Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League
| This is the talk page for discussing WikiProject National Football League and anything related to its purposes and tasks. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26Auto-archiving period: 21 days  |
 | This project page does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
|
 | WikiProject National Football League was featured in a WikiProject Report in the Signpost on 20 November 2013. |
"2030 NFL season" listed at Redirects for discussion
[edit]
The redirect 2030 NFL season has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2025 June 1 § 2030 NFL season until a consensus is reached. Left guide (talk) 22:33, 1 June 2025 (UTC)
Jayden Daniels feature article nomination
[edit]My feature article nomination for Jayden Daniels is at risk for archival after receiving no comments since starting it in May, so I'm posting here for awareness. Ideally it would be reviewed by editors from outside the NFL space, but it's received some compliments from a few project members and I'd hate to see it stuck in nomination hell simply from being missed/ignored. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 18:30, 8 June 2025 (UTC)
- I left a comment there about some potentially questionable sources I spotted. Left guide (talk) 00:12, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- When those sources are addressed, whatever they are, then it should go forward, not archived. You did a great job! Bringingthewood (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep it going, D93, I believe this accomplishment could be reached! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- I pinged all involved for final comments/suggestions, but it was archived as it "received no supports". I'll just renominate it in two weeks and explicitly ask the previous commentators if they support promotion or not to avoid wasting time with another nomination. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Dissident93: That strikes me as weird. You've been doing some very nice work there improving the article to meet a wide range of expectations. I don't hang out at FARs in general, and my time and attention gets randomly divided sometimes, but it seems excessively bureaucratic and rulesy to claim that it has to archive just because nobody technically voted "support", especially since consensus is about discussion and not voting. If the required wait time to re-nominate is only two weeks, I guess it's not so bad though. Left guide (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I agree with @Left guide. If there was a Yay or Nay somewhere on one of these pages and I missed it, I apologize. Please send me a seeing eye dog when things matter. ;) Bringingthewood (talk) 04:04, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Strange that the rationale wasn't mentioned at "Closing note" but was instead buried mid-page. Not a very "featured" process. —Bagumba (talk) 04:08, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- @Dissident93: That strikes me as weird. You've been doing some very nice work there improving the article to meet a wide range of expectations. I don't hang out at FARs in general, and my time and attention gets randomly divided sometimes, but it seems excessively bureaucratic and rulesy to claim that it has to archive just because nobody technically voted "support", especially since consensus is about discussion and not voting. If the required wait time to re-nominate is only two weeks, I guess it's not so bad though. Left guide (talk) 03:56, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- I pinged all involved for final comments/suggestions, but it was archived as it "received no supports". I'll just renominate it in two weeks and explicitly ask the previous commentators if they support promotion or not to avoid wasting time with another nomination. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 00:26, 20 June 2025 (UTC)
- Keep it going, D93, I believe this accomplishment could be reached! Bringingthewood (talk) 21:29, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
- When those sources are addressed, whatever they are, then it should go forward, not archived. You did a great job! Bringingthewood (talk) 00:16, 9 June 2025 (UTC)
Right now, {{Infobox NFL single game}} has two parameters that build out the location of the game: |stadium= and |city=. For example, in Instant Replay Game, |stadium=Lambeau Field and |city=Green Bay, Wisconsin, U.S. creates the continuous string:
I wonder if it would be better to force a break in between the two, so that the string comes out as:
This has two key benefits: (1) it likely prevents weird line breaks in the infobox, and (2) it prevents WP:SEAOFBLUE concerns, which I had an editor bring up recently on a DYK I had on the Main Page. Honestly, I also think it reads nice and cleaner. I have seen users jerry rig this by adding their own break after the |stadium= parameter, but then this has the weird affect of keeping the comma after the stadium. Thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:45, 13 June 2025 (UTC)
- That definitely makes sense to me. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 01:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)
- I implemented it. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:35, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
If anyone could provide a review at the above football player featured article nomination, it would be appreciated. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 16 June 2025 (UTC)
Please consider participating in the discussion linked above. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:19, 17 June 2025 (UTC)