Template talk:Infobox Gridiron football person

Official Washington Redskins web colors	#7D0008	#FFBE26	Player Name
as opposed to the colors above	#900020	#ED9121	Player Name

It might be worth persuing with the public relations or media relations department from each team. Or not. ►xanderer  05:44, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That looks alot better also. I'm going around all the Redskins to try to update them.++aviper2k7++ 06:23, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Phew done. That would've been alot easier at the end of preseason. All current roster Redskins now have the color you listed.++aviper2k7++ 06:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks aviper2k7, can you please get the Cleveland Browns, Carolina Panthers, Houston Texans New York Giants, and Atlanta Falcons official colors too, (you can show me the colors and I will change it for the players infoboxes so you don't have to waste time. Thanks --Phbasketball6 18:43, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't even know where to find it. I found the Packers colors in their FAQ and some teams don't even have an FAQ, let alone their colors mentioned. I couldn't even find where xanderer got those colors.++aviper2k7++ 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I've found what I consider to be very accurate colors that I've been using to represent the Cleveland Browns: #321414 (seal brown) and #FF7F00 (burnt orange). Seal brown is used for backgrounds and burnt orange is used for fonts (the two are reversed where applicable). Seal brown does look very similar to black, but for consistency, I feel it should be used. Examples can be found here: {{Cleveland Browns}} {{BrownsCoach}} etc, etc. Wlmaltby3 06:16, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus? Not yet drafted

I've noticed the NFL player infobox appearing on a lot of college players who are eligible for the upcoming draft, along with predictions of their draft position. (Examples: Greg Olsen, Mason Crosby, Aaron Rouse, Aaron Ross, Jon Beason...) Additionally the "NFL Draft" field are being filled in with 2007, Round TBD. I feel strongly that the infobox shouldn't appear until the player is drafted and signed. Although these players will not doubt be drafted in a few weeks, this is not a certainty. Just ask fans of Len Bias. But I wanted to gauge everyone else's opinions before acting. Thoughts? —►xanderer  01:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree xanderer, that's a bad idea that needs to be nuked. Quadzilla99 02:57, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason why the infobox can't be there, but the draft round and such should be left out completely.++aviper2k7++ 03:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree with aviper.↔NMajdan•talk 16:16, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The NFL player infobox should appear on every player who's eligible for the current NFL Draft. --Bender235 13:47, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Does the fact that they're not yet NFL players matter for anything? I mean if people need something to do they can clean up or expand any of the countless articles out there needing work. Quadzilla99 13:57, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Also creates a large unecessary gray area for fringe prospects. I don't like this at all—of course I've already said that. Quadzilla99 13:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I realize this whole debate will be moot in a week, but there's something about this that scares me. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and therefore contain accurate, precise information. The fact is: these players are not NFL players until they sign a contract. If I had a job interview at NASA tomorrow, does that entitle me to slap the Astronaut Infobox on my user page? Of course not. — x a n d e r e r 03:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jersey numbers

I really feel like there should be a place for jersey numbers in the template. Jersey numbers represent players in the eyes of a lot of fans and unless specifically mentioned in a player's article they often aren't even found there at all. I think we should put it in the template somehow, perhaps in the title bar with the guy's name or something.Chris Nelson 23:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I try to write it into the article whenever possible, but I'm all for it. But lets decide the guidelines before we windup with another situation like the one above (retired players). I propose the following:

• Current jersey number for active players, regardless of what number they're best known for.
• Jersey number worn the longest for retired players, except in cases where they were especially well known for wearing another.

Any other situations that need to be considered? — x a n d e r e r 01:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Players that have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame are of concern here. Dependant upon what team the player chose to be enshrined with in the Hall of Fame, I feel that the number that is displayed should be the number that the play wore the longest when they played for the team that they chose to be enshrined with. Therefore, if Brett Favre were to have worn numbers 71 and 4 while with the Green Bay Packers (which he didn't), obviously the number listed would be 4. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 05:35, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm really not concerned about retired players, it really isn't needed. For current players it'd be nice. Obviously, it should be their current number.Chris Nelson 06:03, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

I've added current jersey numbers to all current Miami Dolphins player infoboxes. I've put them in the name line with a dash after the name. See Zach Thomas for an example. I took the idea kind of from the MLB infoboxes, which have the numbers after the team and a dash. I think this info should be present in the article, and I think this is a good way to do it. Any comments?Chris Nelson 18:57, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks good, although it would be better if it was integrated into the actual box. Pats1 21:13, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, but the way I did it still does create the same kind of thing in the MLB infoboxes.Chris Nelson 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

It would be easier to maintain in the long run if the jersey number were added as a field to the template, rather than appending it to an existing field. --Arcadian 00:22, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm not sure how it'd be easier. Either you change/add the number to one a field or the other.Chris Nelson 01:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Once the season begins and 53-man rosters are finalized, I am going to begin going through all the players on each team, updating colors AND adding the jersey numbers in the manner I've described. I'll probably do a team per day.Chris Nelson 06:17, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Any objections?

Since Chris Nelson has added player numbers in the infoboxes to several player pages, I took the liberty to add a number field to the template for quick entry. Adding the number adds value to the player articles since players are often identified by their jersey numbers. Let me know what you think. RyguyMN 05:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be a problem when it comes to displaying numbers for retired players. It would be nice if somehow the template omits the number if the retired player color scheme is used, but I don't have the programming knowledge to get this idea going. RyguyMN 06:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would you want their number omitted?++aviper2k7++ 06:40, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I don't think numbers should be there for retired players, since they may have worn multiple numbers and they don't currently have one (similar argument to the colors debate). However, I do REALLY want to get this done for current players, so what can we do? Should we take a poll? I mean there is no way you can argue that it looks bad or has a negative effect on the article, it's a good thing. I guess I see why people think it's not the way the template was intended, but really does it matter if it just says "Name"? A common visitor to an article doesn't know that the bar at the top of the infobox is only for the name, because it only says it in the template? So what do we do? Do we change the template field to say "NameNumber" or something like that? What's the easiest way to get it done?Chris Nelson 00:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris that adding numbers for retired players does not make sense since a player could wear multiple jersey numbers over the course of a career. For instance, if Randy Moss finishes his career with the New England Patriots, do you use number 81, 18, or 6?

I did some more work on the template and I believe it should now take care of all the issues at hand. I was able to get an if statement working where the infobox would omit the jersey number in the header if the "number" field is left blank or not included in the infobox. This would eliminate retired players from having a blank number showing up in the header and reduces the amount of work required to correct infoboxes where the number was already added alongside the name. Let me know what you think. RyguyMN 04:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Great job man. It's perfect. I really appreciate your efforts in helping.Chris Nelson 04:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Only hardcore fans are that into numbers, I don't mind it being in the infobox but on top is a little much. That's way too prominent. Trevor GH5 20:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's very similar to the MLB infoboxes. And I believe you're entirely wrong about hardcore fans being into numbers. It's a big part of a player's image. Everyone knows Vick is No. 7. Manning is No. 18. Favre is No. 4. The info contributes to the articles, and I believe most people would agree it looks good like it is as well.Chris Nelson 21:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Trevor. People who aren't even sports fans read these articles and it's kind of jarring to read Tom Smith - 5. I think we need to get a consensus check here. Quadzilla99 23:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It looks terrible. The name bar shouldn't begin to be inundated with details. Jersey numbers go from not being on the info box at all, to being placed next to the name? That can easily be put below it. Put it under hight, and weight. DChase1 23:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You only think it terrible because it's not what you're used to. I bet if it had always been like that, you'd say it looks terrible without it.Chris Nelson 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright I'm starting a poll down at the bottom of the page. Quadzilla99 00:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Honor Positioning

Non-editor friend of mine has been bugging me about the positioning of the HOF mention. She feels quite strongly that, as it's pretty much as high an honor as a player can achieve, that it should have greater prominence; she pointed out a couple of cases where the stat box is sufficiently long, particularly when a photo is involved, that the HOF mention is not visible when you first look at the page, requiring a bit of scrolling (although, as I pointed out to her, with little success, there is usually a HOF mention in the opening text to the article). I can kinda see her point, though - the HOF is, obviously, a big deal, so it seems that it should have a degree of greater prominence than being right at the bottom. The vast majority of players have a "Career Highlights" section - at the top of that would seem like a logical alternative; granted, the HOF only comes after retirement, but other post-retirement honors are mentioned in that section as well. --Tailkinker 22:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian Football HOF?

There WAS a cell for the Canadian Football Hall of Fame, but it seems to have disappeared sometime in 2006. The link in the cell went to the CFL site, rather than to the more informative bios listed on the Canadian Football HOF's official site[5]. I think a Canadian Football HOF cell would be a great inclusion for stars such as NFL-CFL (and NCAA) stars like Warren Moon, and Doug Flutie, for example. Sundevilesq 22:15, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

I've added this back into the template since the infobox contains CFL statistics and honors already. It's useful information. RyguyMN 17:28, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team Colors

A few weeks ago, I used actual team logos to extract hex colors for each NFL team. These have already been implemented into team templates, roster templates, and other misc. templates. I am now looking for these "real" colors to be implemented into the player pages. So far (to the best of my knowledge), only the Patriots' players have this done. I will change the template in this main article to reflect the new colors. Someone may have to take out out a bot to get all of the player pages done. Pats1 21:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

For examples, see Gemara Williams, Template:New England Patriots, and Template:New England Patriots roster. You may notice that these colors are different from the generic "blue" or "silver" formerly used in the player infobox template. Pats1 21:16, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

All of the Green Bay Packers players have the official color of the Green Bay Packers in their templates.++aviper2k7++ 03:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Looks great. I'm just about done changing the colors over, but it seems as though some of the them in the roster templates I'm using have been changed, so I'll need to go back and check those too. Then I'll double-check them against coach, team, and misc. templates. Pats1 21:00, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with some of these. I think Detroit should stay blue and black like it was, it looks more modern like their current uniforms. I also don't like Tampa Bay's with the white writing. Some color combinations have bothered me, but not theirs. Is it bothering anyone else with a red font?Chris Nelson 21:44, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The red font is a bit tough to read on the pewter. The white was also already being used on the team and coach template. Detroit's black was harder to read on the blue, which I'm not sure the hex was from. The silver is a bit easier to read. Pats1 21:55, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Poll: Jersey numbers

Should a player's jersey number be put with the information in the infobox or on top by his name? See the above thread for details, Quadzilla99 00:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

On top

1. - Chris Nelson 00:34, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
2. - Pats1 00:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC) (Another short little entry into the infobox would add wasted space and unnecessarily stretch it)
3. - aviper2k7 I think it looks good on top and contributes to the article. The number is helpful also and pertinent to their career.++aviper2k7++ 00:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Inside

1. - DChase1 00:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
2. See my comments above. Quadzilla99 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
3. Bjewiki 00:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
4. It's totally tacky these guys are human beings and have a life off the field they're more that Joe Montana-16. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 01:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   There's no personal information in the template either.++aviper2k7++ 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

   Backwards logic. Tayquan ^holla_{My work} 01:30, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

5. Weak inside. Inside. I upgraded my vote based on Andy Mabbett's 11th Commandment below. —xanderer 13:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
6. -Inside. I like the number idea, but it looks crappy on the upper bar Soxrock 17:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
7. Trevor GH5 19:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
8. Inside Upon further review, I like the idea of having numbers, but I don't feel it belongs with the name for an encyclopedia. For bios on league sites it's fine, but it doesn't seem appropriate here. Looking over the various sports infoboxes, I feel that this NFL player infobox should be modeled after Template:Infobox MLB player with the current team along with the jersey number stated just below the picture caption. As the infobox stands right now, it's difficult for a non-sports fan to recognize what team a player is on until they scroll to "Team(s)" at the bottom. Should the current team be added to this infobox, another recommendation is that the "Team(s)" section should be renamed "Former team(s)" to eliminate the redundancy of stating the current team twice. Just my two cents (or silver dollars). RyguyMN 00:05, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
9. inside. I'm all for the uniform numbers—it's an outstanding suggestion—but for every Brett Farve who is well known for his number, there is a Jeff Feagles who has worn many different uniform numbers in his career. It's an Important detail indeed, but not important enough to elevate to alongside a player's name. Slurpeeman 02:17, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
10. inside. It would look way better Yankees10
11. Inside. 11th Commandment. 24.255.116.227 17:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
12. Inside. I certainly dislike the idea of adding it next to a players name. I prefer it inside the infobox similar to {{Infobox NCAA Athlete}} Вasil | talk 22:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
13. Weak Inside. I don't like the number by the man's name, it looks kind of lame (to me). I would prefer it on the inside of the infobox, or not at all. –King Bee ^{(τ • γ)} 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments

What the hell is the meaning of this Chris? Quadzilla99 00:50, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

What?Chris Nelson 00:52, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You deleted my vote. I find it hard to believe that was an accident. Quadzilla99 01:07, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Why would I delete your vote? It would serve no purpose, since it'd be clearly visible in the history that I did it would only make me look like an ass. I don't know how it happened, because all I did was write the number sign, a dash and sign my name. Maybe I edited the page after you and saved over it. I don't know. But I assure you it was unintentional, so I apologize.Chris Nelson 01:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, you just edited my comment again. Jesus Christ. Do you think no one can see these diffs and no it doesn't work that edit the way you're describing it. Quadzilla99 01:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude, I haven't edited your comments. That doesn't make sense. I don't know what the hell it is. I haven't edited anything of yours. I voted, then I replied just now. I've been on Wikipedia long enough to know how history on pages works. Why would I intentionally do something when it could be clearly visible and would only hurt me?Chris Nelson 01:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'll assume good faith, but I've never seen that happen before and I've got almost 27k edits. Let's just forget about it and move on. Quadzilla99 01:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Tayquan I'm not sure I understand your argument. How does adding their jersey number make them less of a human being? The infobox is for career-related things. Career-related things like where they played college ball, Pro Bowls, past teams. Jersey numbers falls into that. Team rosters don't list guys as "Peyton Manning - really nice human being." I don't see what you're getting at.Chris Nelson 01:22, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

The info box is for career things,yes. But, the name box is for the person's name. There are a million things one could put there: Tom Brady, QB; Tom Brady, winner Super Bowls (XXXVI, XXXVIII, XXXIX); Tom Brady, of the New England Patriots, etc..DChase1 01:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, for those who don't want to extend the info box downwards, I propose it is placed next to their position. So for example: Position(s) QB, #12 DChase1 02:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Except none of that stuff would look as good or make as much sense.Chris Nelson 02:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nothing makes sense there because it is the name bar DChase1 03:36, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not like there is some universal rule that is HAS to be the name bar. If I believed in god, I wouldn't think he would have told Moses that the first bar in an infobox must only be used for player names. It's just the way it was first done. Change does not equal bad. Don't fear change!Chris Nelson 03:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You forget the eleventh commandment - Thou shalt not put anything but the name in the name field, because it's used to populate the "fn" (name) property of the hcard microformat. Andy Mabbett 09:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Ha! You just made me spit out my coffee. —xanderer 13:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

So this is gonna fail by a 5-3 vote. That blows.Chris Nelson 16:28, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, anyone that reads this, PLEASE DO NOT remove the number fields from the templates on player pages that have them. If we decide to move the number inside the infobox, the field can stay the same, all we have to do is change where it shows up in the template. So you're just creating more work. So leave the number fields if they are already there, and just wait for the template to be changed. Chris Nelson 17:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah, be patient. Final uniform numbers wont be assigned for months, so there's no reason not to leave to poll open for a while. What's up there now is hardly a consensus, plus a few of the "inside" votes have nonsensical rationales. — x a n d e r e r 17:56, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Guys that voted for inside, I'm going to ask you one last time to reconsider. I feel that some of you think it only looks weird because you're simply not used to it, when if it had been the other way around you might feel it looks weird without it.

As for the number being given too much prominence in the infobox, I disagree, and here is why. Consider all the NFL player pages at various major sources:

• NFL.com
• ESPN.com
• Yahoo!
• CBS SportsLine
• Fox Sports

Also consider Green's bio at the official Chiefs website here.

Numbers are clearly thought prominent by what I would consider all the major sources on this matter. A player's jersey doesn't have his date of birth stitched on it. It has his number. It's how he is identifies on the field, doing the thing he's famous for in the first place. It's how many NFL team websites order their roster, including our own NFL roster templates within positions. It's why you instantly recognize whose jersey someone is wearing on the street. So the prominence argument, I would say, is a poor one.

In my mind, the infobox is for things that are linked. Date of birth, place of birth, position, awards, pro bowls, draft, former teams, etc. All possibly linked things. The number doesn't need to be there, it's just basic info about a player on his current team. I believe next to his name is the best place for it, and I think player pages on those various websites have it like that for a reason.Chris Nelson 18:16, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent point, Chris. Pats1 00:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here's the deal. I am almost totally sure that about half the people that voted against my idea only did so because it was me that proposed it, because of our "run-ins" in the past. Obviously, I should have had someone else propose it. I guarantee the poll would have been a lot different had that been the case.

Furthermore, I have argued my side at quite a length, and did so very reasonably and articulately. Most of the reasons for the "inside" votes are poor, and some aren't good reasons at all. (Ex. it's too prominent. Uh, no.) All of you KNOW that the information somewhere in the article improves it. I also think most of you would agree that an infobox field that looks something like 'Jersey Number          4' would just look silly sandwiched between things like birth place, position and college. I would say my examples of the links showing the prominence of the numbers is as good as any, and I see no reason why a Wikipedia article should differ from sources like that.

Therefore, I plan on continuing to add numbers as I update and standardize NFL infoboxes. Once the season begins and final rosters have been set, I plan on going team by team and standardizing the infoboxes so that colors, flag icons, positions, and so on are all presented the same way on every article. As of now, I also plan on adding the jersey numbers to the top bar of the infobox. Why? Because I have yet to hear good enough reason why it's a bad thing, and I've presented plenty of reasons why it's a good thing. And I'm not going to let what I believe improves articles be messed up just because some people hold grudges over past encounters.Chris Nelson 06:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems that the poll is pretty overwhelmingly (10-3) in favor of putting the numbers inside the box, not in the title. While, I will admit, I have had run-ins with you in the past, that has nothing to do with my decision on which way I should vote. As we discussed on our talk pages, I initially liked the numbers in the title, but was swayed to "inside" by the discussions above. Although, if you really think that that many people are out to get you, because of previous run-ins, maybe that should tell you something about your working style in the wikipedia community. Remember, this is after all a community project, so I urge you to take into consideration the feelings of the community, which in this case seem to be to not clutter up the infoboxe titles with unecessary information like player number. Bjewiki 13:38, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You are manufacturing explanations for why the poll isn't going your way. I've never had a run-in with you, and I've agreed with you on previous polls—It has nothing to do with my vote. I would, however, caution you about statements like "I refuse to," and "I'm doing it anyway." They're a good way to get yourself banned. Trust me. —xanderer 16:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I've yet to hear one argument for "inside" or simply against it being in the top bar that I can't totally destroy. Therefore, I refuse to acknowledge a poll if people don't have good reasons.Chris Nelson 13:57, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

You're only hearing what you want to hear. By far the best reason against it is that putting the number there breaks the hcard microformat for the NFL player info box. Bjewiki 14:14, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

But additionally, I agree with all the people who cited that it clutters the info box title with unecessary information. Bjewiki 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well first of all, I don't know what that is, so if someone can explain it to me or point me to a place where it can be explained, and if it's a good enough reason, I'll give in. But as for the "it looks bad" argument, it's simply not good enough. I think it looks bad without it. But neither argument alone is worth deciding its presence, and the fact remains it contributes positively to the article. So I'll wait for a good reason. It's not about hearing what I want to hear, and simply not liking the argument. It's that the arguments are poor and can be knocked down easily.Chris Nelson 14:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

[6] Bjewiki 14:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what it is either, but I'm smart enough not to mess with it. This seems like a slam-dunk reason not to put anything else in the name field. Period. 24.255.116.227 17:13, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Since no one knows what it means, let me breifly explains. Basically, it makes the page automatically parasable for a computer, so that you can extract data for it. You could write a computer program right now, to search all of the NFL player pages on Wikipedia, and extract their name, position, etc. But, adding the number onto the name (as it was done), would result in names being extracted as "Brett Favre - No. 4", as opposed to "Brett Favre". Bjewiki 17:27, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you explain it in English?Chris Nelson 14:23, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

"The HTML mark up produced by this template includes an hCard microformat, which makes the person's details parsable by computers, either acting automatically to catalogue article across Wikipedia, or via a browser tool operated by a reader, to (for example) add the subject to an address book. For more information about the use of microformats on Wikipedia, please see the microformat project." That's pretty well explained there. Bjewiki 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't even know why I'm proposing this, but what about a bar under the image/caption (where that new team bar is now) that says something like 'Quarterback - No. 10'? I just think a field that says Jersey number and then has a big space and says 10 is going to look retarded. There has to be a better way to display this, and a more prominent place, BECAUSE it deserves it.Chris Nelson 14:32, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

As several users have pointed out, for every Brett Favre (who is associated with No.4) there are 40 Joe Six-Packs who change numbers as often as people change underwear. For those players (who are likely the majority), the jersey number isn't really important enough to be in the title (thus we shouldn't do it for anyone). However, I think your idea to to explore alternate areas in the infobox(other than the infobox title) for the numebr is fine. Bjewiki 14:37, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well the original comment was that for every Brett Favre there is a Vinny Testaverde. However, retired players and free agents are irrelevant here because obviously we would just remove the field from their infoboxes. This is for current players, who have current numbers. First of all, I think you're exaggerating how often jersey numbers change. Secondly, I would argue they are MORE important for lesser known players, that the info would be more valuable to the common reader.Chris Nelson 14:42, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but lesser known players tend to change their numbers so often, that that information really isn't benefitial enough to warrant inclusion in the infobox title. Bjewiki 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Testaverde was a bad example since he is now retired , but don't allow that to obscure my point: For every player who is synonymous with their uniform number, there are many for whom the number has little meaning. Slurpeeman 17:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest doing it similar to MLB players, such as Ken_Griffey,_Jr., which I believe is what you were getting at earlier. Bjewiki 14:48, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I plan on keeping the numbers up to date, so I don't see the problem there.

I'd like to experiment some with the other idea I had, but unfortunately I don't know how to edit a template like that.Chris Nelson 14:56, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Also, here's a good reason for the bar below that image that says 'Quarterback - No. 4':

All the stuff in the first section of the infobox is past stuff. Birth date, birth place, college, draft year, etc. That's all past stuff. Brett Favre is STILL a quarterback, and he STILL wears No. 4. Those two things are very necessary to his current status, while the other things that would sandwich it in the "inside" proposal are not.Chris Nelson 15:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

That team bar looks like crap if there's no player picture, which is the case for almost every player. Pats1 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree it does kind of look funny. But what if we did the name bar the same way the MLB infobox does it, like here? Also, wouldn't it be cool to kind of model this template off the MLB one, and have maybe three categories of career stats? I think it'd be neat. Obviously we'd have to add some places for things like Colleges and probably remove the debuts, but I think using it as a model would be nice.Chris Nelson 20:47, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

To be more specific, here's what I'm envisioning. Go to Template:Infobox MLB player and look at the All Options On part. This is what I envision an NFL version looking like: -Name, image, number, and current team info all the same as the MLB template -Where the bats/throws info is located, I would place all the info from the first section of the NFL template as it is in the NFL template now (DOB through draft info) -In the MLB debut section, we put the Career Highlight section, to include awards, honors, etc. -Selected MLB stats I'd put the same for NFL stats. I don't see the need for all these stat links, especially since some aren't always updated. Wouldn't it be cool to have that on Brett Favre's infobox, and have selected stats including, say, passing yards, touchdowns and something else (passer rating? completions?) -The teams section could be the same as the MLB infobox now, or we could keep it like it is. Really doesn't matter, it could still go there.

So here's the question: Why not? Wouldn't this infobox look good? Wouldn't it solve all these disputes about numbers and current teams? Also, wouldn't it be good to have some more similarities between sports infoboxes?Chris Nelson 20:59, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I agree with you that the NFL infobox should be modeled after the MLB box. How about getting rid of the team colors around the player's name and using a black font instead? Just like the MLB box, the team name can be listed below with the team colors. It seems silly to have the player name in colors than the team name since the colors are refering to a team. RyguyMN 00:17, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I'd really be interested to see what the template would like modeled after the MLB infobox in the manner I described before. Unfortunately I don't know how to do that stuff.Chris Nelson 00:59, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I could make the changes since I've done work adding the jersey numbers and team name. If there is some concensus on how the infobox should look I'll be happy to work on it. RyguyMN 02:50, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Well is there any way you could do it like I proposed a little while ago, maybe just to test it out? We can undo it and go back to a good version, I just want to see how it looks so people can see it for themselves before voting on that. Or is there any way we can do it separately somewhere else?Chris Nelson 03:19, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The jersey number inside is terrible, it doesn't even stand out at all on every source for NFL stats has the number near the name of the player and is it only for present, past, or both? Thanks --Phbasketball6 13:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

No one has it "out for you" because you propsed it. Thats a terrible argument and a fallacy. Why do you continue to add it to player pages when it was clearly struck down? Michigan10 00:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Team name

I've added a "team" field right below the image caption to allow a reader to quickly identify which team the player is associated with. Maybe we could somehow link the coloring scheme to what is entered in this field? RyguyMN 03:01, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a little redundant, considering the teams part of the infobox lowe down. Pats1 13:51, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I know it is, but it seems like the current team is hidden way at the bottom of the infobox. The MLB infobox has the team in the same position and was just seeing how it looks. Anybody else have comments? RyguyMN 15:09, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

no offense but, that looks like garbage--Yankees10 14:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC)Yankees

Sorry, I don't like it either. Trevor GH5 18:04, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] College and position

When I was going through some articles, I saw that some players had their college shortened or abbreviated. Brad Johnson's infobox says he went to Florida State, while Joseph Addai's infobox says he attended LSU as opposed to writing out Louisiana State. Is there a norm for this field, or is it just random. Why not just write out Louisiana State University--  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  03:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Well I agree there is no point in abbreviating things, especially since there can be multiple ones like FSU or USC. However, I do think there is no point in putting University. Florida State is sufficient. We know what college it is. I for one am not putting University on any of them. It's pointless.Chris Nelson 06:08, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Very well then, thanks for the reply. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  08:17, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris Nelson. --Phbasketball6 00:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

The shortened postion is bothering me a lot and probably bothers a lot of Wikipedia readers, for the people who doesn't play Madden will probably have a difficult time understanding what S means and when they click on it it would not be the correct link because many people forget that only typing Safety|S defines safety. Thanks --Phbasketball6 13:42, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

I was looking at the Vince Young article and the awards section and it seems "bulky", in my opinion. Looking at the NCAA player template, it doesnt seem bulky (Ex : Kevin Durant) because the actual awards are in the same colum and in small font. Just a suggestion. Corpx 21:50, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Statistics

Why is there a need to provide 3 or 4 links, when all the links show the same statistics? Shouldnt one link to NFL.com stats page be sufficient? (for a current player) ? Corpx 21:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Especially since one doesn't even update anymore. I actually wouldn't mind some actual statistics in the infobox, like the MLB infobox.Chris Nelson 22:05, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think some of the sources are overkill (Sports Illustrated, CBS), but I think that 3 of the main sources (ESPN, NFL.com & Pro Football Reference) are important to maintain. I know when i'm looking for information on a particular player, i'm usually looking for it on one of those 3 sources, so I think it makes sense to maintain the links to those player profile/stats pages (obviously it should be open to discussion exactly what sources should be considered the "main" ones). Also, I think we could cut that section down a little bit if we wanted. The "Statistics" label is redundant, since it's already the section heading. Also, instead of a long bulleted list, we could change it to one line with something like "<NFL.com> <ESPN.com> <PFR.com>" with each of those items being the off-site link. Bjewiki 23:47, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually I would argue CBS beats out NFL. NFL.com websites doesn't keep stats of players not in the league, for example, Olandis Gary:

• http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/133291
• http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/players/playerpage/133291

If anything, NFL.com should be scrapped. As soon as they are out of the league, the stats disappear.Chris Nelson 23:52, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

That's a good point about NFL.com. To be honest, at that point, I might just vote for just keeping ESPN & Pro Football Reference. Bjewiki 23:55, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

The different sources complement each other. ESPN only covers contemporary players and Pro Football Reference doesn't cover defensive stats, which is why DatabaseFootball is an important source for players such as Dick Butkus. --Arcadian 22:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I was rather perturbed to see that the DatabaseFootball stats were suddenly removed without warning. As discussed above, DatabaseFootball is the only source that provides stats for retired players. (CBS doesn't either.) I have dozens of articles for retired NFL players that rely upon DatabaseFootball to provide stats. I went ahead and edited the template to restore the relevant section. -- Trowbridge (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

To follow up on my previous comment, I do see now that the NFL has a database of retired players as well. (My bad... I don't recall ever seeing that before.) I'm working on updating my own articles, and whatever others I can find, to use NFL.COM instead of DatabaseFootball... but still, we shouldn't remove DatabaseFootball from the template while numerous articles out there are still using it.

On another note, would anyone consider using ArenaFan.com for AFL stats instead of ArenaFootball.com? As near as I can tell, ArenaFootball does not keep stats on inactive players (though please correct me if I'm wrong). ArenaFan, on the other hand, seems to have data on all current and former players. -- Trowbridge (talk) 17:04, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Height and weight revisited

I know that someone requested this earlier, but I think that height and weight should be removed. They are not stable statistics. What i mean by this is that a person's height and especially a person's weight will change dramatically over the course of a career/lifetime. Also, it is often a point of great contention when comparing the information across various sites (ESPN vs CNN vs PFR). Although it's a neat feature, does anyone see a reason why these should be left in? Jmfangio 11:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I see no reason for change, and I like having them. I just use the official website's info for this stuff to keep things consistent.►Chris Nelson 15:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• (You can skip to the bullet points to get the short version) I'm concerned about the ability to maintain this information without a dispute. For example, you just said the "official website". What site should be considered "the official" website? Are you referring to NFL.com? Many players are not in that database - Johnny Unitas and Dick Lane are just several examples. Should we then use a player's official site? Not many of them actually have official websites. To complicate the matter, the template seems to be used universally for both retired players and active players. I've also seen how it was in place on Calvin Johnson's article before he even made it to the NFL. In a nut shell, using this information in this manner makes it impossible to meet WP:V, which is a policy, and not just a guideline. When Height/weight is used to refer to a players college weight (or something like that) it is easy to pass WP:V. However, To summarize -

1. Information fails WP:V because the information changes over time. This means it also fails WP:NPOV. I see no policy or guideline that supports their use.
2. Establishing a unified source for the information is impractical, if not impossible, for everyone every article that utilizes on the information.

Jmfangio ► Talk 20:19, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

By official websites, he means official team websites, all of which keep ht/wgt data for their active players. NFL.com also keeps (usually) the same data, although it takes them until August/September to update it. I think as long as ht/wgt is used for active players, it should be fine. Pats1 21:09, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• Regardless of what he meant, I think this still lends itself to being problematic. If they do in fact change the data, then that's going to create a LOT of work for us to keep the data up-to-date. That being said, I'm okay with it being used on "current" players if the information is all taken from one source. How do we enforce that? Jmfangio ► Talk 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

NFL.com player pages. I've watched them carefully in the past, and their data doesn't change over the course of the season.

• Yea, it'd be pointless to use these stats for people who retired since most of the time, the numbers arent the same. How about a new template for players no longer in the league? Corpx 21:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

• That's exactly where i was going. I think a few templates could be created to really help the project. Retired players, non-nfl players (like USFL who did not play in the NFL), and related figures (like owners) could all use infoboxes. In addition, I think it should not be used for players who don't fit the criteria (as it was for Calvin Johnson before the draft). Jmfangio ► Talk 21:54, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Template Work

Help and comments are welcomed. The template is for retired players and has been started at User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLretired. I have opened a discussion there as well, please comment so I can make changes that reflect the desires of the community as a whole. Jmfangio ► Talk 02:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal: replacing stats links with actual figures

I'm a big fan of the MLB player infobox and there is one feature of it I'd love to see implemented in the NFL player infobox. First, let me know what you guys think, and if you like it I'd need help editing the infobox accordingly because I suck at it. You'll notice in the MLB template that there are selected statistics featured in the infobox itself. I'd like to see this in NFL infoboxes as well. I think it'd be cool to go to Peyton Manning's article and see a "Selected Statistics" section in the infobox featuring, for example, passing yards, touchdowns completion percentage and passer rating. I also think this could be better than having a handful of links IN the infobox to the same statistics, especially sine a few of them either don't update often or not at all. Obviously, these links still have value, which is why I propose we put them in the External links section of a player's article. You can see here that someone has made an External links template for baseball, and we could do the same with football.

So what do you guys think?►Chris Nelson 20:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• It's being worked in to the NFLretired template if that makes you feel any better :-) Jmfangio ► Talk 21:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I haven't read through any of this discussion yet, but everything looks good. Would it be possible, when the new template is created, to lock-in team colors? Therefore, when someone inputs a team into the "team" parameter for an active player, the team's colors are automatically added from the doc page for this template? The retired player template obviously shouldn't have colors, as in most cases the player played for multiple teams. Pats1 22:02, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's a good idea, pats. I too don't know if that's possible.►Chris Nelson 22:03, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Pats Are you talking about for this template or the NFLretired template that is in production. It would be great for you to come and join that conversation btw...only Chris and I have said anything on the talk page so far. Jmfangio ► Talk 22:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Both, I guess. What I'm saying is that the retired player template shouldn't have any team-specific colors to it, as the active player template does now. This is because retired players probably played for (or coached for) multiple teams, meaning having any team-specific colors would be POV. I'm even a bit leery about having the red and blue on the retired player template, as although those are the colors of the NFL, they are also associated with teams (Bills, Patriots, etc.) Pats1 22:15, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

• Hehe... Chris and I were just discussing that. We both agree on the idea, we're just trying to get some more input as to what colors to use. Go check out that page, you'll dig it! :-) Jmfangio ► Talk 22:20, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, don't tell Pats1 what to dig! ►Chris Nelson 22:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Jmfangio I like your NFL retired template and I was wondering if you can put the draft year, round, and pick the player was taken. I also am a fan of the MLB template and like the three stat thing judging on the position, I believe that for Quarterbacks it should be Touchdowns, passing yards, and even though its negative interceptions but for people like Michael Vick maybe rushing yards could take place for one of the three. Halfbacks easily should have rushing yards, rushing touchdowns, and yards per carry. Wide receivers should also easily be Receptions, receiving yards and receiving touchdowns. Offensive lineman should have maybe only two games played and games started. For all defensive players it should be tackles, sacks, and interceptions. Kickers should have Points, field goals made, and extra points made, and punters should have punts, yards, and avg, and coaches should have Wins, loss, and winning %. Thanks for listening to my opinion. --Phbasketball6 03:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

• Oh this is great input! The stats section is setup so that each user box can have whatever statistics they want. Right now they are all "required" and there are three of them. I'm inclined to go with that format because regardless of position, not everyone excels in the same categories. I'm not sure that you can even find games played vs. games started for most OLs. Anthony Munoz is one of the most notable players that i can think of. His stats at pfr are nothing more than a list of years played and pro bowls. This box is not geared toward coaches or anything like that. I think staff members are going to need another infobox. That being said, I do think the draft info is a great suggestion. I will add that in to the header section. Jmfangio ► Talk 20:18, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Canadian info

Just wanted to say thanks to the person(s) who've added Canadian/CFL-related parameters to this template over time. We've had a redirect here from {{Infobox CFL player}} for a while but most people just bypass the redirect anyway, and at this point I see no need for a separate template. I notice that people are using it for some arena league players too. A move to a more general name might not be a bad idea. Personally I support the use of general/merged templates wherever it makes sense to avoid template creep. heqs ·:. 14:37, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] HOFYear

A number of players look like their template is hosed because the HOF and HOFYear attributes aren't done correctly. I don't have time right now to fix them, but if someone else could look into them that would be great. —Wrathchild ^(talk) 20:11, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

Template:Infobox NFL player and Template:Infobox NFLactive/Template:Infobox NFLretired should be merged. --Louis Alberto Guel 00:14, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Template broken?

I have checked several articles that use this template and have noticed that the draft info is not showing. If you go into edit, you find the info IS there. Has anyone else noticed this?--JustAGal 13:36, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Replace

Louis Alberto Guel
Date of birth:	September 3, 1995 (1995-09-03) (age 12)
Place of birth:	Oakland, California
Career information
Position(s):	QB
Height:	5 ft 4 in (1.63 m)
Weight:	150 lb (68 kg)
Jersey №:	9
College:	No College
NFL Draft:	2014 / Round: 1 / Pick: 1
Organizations
As player:
2014-present	Oakland Raiders
Career highlights and Awards
Pro Bowls:	2014
Awards:	MVP
Honors:	Top 5 QB
Retired #s:	9
Records:	TDP
Stats at NFL.com
Pro Football Hall of Fame, 2034

I made up a new infobox!!! --Louis Alberto Guel 01:16, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

While I appreciate the effort, I don't think it's significantly better than the current one. Example: if the positions string is longer than a few characters, it throws the columns off. I much prefer a single column over the monstrosity that is the NFLActive template. Example: Jack Helms. Also, why is the jersey number linked? —Disavian (^talk/_contribs) 02:15, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

This entire infobox is being phased out, so...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 12:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sacks

Sacks. The wikie standard is verifiable. If the Raiders credit howie Long with 7 sacks in 1981, the year before they are official, why should his bio short him? He had 93 sacks, not 84. Wiki is not related to Elias Sports Bureau or the NFL. Why should official team sources be ignored as to be "official". Official to who? The point is to be fair, accurate. As long as sacks are only offical then wikie serves no purpose to enlighten readers, it would only give them the same line as the NFL----"sack prior to 1982 are unofficial". Well, that is true, btu as long as pre-1981 sacks are noted as unofficial then there should be no problem using them, as long as they are verifiable, which is the wikipedia standard that is adhered. Right?72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:11, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it sould only be the official sacks, meaning i like the idea of having 84 in the infobox not 93--Rockies17 15:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Could you say why? If he had 93 sacks, why not use the real number, even if one year is not official? If the purpose of the infobox is to have information, why put faulty information in it? I would rather that sacks not be used at all, put in his games played and his years played, etc. If you have a reason for your view, I'd like to see it so I can understand it better it.72.0.36.36 02:14, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Rockies17 they are official NFL stats, and if you put 93 instead of 84 then the information is not accurate because sacks werent an official stat at the time--Yankees10 02:21, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Not true, the 93 is he accurate number, the 84 is the "official" number. In this case "official" is not accurate. Also, look at Lawrence Taylor. His official sacks are 132.5, but the accurate number is 142. Just because a statistic is not "official" does not mean it didn't happen. The rule for wikipedia is "verifiable". The rookie sack numbers are 100% accurate and verifiable. I am going to start using them because there is no rule against it. SOmetimes I find really young wikipedia people who don't yet have a good sense of history. I think as you guys grow and learn you will gain a better understanding of statistics. 72.0.36.36 23:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the IP user. They are verifiable from a reliable source and therefore it's suitable for Wikipedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

"Wiki is not related to Elias Sports Bureau or the NFL. Well, that is true, btu as long as pre-1981 sacks are noted as unofficial then there should be no problem using them, as long as they are verifiable, which is the wikipedia standard that is adhered." Serves his point very well here and I agree with him. --Phbasketball6 01:01, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I seriousley think it is dumb to have the unofficial stats when you go to database football.com they dont have the unofficial stats--Rockies17 04:59, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AAFL

Can someone add to it for the All American Football League??? --Crash Underride 19:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Header is for the name

I don't think the position and jersey number should be in the infobox header. It should be purely the person's name. Details are for inside the infobox. DoubleBlue (Talk) 17:10, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wow

This infobox is a joke, Wikipedia is just letting some(one) twelve-year old kid ruin this infobox. It should just be deleted. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

• No personal attacks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree, this infobox is being replaced on the pages, editing this is a complete wast of time, eventually no player will have this infobox--Yankees10 01:49, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. If you don't like it, work on improving it or ignore it. I think the NFLactive/NFLretired situation is ridiculous. Why do you have to rewrite the infobox on a player's page when he retires? And then if he makes a comeback, rewrite again? It's also either intended only for NFL players or poorly named and inappropriate for other codes of football. DoubleBlue (Talk) 02:40, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Why not, plus NFLactive/retired doesn't have nearly as many flaws as this infobox, everything is out of place and so many useless things in it. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 15:29, 23 February 2008 (UTC)