Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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)
I know almost nothing about American football but was intrigued by accounts of the Fiesta Bowl. Most of the newspaper sites I checked on-line explained some of the trick plays in words, but a novice could not understand them. Finally one of the many Wiki links showed a diagram of another trick play. I followed Wiki from there and like Jayron32's graphics under Formation -- only wish I had found the Formation article sooner (no, not a Oklahoma pun). Just my 2¢. Oh, and the visuals are helpful for use with non-English speakers. 69.150.73.155 14:20, 3 January 2007 (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)

[edit] Avion Black

I was looking over Category:Candidates for speedy deletion when I found a very short stub article about Avion Black. A quick Google search shows he plays (or at least did at some point) for the Minnesota Vikings. I am not certain about his notability, however, which is why the article was nominated for deletion. If anyone could expand this article, that would be great. On the other hand, if it can be decided that this is a non-notable player, than the article can be deleted. Thanks. —Larry V (talk | contribs) 05:02, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Day Awards

Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:09, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article tagging

Once I noticed your WikiProject, I:

Hope I was helpful :) —Disavian (talk/contribs) 05:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NFL Draft Pages

I've noticed the NFL Draft pages are often inconsistent. While most years had 12 (or even 17) Rounds of the Draft and now I believe it's Seven, many of the draft pages are 1st round only, or all 12 (or even 17) rounds poorly formatted. I've been working on several off line and have recently joined this project so I've started to work on a more detailed version at User:Slysplace/nfl draft template. Please remember it's a work in progress and for the sake of Consistency all input is appreciated at User talk:Slysplace/nfl draft template. Please note I've also included a sandbox area where I am working on 1 draft at a time, but what you see may not necessarily be what I have off line. [[User:Slysplace a Gnome at work]] 02:02, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

  • I've successfully updated all NFL Draft Pages (1938 - 1999) to the same style as the featured articles of the NFL Draft (2003,2004,2005 etc...) Personally I like the 2002 style thats very similar but Sortable and if no objections I will update all of the existing wikitables to be sortable. I'm leary of touching those feature articles without a general concensus of approval. Also I propose a replacement of the succession box with the {{NFL drafts}} Template. Iv'e opened discussion here as well as my own draft talk page. Slysplace 23:23, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] What on earth is this user doing?

Should I revert all these changes? Discussion is at the College Football WikiProject.[1] Thanks! Johntex\talk 01:23, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Yet more player stub types

The offensive linemen stub type is very large, and needs to be split. This could be done by position, or by "era" (that springs to mind, at least). Please see this proposal. Alai 17:33, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Formations

It's becoming a standard on Wikipedia to use the SVG format wherever possible. If we're going to be uploading images that display what formations look like, there are going to be requests to convert them to the SVG format. I'll look into this more tomorrow (it's terribly late and I need some sleep) and I'll leave another comment here to let everyone know what's acceptable and all that. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:39, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] suitable for article?

is this suitable for an article? --Fredrick day 22:50, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In your scope?

My brother happened across the article Steagles; it seems a little fishy to me (like hoax maybe), so I thought I would drop your project a line to see if this was a real time or just someone trying to pull a fast one on Wikipedia's servers. Also, if this is/was a real team, would ya'll add the correct wikiproject templates to the talk page? Thanks in advance. TomStar81 (Talk) 02:09, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

---Didn't know where to put this, but you can't say that the play "inspired" the other plays listed, that would assume all players and staff on the field of one team had the original in mind. The article reads "similar plays" in the heading, but the wording on some of the individual explainations is not accurate. -Anon$

[edit] Diagrams - please verify

Can someone take a look at Image:American football Gaps and holes.svg that I made for American_football_plays#Offensive_Plays? I made it simply from the text-based diagram that was in the article. If this looks good, then I can redo some of the other diagrams as SVG ones. --BigΔT 17:44, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

That's good, but where's 8 9 and 0? I've never heard of a "D-gap" though, though that could just be my ignorance. It might be better to separate the O and D terms, so that the D can then include alignment (0 1 2 2i 3 4 4i 5 6 6i 7, etc). Also, this isn't a "standard", just a custom. Some teams do it L54321012345R and other ways are possible, though this way is probably the most common. also, the WRs are too close, and aren't really needed for gap information. You would then need to put in LB/DBs to balance them. Perhaps the green squares could be moved on the offensive side of the line... that is, below where the blue circles for the line are? Might make it more clear then too. Just trying to add some helpful ideas, I think it's good overall. MECU≈talk 22:37, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moving / renaming NFL Draft

I have posted the following comment in User talk:Koavf as I can not find justification of this users move of an entire series of list style pages.

 I see you have moved all of the NFL Draft pages to National Football League Draft
 (moved 1998 NFL Draft to 1998 National Football League Draft: Full name). 
 I can not locate discussion to justify this move of an entire series, however I can say that after countless hours of 
 personally repairing the series of pages full of redirects you have just created several more. I have 
 edited the NFL Draft Template accordingly however now the task of cleaning up 
 several if not all of the NFL Draft pages, Player pages, and NFL Articles which linked to these 
 Draft Pages remains and will not be easily edited by a single template. Can you please cite discussion 
 that warranted this move or justifies it? If so, my apologies, if not I encourage you to revert the moves 
 or help with the massive endeavor required in the cleanup of these redirects. Slysplace | talk 21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Am I overly concerned about the amount of possible redirect's? Should these moves be undone or the task of cleanup commence? Slysplace | talk 21:42, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Brief rejoinder Here is what I posted on Slyspace's talk:
"[I] moved them in accordance with similar examples (e.g. United Nations Security Council, not UN Security Council or UNSC.) If the main article is at "National Football League" then I figured all such articles containing "NFL" in the title should be consistently moved with the main title's name. Exceptions include NFL Blitz, for instance, whose name is just that. As for the NFL draft redirects, I sincerely apologize for the hassle. I personally looked at the "What links here" for every move, and fixed several hundred double redirects. I found several of the NFL draft redirects after the fact, when I accidentally looked at "What links here" for the article NFL Draft itself. Somehow, these did not show up after I initially moved them..."
I absolutely agree that double redirects are a hassle and should be avoided, so I went about doing so to the best of my ability. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to be of assistance. -Justin (koavf)·T·C·M 23:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
I've found two simple fixes so far to ease my concerns of the multiple redirects, 1st I edited the NFL Draft Template which removed 67 redirects from every page in the series, 2nd I've edited the Player Infobx template, which should resolve about 70% of the redirects on player pages (specifically & obviously 100% of the player info boxes). Now all that remains are redirects in the opening article statements, and from what I've seen the minor majority of player pages mention their draft specifically within the article. But there will still be some redirects out there to clean up. Slysplace | talk 21:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
it appears a secondary edit to the template was also required and is now Fixed. Slysplace | talk 23:33, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
And yet one more template --- The draft stub template- FIXED ... might as well live with the move tat this point. Slysplace | talk 01:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)


I've only just now found out about all these moves by Koavf, and I have to say, the moves concerning the NFL articles have been horrible. The draft is almost always referred to as the NFL Draft and not the National Football League draft. The most common name should be used, regardless if it is the most proper or not. China is named so, yet its official name is the People's Republic of China. I know this is a little different in terms of abreviations, yet the same logic applies. NFL Draft, NFL Playoffs, NFL-AFL merger are all the most used phrases for each topic, not National Football League Playoffs, etc, etc. The same argument applies to the NBA articles, but since this is the football WikiProject, I won't argue much for that here. Pepsidrinka 18:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC).

I believe the cleanup is complete espcially with regards to those edits I tried eraly on to resolve the redirects. All tempaltes have been either reverted or re-edited to the original format. The entire NFL Draft and NFL Season series has been cleaned up and re edited to the original NFL style it was previously. Hopefully I did not miss any of the articles I previously attempted to edit to accommodate the move. Slysplace | talk 01:57, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MOVED NFL - AFC - NFC etc...

I may have been premature on my acceptance of the page moves to 'full names by User:Koavf, I believe I've cleaned up the entire NFL drafts series but I find every edit I make reveals another 100 required, the NFL Seasons Series may be now in worse shape as they link to several AFC or NFC pages which are also affected. I've so far edited 7 templates because of these page moves, and manually edited several pages but this is more than a one man task and obviously to late to revert.

[edit] National Indoor Football League

This article is being heavily editwarred over, with vague claims of it being defunct or fraudulent or the like being thrown around. I've knocked it back and tidied it up, but I know next to nothing about the subject. Could someone who understands this sort of thing look into it? Thanks. Shimgray | talk | 21:26, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

I'm joining. I am going to spend sometime cleaning up the format and layout of the homepage, if anyone has anythoughts or doesn't like something, just comment here and we'll get it worked out! Jmfangio 07:28, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation names?

Is there a good reason for putting "(American football)" after every single article in Category:American football positions? While "Center" obviously needs disambiguating (just about every sport has it), the majority of the positions in American football are unique to American football and don't need to be disambiguated. We don't use parenthetical names when we don't have to. For example, Frank Beamer is just Frank Beamer, not Frank Beamer (American football). There's nothing wrong with a redirect from the disambiguation name since it could stop someone from accidentally creating an article on the subject not realizing that it already exists ... but the main article long snapper ought to be named long snapper. Am I missing something? --B 20:21, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed deletions (WP:PROD)

  • 25 August Shore Bulldogs (PROD by User:Chick Bowen; "a semi professional football team ... members of the AAA-rated GSFL (Garden State Football League).") —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ceyockey (talk • contribs) 00:47, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Variations

It would be nice to put a section about other variations of American football such as Arena, six-man, etc. or at least links to other pages about them Biglu30 21:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Greg Biekert

I found Greg Biekert on the uncategorized page and it looks like there are several past versions which had proper categories and a proper looking article and then there some vandalism as well in past versions. I'm not sure what all fits, so if someone would like to take a look at it, be my guest. DandyDan2007 12:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] CFD notice

See related discussion on a category here. heqs ·:. 18:04, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on use of logos

Please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content#Logo inclusion in football club season infoboxes and contribute to the discussion, if you wish. Best, Johntex\talk 21:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed recategorisation of team season articles

I propose a change to the categorisation of the American football team season articles. Currently we have the following hierarchy:

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

Category:1960 American Football League season by team
1960 Dallas Texans season
1960 Oakland Raiders season
etc
Category:1961 American Football League season by team
1961 New York Titans season
1961 Buffalo Bills season
etc

I propose that this be changed to (redlinks indicate new categories):

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

Category:American Football League seasons by team
Category:1960 American Football League season by team
1960 Dallas Texans season
1960 Oakland Raiders season
etc
Category:1961 American Football League season by team
1961 New York Titans season
1961 Buffalo Bills season
etc

We also currently have:

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

1956 Chicago Bears season
1957 Chicago Bears season
1958 Chicago Bears season
etc
2000 Green Bay Packers season
2001 Green Bay Packers season
2002 Green Bay Packers season
etc

which I propose be changed to:

Category:Sports history of the United States by team

Category:Chicago Bears seasons
1956 Chicago Bears season
1957 Chicago Bears season
1958 Chicago Bears season
etc
Category:Green Bay Packers seasons
2000 Green Bay Packers season
2001 Green Bay Packers season
2002 Green Bay Packers season
etc

Any objections? I think these are fairly sensible, straightforward and uncontroversial changes and normally I would just be bold and go ahead and make then, but it affects a lot of articles, so I thought I'd ask first. DH85868993 (talk) 07:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

In the absence of any objections, I went ahead and did it. DH85868993 (talk) 12:42, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks.

To whoever added BAFL (British American Football League) to WP:AMF :) . Man from the Ministry (talk) 17:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Single-wing formation article requests input

I have expanded this article as far as I can. I would like help to improve the quality of this page. Thanks.Bill Spencer (talk) 14:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you please place a link here for ease of assesing? Thanks so much! On a different note I posted a lot of disscussions threads on my page and I would love if anyone would like to debate the things that I have posted? Thanks!Historybuffc13 (talk) 23:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about forgetting to link the article. I was looking for editors for Single-wing formation. Bill Spencer (talk) 16:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All American Football League players

This non-notable league which is hardly a blip on the radar of football fans, is supposed to start sometime this spring. Although I can buy that the league and its teams meet notability requirements, what about individual players, such as Davin Dennis? I'm considering listing him for AfD. Corvus cornixtalk 02:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed semi-pro football project

There is currently a proposed project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Semi-pro football to focus on those articles which specifically deal with content related to semi-pro football leagues and teams. Anyone interested in working in such a group should indicate their interest there. Thank you. John Carter (talk) 18:35, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Three-and-out

Can somebody from this project please put this stub on their watchlist. Someone who isn't satisfied with a mere one article for their film is over-writing it with content unrelated to American Football. Thanks. Bradley0110 (talk) 16:31, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

The same article is at Three and Out, hopefully they'll be happy with just one article. May need to do more disambiguation stuff with this though. MECU≈talk 00:47, 19 April 2008 (UTC)