Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

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

Contents

[edit] My ideas for this project

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Uploading diagrams

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

[edit] Some ideas

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

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

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

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

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

Jcam 16:00, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Another thought

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

[edit] Final Thoughts for today

After further review...

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

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

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

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

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

Jcam 18:10, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

I don't know how much effort those graphics entailed, but it would probably be easier if you used a more sophisticated graphics package so that you could modify and reuse the basic elements. I haven't used Paint in ages so I don't even know what it's capable of, but I'd imagine it's far more difficult than with other programs, including free software. Also, perhaps some other type of software would be even more effective than graphics design software, but I'm not that familiar with it. --Daniel11 03:22, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Actually, with Paint it took 2 hours to make about 60 pictures. Thats 2 minutes each. I just made the master file with all of the position circles and the cut and paste. It was super fast. A more sophisticated graphics package may make some nicer graphics, but I'd have to either a) buy it or b) download it and ALSO c) learn it. Paint did what I needed it to do. If you want to design better looking graphics feel free. I wouldn't be hurt. --Jayron32 03:47, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no objection to the way they look -- it's great that you're able to do that, and quickly, with Paint! --Daniel11 06:55, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
It appears my template may be too late, but I'll try anyways. I put together a template at User:Mecu/FootballFormationTest where you can customize the formation for display for each formation you wish to show. However, looking at the photo work that the above has done, his might be better. However, if Jayron32 would make each position it's own circles, I could modify the template to make the markings larger as well as use these images, and then no one would have to make custom images if they wanted to show a new formation. Also, it would provide a uniform look to the formation display, since currently the Formation (American football) has different graphics. So, let me know if this sounds like an option. Lastly, when uploading images you created, it's better to upload them to Commons, not Wikipedia. --MECU≈talk 18:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More cleanup of the Formation (American football) article

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

  • Looks great, Jayron. Jcam 12:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

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

  • THANKS. Looks great. I will add the templates to the main project page. --Jayron32 22:35, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


[edit] General comment

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

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

Your complaint is valid; no one will hold it against you. No, that's certainly a problem on Wikipedia: articles with controversial topics that people don't watch a lot tend to, well, stink. Patstuarttalk|edits 11:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../w/i/k/Wikipedia_talk%7EWikiProject_American_football_6bad.html"