consensus, leading to reverts and sometimes edit warring. I think it would be great if we had one discussion that we could point to that clearly establishes consensus. I propose this discussion to serve that purpose.

From my experience, this is what I have seen become consensus:

  1. Rivalry pages (e.g. Packers–Seahawks rivalry): the {{Game log start}} series of templates (used in the "Game results" section) should utilize current color schemes of NFL teams, ensuring that the two colors that are being used for the two rivals do not clash and meet visual accessibility guidelines, especially related to colorblindness. Specifically, no historic colors should be used; the rationale for this is that a majority of readers are familiar with current color schemes of NFL teams, not historic ones.
  2. Team templates (e.g. those found in Category:Green Bay Packers templates): high-level navigation templates should utilize current color schemes of NFL teams in a consistent manner across all templates; this does not preclude style changes for larger templates (such as {{Green Bay Packers}}) to make grouping and navigation easier.
  3. Season-specific navbox templates (e.g. {{Green Bay Packers 1944 NFL draft picks}} and {{1944 Green Bay Packers}}): these season-specific navbox templates should utilize the historic color schemes of that specific season; the rationale for this is that it matches the infobox and tables typically found in that specific season page (e.g. 1944 Green Bay Packers season) and that color is most relevant to data that only covers one specific season.

The last point is that in all things related to color schemes, the goal of the project is that colors should be utilized to subtly enhance the reading experience and provide consistency across multiple pages, but not dominate or overwhelm the reader.

If I missed something or am off on my view of consensus, please let me know how it can be improved. However, if this is how you have seen consensus evolve, I would appreciate a statement of support so that this thread can serve as a standard link to the consensus of WP:NFL on this topic. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:36, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Question: How are current color schemes determined? For example, the Bengals and Browns both have orange as a color. However, in Bengals–Browns rivalry, under the Season-by-season results section, the Bengals are assigned orange and the Browns a dark brown. Assadzadeh (talk) 18:16, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Assadzadeh I think most teams have three official colors and we have left it to editor discretion to determine which official colors are best in rivalry pages (i.e. which are distinguishable from each other). I haven't seen much disagreement on that topic and think generally most of the colors have been settled at this point. The biggest issue is editors coming in and changing current team colors to historic team colors. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:35, 25 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
OK, thanks for the response.
  • Support per your statements.
Assadzadeh (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Why are colors even necessary?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For rivalry pages, the colors allow for a necessary visual cue to allow the readers to easily identify who won which games and find streaks, trends, etc. from the tables. Frank Anchor 19:51, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support that. Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what we're debating honestly. Isn't what you listed above already the status quo on all pages? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not a debate WikiOriginal-9. This issue keeps persisting, so it would be helpful to have a link to a discussion that clearly explains this consensus so as new editors pop up and make changes to colors, we can easily point to a discussion showing what the consensus is. Right now, its just an agglomeration of a bunch of different discussions in a bunch of different places. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:39, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Historic color question I barely touch colors. How does one verify the colors, esp. historic ones. Is there any traceability, like the references at Module:College color/data?—Bagumba (talk) 18:24, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I am not 100% sure, but I know all the NFL teams post their official team colors with RGB values. I am guessing there is some source for historic colors. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:48, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - Per Gonzo's statement above. I don't think someone feeling nostalgic should be able to come in and rock the boat. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:41, 5 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of third overall NFL draft picks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The result was Delete.

You may be interested in this discussion. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:28, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Thought you guys might like this ESPN journalism analysis

Some salient points about ESPN's sports reporting and independence from the leagues it covers (obligatory Wikipedia relevance). Also a lot of entertaining cracks at Stephen A. Smith. JoelleJay (talk) 07:14, 4 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Offseason and/or practice squad member only

Hello all. I am looking to establish consensus and clarity around the utlization of the dreaded asterisk to mark "offseason and/or practice squad member only" status. Back in January, in relation to Jason Pierre-Paul's time with the Buccaneers, Yankees10 pointed out to me that if a player is elevated from the practice squad, the asterisk no longer applies. It was my opinion that even if a player is elevated, they are not signed to the 53-man roster and hence never left the practice squad thus the asterisk should still apply. I see a few other examples here and there of this - Nyheim Miller-Hines with the Saints for example, was only a practice squad member but was elevated once. Could you all weigh in on this? I would like to ensure I am going with the majority shared opinion going forward. Ewebb49 (talk) 02:51, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how would it make any sense for a reader to go to PFR.com see that JPP played in 3 games for the Bucs and come here and see the asterisk saying "offseason and/or practice squad member only" when that clearly wasn't the case. I'd be awfully confused if I was that reader.-- Yankees10 03:00, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's very possible that I'm getting caught up in the categorization and technicalities rather than thinking about the readability and logic behind whether the asterisk is there or not. It is a fair argument to say that if a player was a game-day active for a team, then they should count as having been active, contractual nuances aside. That's why I started this topic, to see how people feel about it. Ewebb49 (talk) 05:34, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Ewebb49 Please explain how a player can be elevated from the practice squad, but still not be a member of the 53-man squad. Assadzadeh (talk) 03:10, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As of the most recent NFLPA collective bargaining agreement, a member of a team's practice squad is eligible for three "standard elevations". It means the day before a game, the team can elevate up to two members of the practice squad per week to active status, and then immediately revert back to the practice squad. This way, a team is not required to sign a practice squad player to their active roster, cut them immediately after the game and re-sign them to the practice squad. This is what my question is about. I am unsure if a standard elevation counts as not being on the practice squad anymore. Ewebb49 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They played in actual games, they're obviously not practice squad only. I swear people will argue about anything on here. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 03:20, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize if my question came off as an argument, I just wanted to clarify the point. To me, a standard elevation does not require the player to be signed to the active roster, therefore even if they played in actual games the status of being a practice squad member has not changed. But if having been active for an NFL game counts as enough to remove the asterisk, then I was mistaken. It's just the wording that seemed unclear to me. If being active in a game is enough, perhaps the caption for the asterisk should read, "offseason, practice squad or inactive only". Ewebb49 (talk) 04:02, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the technical terms are, but it appears this is regarding a practice squad member who is activated for a game but is not part of the team's 53-man roster?[4] —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The technical term is Standard Elevation [5]. A team can elevate two practice squad players to the active roster for one game and they automatically revert back to the practice squad the following day and are exempt from waivers. The player is not signed to the active roster, but is listed as active for game day. This is the crux of my question. Since a practice squad player that is elevated is not techically signed to the acitve roster, is this enough to remove the asterisk? Or must they officially be signed to the active roster? Ewebb49 (talk) 05:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, if the player actually played in the game, then the asterisk should be removed. Otherwise, he should still be considered a practice squad member. Assadzadeh (talk) 05:52, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In the long run, this sounds like a promotion without pay, which for owners is a cost saving, so it is going to be used more and more with some teams maxing it out and then in the next contract it will probably be expanded. We need to think beyond this example and figure out what adjustments the project needs to make. We can either think about this now or put our collective heads in the sand until the tidal wave of elevations comes.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:12, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When a practice squad player is elevated, they actually do get paid for it. For that week, they are paid as if they were earning the league minimum salary which is something like triple what the practice squad weekly salary would be, so the players are compensated when they're elevated. Currently a player can only be elevated three times a season, which means if the team wants that player on the active roster after that they'd need to make space and sign them to the 53-man roster. This shouldn't change until the next NFLPA collective bargaining agreement comes into effect for the 2031 season (unless the league pushes for changes sooner that require player approval). Ewebb49 (talk) 07:43, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ewebb49's query is excellent. He has taught us all something new I believe. That players can take the field for NFL teams while legally still being a member of the practice squad. Thus, he was asking whether if a players only NFL playing experience came while still a practice squad player, is the asterisk still pertinent. On its face, the current wording of the asterisk still seems to be pertinent to an elevation only player. No doubt as more NFL teams figure out how to keep costs down by squadding the maximum number of elevated practice squad members this may become more common. I would suggest that we revise the wording of the asterisk rather than cast aspersions on the well meaning discussant who brought this forward. We might choose to augment our asterisk explanation for times ahead. We might add words such as "with no NFL regular season or playoff experience".-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:39, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think User:Assadzadeh has the best solution. If the practice squad player actually played in the game during a standard elevation, then the asterisk should be removed. Otherwise, he should still be considered a practice squad member. Cbl62 (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with that. I've seen that if they never played a game, PFR won't acknowledge them. I always went by if there's an asterisk for a season, they never played. It does say * Offseason and/or practice squad member only. The pain is when someone adds five uniform numbers to the infobox and four seasons have an asterisk next to them. The numbers section is not for the offseason, practice squad and/or college. So I think. Bringingthewood (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why do UFL team season articles have different formats than NFL?

See the schedule table in 2026 Birmingham Stallions season compared to any NFL article from the 2025 NFL season.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:25, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to update them to be consistent. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I normally would, but want the full go-ahead on this. I tried to at update with {{Game-won}} and {{Game-lost}} templates and simplify the code (without modifing the format to match the NFL) of the schedule tables in CFL articles last year. I got pushback.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Is UFL in this project's scope, or is it Wikipedia:WikiProject American football? —Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a question to ask Danjobilly1 who created that article with its schedule table, and apparently did the same for other 2026 UFL team season articles. Left guide (talk) 21:45, 7 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]
allikas: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League