Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

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)

@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)

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)

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)

My recommendation? Use the NHL player infobox format. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

Template:Infobox ice hockey biography-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 19:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

I think doing away with the following line item from WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE would be a good start:

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

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)

That might be the worst idea yet! I disagree with that! AloofStorm5476 (talk) 04:35, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

• 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)
• 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)

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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

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)

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)

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)

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)

• I suspect, even though this discussion is not very old, we will not come to consensus to remove the awards altogether. Something worth considering is whether we start with a significant reduction by going down the path of inclusion/exclusion criteria. Hey man im josh (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  So as it stands right now, we have four arguments (as best as I can tell):

  • A) Add everything. Aloofstorm5476 is the only one who has that stance.
  • B) Set hard parameters for inclusion for awards and modify the Infobox accordingly
  • C) Limit the number of awards, but keep editorial judgement about what to include in the infbox.
  • D) Delete all of the awards, following the precedent set by WP:HOCKEY.

  -Correct?- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  @UCO2009bluejay: Somewhat similar to B, I also mentioned above the idea of imposing a word/character limit on the infobox's highlights parameter. However, I do not know if that's feasible from a technical standpoint. I'm also not sure that it would be easy to maintain across thousands of articles if it can only be enforced socially. It wouldn't be unprecedented; per MOS:PLOT there's community consensus that plot summaries should be no more than 700 words. Left guide (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Rather than a character limit, thoughts on adding {{collapsible list}} to any awards section with more than, say, five lines? OceanGunfish (talk) 02:43, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  As long as the collapsible list is added after the first five lines, because the major accomplishments should be visible without having to click on a link. Assadzadeh (talk) 04:17, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'd avoid collapsing per MOS:COLLAPSE:

  If information in a list, infobox, or other non-navigational content seems extraneous or trivial enough to inspire pre-collapsing it, consider raising a discussion on the article (or template) talk page about whether it should be included at all.

  —Bagumba (talk) 08:12, 19 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'd say you're correct. I'm leaning (B). We'll see. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  Are there guideline-based rationales for A or D?—Bagumba (talk) 23:57, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

  "A" clearly contradicts WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Left guide (talk) 00:02, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not saying add every single award to an NFL players infobox. I can give you a list of awards I feel should be included. AloofStorm5476 (talk) 03:40, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  I think Left guide added that link due to what you mentioned earlier: "Another reason why I'm all for including every award an NFL player has won in their infoboxes". Then I responded: "Every award might be a bit scary". I took it the same way. Bringingthewood (talk) 03:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  How would every award be scary? There is nothing scary about them! AloofStorm5476 (talk) 03:55, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  It's scary because you're the only one proposing it. Wikipedia on a whole doesn't want the infobox to go on and on. Many miscellaneous awards are listed in the article under 'awards and accomplishments'. It worked out fine until NFLINFOBOXNOT had to be created so a players whole life story didn't end up in the infobox. Bringingthewood (talk) 04:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  I'm not saying add every single award to an NFL players infobox.…yet that's precisely what you said earlier: "I'm all for including every award an NFL player has won in their infoboxes" and "In my opinion, I believe it is important to highlight every award a NFL player has won! I want to include all awards in their infoboxes!". If you changed your mind, then go ahead and say that, but it's disingenuous to act as though that has never been your stance. Left guide (talk) 03:58, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  This is what AloofStorm said at WT:NBA in a similar discussion. Much like with NFL awards, I have a lot of issues and disagreements with this community about excluding awards. Who cares if it clutters their infobox.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  There are much more radical positions about infoboxes like this than anything anyone has suggested here.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:12, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Ok let me clear this. I will say that I did find other NFL awards at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:NFL_trophies_and_awards that I did not know about until recently and yes there are some awards that I feel shouldn't belong in a players infobox such as the Steve Largent Award and yes Ik it's just for Seattle Seahawks players, but you guys get my point. AloofStorm5476 (talk) 04:46, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  Here is what is scary about it. If you want all of us to ignore MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and we add all of this. Some editors that have contempt for all of the sports coverage will notice, and have plenty of legitimate policy concerns. The discussion could be at WP:CENT, or WP:VPP instead of here. Editors that hang around there are much less knowledgable/caring about the NFL, NBA, and American sports in general. If you think this discussion is frustrating, wait until you deal with the non-sports oriented crowd. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe many editors know what we are doing? Have you ever considered that the construction of these infoboxes were through discussions and through careful consideration? That some of us in this discussion have been here a decade or longer. But if you want to have the hubris to think that the obstinence of holding on to that position against what literally everyone is saying "no" to will get you anywhere. It won't. That position has gained zero traction. I genuinely think that you will be a very productive and helpful editor on this site. Many statistics are need of updating, and there are many ways that you can be a massive benefit to this project. However, I suggest that when it comes to adding every award. It is time to realize that it is time to drop the stick.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 04:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

  You can mark me down for option B, I’m all for tidying up the inclusion list. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• 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)

Option B Assadzadeh (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Option B Bringingthewood (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Option A AloofStorm5476 (talk) 02:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)

Option B Feels the most logical from my perspective. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:38, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

Oppose Option B Hundreds of different parameters for awards would be very annoying. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 15:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

If they remain over time, yes. — Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:54, 17 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

• Pinging editors who are active on this page to hopefully garner some level of consensus, regardless of what that consensus ends up being: @WikiOriginal-9, Frank Anchor, Cbl62, Bagumba, Left guide, GoodDay, Bringingthewood, OceanGunfish, and UCO2009bluejay: « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:27, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

OK, thanks for the response.

• Support per your statements.

Assadzadeh (talk) 06:11, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

Why are colors even necessary?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

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)

Support that. Harper J. Cole (talk) 17:45, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

Support - Go for it. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

• I've documented this consensus at WP:NFLCOLORS. Of course, the page is free to be changed in parallel with consensus. Left guide (talk) 18:31, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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)

@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)

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)

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)

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)

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? —Bagumba (talk) 04:27, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

The technical term is Standard Elevation . 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)

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)

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)

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)

• 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)
• 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)
• 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)

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)

Feel free to update them to be consistent. Assadzadeh (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

Is UFL in this project's scope, or is it Wikipedia:WikiProject American football? —Bagumba (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2026 (UTC)

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)

SVeach94 (talk · contribs) claims that "Okonkwo is an active Old School RuneScape player. In January 2025, he publicly revealed his account and username shortly after maxing out all of his skills." is worth including in the article. However, this clearly is a violation of WP:ABOUTSELF with his Twitch channel being cited and WP:UNDUE/WP:GAMECRUFT with only an ESPN Instagram image post about it and no written article. — Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:55, 12 March 2026 (UTC)

Content has been removed. Assadzadeh (talk) 01:00, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm sure this is the least important thing possible, but I'd like to ask why we word the descriptions of draft pick trades using the city name rather than the team name in articles such as 2026 NFL draft. Doing it this way creates inconsistencies when we have to account for cities with multiple teams (i.e. referring to the Kansas City Chiefs as Kansas City, but referring to the New York Jets as NY Jets). Surely it would make more sense to refer to teams using their nickname every time? Is there precedent for referring to trades this way that I'm just not seeing? And even if there is, can't we establish a new precedent using a more logical format? – PeeJay 23:58, 13 March 2026 (UTC)

ESPN NFL draft coverage?-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 00:17, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

What about it? – PeeJay 00:43, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I still don't know why we combine them all in one table. It looks better split, because players selected and draft picks are not the same thing in that context. — Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:05, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

I think you're talking about something different. I'm talking about the centralised NFL draft articles, e.g. 2026 NFL draft. – PeeJay 00:04, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Coverage has at best as I can tell between ESPN and newspapers listed it that way. While I don't have an issue with "From Baltimore" in these tables, I do find it inappropriate that we have traded picks in the table on team season articles on using the non-standard tables.- UCO2009bluejay (talk) 01:23, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

That issue has been discussed and put to bed already, and I have no interest in relitigating it. If you're saying that ESPN's draft coverage refers to teams by their city name, I don't think that's the case any longer, and even if it were, I'm wondering why we can't use our own style for this. It would be more consistent to refer to teams by their nicknames, especially since a city can have multiple teams, resulting in the inconsistency I mentioned earlier. – PeeJay 00:07, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It already says "NY Jets", "NY Giants", etc. What's the problem? ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 01:06, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

I'm saying it could just say "Jets" and "Giants", and every other team could be referred to as "Ravens", "Panthers", etc. – PeeJay 01:16, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

The city/region is fine, with the nickname in use when a region has multiple franchises (e.g. LA Rams). In most cases using the city is shorter too (especially considering every use of a nickname requires four extra characters for the leading “the”). Frank Anchor 10:47, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

It would be more consistent to just use the nickname for all teams if we're going to disambiguate between teams from the same city by using their nicknames anyway. I've been going through some older draft articles to try to introduce consistency with the more recent ones, and I discovered the 2006 NFL draft article uses nicknames more than city names. I suggest we adopt this across the board. We are not beholden to ESPN's style guide. – PeeJay 15:38, 19 March 2026 (UTC)

Came across Edward Lee Williams and Ed Lee Williams, both of which have similar names. Could these two be father and son, or is it just coincidence? The former played for the Bucs during the 1970s, while the latter was born in Tampa in 1991. It's entirely possible that the running back settled in Florida, even if he was 40 at the time of the wide receiver's birth. APM (talk) 01:26, 14 March 2026 (UTC)