WikiProject National Football League | (Rated Project-class) | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League: | |
---|---|
|
Listing NFL players as "former"
Hey! I have been editing on Wikipedia for quite a long time on both baseball and football articles mainly baseball but also help out over here as well. I have noticed that there seems to be a disagreement on the time frame to list a player as retired. For baseball articles we typically use a 2 year rule of thumb as I would say form my experience 95% of players that have not been turned up in any sort of league in 2 years don't return again. Plenty of players sit a year out whether it is for personal reasons, rehabbing, just not a lot of interest at the time but then turn back up later on just using one example Eli Harold turned up in the CFL after sitting out a whole season. I believe one year just is not enough time to judge as there are plenty of leagues a player could hold out hoping to get an NFL opportunity then realize that isn't coming and jump ship into another league after a season. I believe two years makes for the most effective and time saving move for everyone as that rule of thumb has worked very well in baseball articles I think would work just as well over here. These guys are 25-30 years old most of these guys have plenty of time to get another chance. Please let me know your opinions below and see if we can't come to an agreement so that everyone can be referenced to this spot. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 23:02, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- It's becoming increasingly common for players to sit out a season to get healthy or train and make a comeback. For what it's worth, most major websites (such as Pro Football Reference) still consider players "active" even if they're inactive for one year. There are exceptions, but I would agree that 2 years would be a good starting point. Hey man im josh (talk) 23:06, 15 March 2022 (UTC)
- Thank you. I do see the argument for there being one year but like I said you can go through multiple players pages I just used one as an example of a player who last played in 2019, sat out 2020 then played in 21 credited that 2020 was a covid year but the two year rule in baseball articles is working well I just feel that is the most reasonable option as I feel a lot of factors can keep a player from signing for a year that isn't public. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 00:33, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'd just keep it simple and leave it as "former". They may be retired from playing, but most are likely still working in some other field. I don't think you'd be able to reliably source for many that they are truly just living off savings and playing golf everyday.—Bagumba (talk) 00:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well it's not about the wording former is totally fine it's just about the timeframe to list a player as a "former" player some believe after not playing for one season should be listed as a "former" player and myself believe it should be 2 years like with baseball players on here Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
I have noticed that there seems to be a disagreement on the time frame to list a player as retired
: Oops, i was too focused on "retired" there instead of "former" in the section header.—Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 16 March 2022 (UTC)- All good! Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:34, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Well it's not about the wording former is totally fine it's just about the timeframe to list a player as a "former" player some believe after not playing for one season should be listed as a "former" player and myself believe it should be 2 years like with baseball players on here Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 01:20, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think if a player says they're retiring, there's no reason to assume they're going to come back. We obviously shouldn't be surprised if they unretire, it's not uncommon, but if they retire, there's nothing wrong with describing them as "former" immediately. – PeeJay 10:48, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- This is more about the players that don't say anything. If they announce it then yeah list it right away but this is more about the players that have nothing new about them for a season or two what is the best time frame to list them as a former player after either one year or two years of inactivity. Kingryan227 (Decrees • Acts) 18:39, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I've said this several times and will continue to do so. We should just be skipping "is a free agent" and just say "is an American football quarterback". No more and no less unless they have died, officially retired (in which case we'd add former), or are under contract with a professional team. "is a free agent" is fancruft from the early days of Wikipedia that we've somehow kept as a standard. I've yet to hear any argument for this that is convincing. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- Agree, not to mention there is a window where they are on the waiver wire and not free agents yet.—Bagumba (talk) 21:50, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would definitely support this. Free agent should be called out in infobox (team history + current team fields) but not in the lead. Hey man im josh (talk) 00:48, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think we could say it if there's SIGCOV banging on repeatedly about someone's free agency. Presumably this will generally be a very temporary thing though, so is rarely going to be of long-term value to document on a 'this just in' basis. If we're using it as a polite term for "they're looking for a new gig" or "actually we have not the slightest idea", then no, let's not say that. On sourcing retirement, I in principle agree: after all, we're supposed to be sourcing any claim of fact. But this gets awkward when someone's pretty obviously not an active player, but we have no actual announcement. We can't say "was a football player" (makes it sound like they're dead), can't really say "is a football player" if they're 70, so "former" might be the least-worst option, even if we only have very low-grade sources or some degree of inference. (Like they didn't make the news for being the oldest ever pro, etc.) If there's any reasonable doubt then certainly, just "is a professional football player" or similar is fine. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- If they are 70 then we should just apply WP:COMMONSENSE and could easily say they were a former player... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Having started with this high bid of 70, I'm now going to propose radically lowering it to 48. Or maybe a little higher in a few years. Granted this isn't a completely water-tight test either, as we have tons of coverage of practice-squad players that are technically "professional football players", but that we shouldn't be ordinarily be regarding them as notably so, IMO. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:35, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- If they are 70 then we should just apply WP:COMMONSENSE and could easily say they were a former player... ~ Dissident93 (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- While this doesn't help with the opening sentence -- "[Entity] is/was a [descriptor]" -- one thing that I think would be helpful on this is adequate career summaries in lead sections. No, 'two sentence paragraph and done, next section', should not be any sort of "standard"! Shorter articles may not merit especially long opening paras, but it'd not be excessive on even the most marginally post-stub to mention the teams they've been contracted to, including when the most recent such was. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 03:54, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Basically, MOS:OPENPARABIO.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Moreso WP:SUMMARY. Unless I'm missing some subtle nuance in this detailed interjection. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SUMMARY is more related to National Football League#Draft being a summary of the subtopic National Football League Draft.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- From the lead sentence (teh irony!): "the lead contains a quick summary of the topic's most important points". Though more to point still WP:LEAD, which says the same thing at greater length. A lot of articles suffer from not having an adequate such summary. I don't know if NFL articles are worse than average in this, but we have a lot of otherwise quite decent and substantial bios that have a "standard" lead section that's much too short, and is more like an infobox with some verbs and prepositions: "Hingle McCringleberry (born July 4, 1990) is an American football utility player for the City Franchisename of the National Football League (NFL). He played college football at Sporty Party College, and was drafted by the in the Nth round of Someyear's NFL Draft." Which is a great start and an essential minimum, and SOFIXIT very much applies, but I continue be bemused by evident opposition from some quarters to more appropriately informative lead, apparently according to the rationale that key information is better in infoboxes, or confined to later sections. Not good style at all. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 20:37, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- WP:SUMMARY is more related to National Football League#Draft being a summary of the subtopic National Football League Draft.—Bagumba (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2022 (UTC)
- Moreso WP:SUMMARY. Unless I'm missing some subtle nuance in this detailed interjection. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 23:05, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
- Basically, MOS:OPENPARABIO.—Bagumba (talk) 08:46, 22 March 2022 (UTC)
Proposal: remove "free agent" from infoboxes permanently
Per the above discussion, I am proposing that we eliminate "free agent" from appearing in Template:Infobox NFL player. The coding on the template can be altered so that any time "free agent" is populated in the |current_team=
parameter, it will show up the same as if there was nothing in the parameter. This will help eliminate the gray area for players who are on waivers, have not played in a long time but haven't officially announced their retirement, etc. This is a simple enough change that will help eliminate the endless "former or free agent" debates and future-proof these infoboxes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:56, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support as nominator. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support – It's annoying to deal with and it very often doesn't last long. I'd love this change. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:18, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support - Per nom. -- StarScream1007 ►Talk 19:37, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support, but would this also apply to the lead sentence? ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Dissident93: Not for this specific proposal, but at a minimum I think removing "free agent" from the infoboxes will reduce the number of leads that include it as well. Maybe under a separate proposal/enactment we could have a bot change all articles tagged under the WP:NFL banner to replace the string "a former American football" with "an American football"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Fair enough but it would be inconsistent if we still write it in prose. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 20:38, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Dissident93: Not for this specific proposal, but at a minimum I think removing "free agent" from the infoboxes will reduce the number of leads that include it as well. Maybe under a separate proposal/enactment we could have a bot change all articles tagged under the WP:NFL banner to replace the string "a former American football" with "an American football"? Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support Showing no team is sufficient. "Free agent" is pedantic.—Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
- Support removal as auto-populating. Candidly, we have a lot of box-creep on many of these articles, and sometimes something of a paucity of text in the lead paragraph that would put such (purported) facts in a more helpful contexts. Infoboxes are for summarising key features of the subject. If you cram every possible detail in there, it's progressively degraded both visually and in utility. Especially if you have to keep scrolling, and there's more and more infobox "below the fold". But for this in particular, given that it often seems to be poorly sourced, and has little significance or even meaning, especially so. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2022 (UTC)
I have implemented this change at Template:Infobox NFL player here. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:36, 27 March 2022 (UTC)
- @Eagles247 An issue with the current implementation is that it lists the players' position just dangling without a section e.g. here. Perhaps move it to "Career information" in these situations?---- —Bagumba (talk) 14:35, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Bagumba I played around with the infobox for a while, but couldn't get it to work. Maybe Wikipedia:Requested templates would know how to do this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:34, 12 April 2022 (UTC)
Proposal for a new NGRIDIRON
As it appears per above (and the numerous other discussions about NSPORT) that we need to tighten WP:NGRIDIRON, I propose rewriting it to say the following:
- Significant coverage is likely to exist for gridiron football figures if they:
- Have appeared in at least one regular season or post-season game in any of the following leagues: the National Football League, All-America Football Conference, or American Football League (1960–1969).
- Have appeared in at least five regular season or post-season games in the Canadian Football League (1956–present) or United States Football League (1983–1985).
- Have served as a full-time head coach in any of the above mentioned leagues.
- Have been inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame, College Football Hall of Fame or Canadian Football Hall of Fame.
- Players and coaches who do not meet the above criteria may still be notable if they meet WP:GNG or another notability criteria (such as WP:NCOLLATH).
BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- One game in the early NFL has been shown to be too lenient. The NFL (1920-1934) and AAFC should be moved to the five-game prong. Also, the HOF criterion is redundant and unnecessary.
Finally, we need to make it clear that the participation criteria apply only to permanent head coaches (not interim) and to games played in the regular season or post-season, not pre-season games.Cbl62 (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2022 (UTC)- I re-wrote some of it (clarified what type of games, wrote that it excludes interims) based on two of your suggestions. I however do not support your other two suggestions (moving NFL and AAFC to five-game, removing HOF). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I would favor the following rewrite:
Significant coverage is likely to exist for gridiron football players and head coaches (excluding interim head coaches) if they:
- Have appeared or coached in at least one regular season or post-season game in the National Football League (1935–present) or American Football League (1960–1969).
- Have appeared or coached in at least five regular season or post-season games in the National Football League (1920–1934), All-America Football Conference (1944–1949), Canadian Football League (1956–present), or United States Football League (1983–1985).
- Players and coaches who do not meet the above criteria may still be notable if they meet WP:GNG or another notability criteria (such as WP:NCOLLATH).
- Cbl62 (talk) 19:41, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this proposal really solves. The crux of the issue is what happens if significant coverage can't be found for the people who meet WP:NGRIDIRON, whatever GRIDIRON may say. The arguments during deletion discussions are "this person meets WP:GRIDIRON, so they should have an article" and "this person may meet WP:GRIDIRON, but they don't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG, so they shouldn't have an article". In my opinion, the real crux of the issue is A2 in WP:NSPORT's FAQs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- An SNG is supposedly supposed to afford some layer of presumption of notability. Otherwise, what is the point of having one? I think it's reasonable to pass a 1st round of an AfD with NSPORTS alone, but I'd expect GNG to be demonstrated in any subsequent AfD, if contested again. (For the record, I have voted delete on a page that met NSPORTS here.) It's a separate issue that some sports have really flimsy guidelines with 1-game requirements for seemingly every league on the planet. Those are two separate issues. Some appear to want no SNG for sports, period—not sure how many of that group are OK with SNGs for other domains.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- As I'm sure you recall being mentioned a time or twenty, not all SNGs are equal or equivalent in that respect. Some explicitly depend on the GNG, some explicitly replace it. Some talk about presumption, some just that notability is "likely" or "may" be the case. So I can't agree that it must work in one particular way, because clearly they don't. But if we're indeed ending up with the "intermediate layer of presumption" model -- I'm kinda exhausted by the whole RfC and its (non-)implementation at this point, so I might be behind in my memos as to where we're at with that right now, much less where we might end up -- in a way that a non-SIGCOV subject escapes deletion or merger for a significant or indefinite period, they have to be rare exceptions in the category. And not in an excessively time-travelly way, either, where we excuse huge holes in the 1920s players on the basis that if a player in the 2020s once thought about playing in the NFL, it's covered. Cbl62's cut at it seems plausible on the face of it, but I'm sure others will know much better than I what their GNG 'hit rate' is likely to be. And are the misses likely to be few enough that we can mop them up with upmergers to some list article, if push comes to shove? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting something like WP:NACTOR, with subjective criteria like
significant roles in multiple notable films
?—Bagumba (talk) 20:10, 31 March 2022 (UTC)- I'm not suggesting, nor did I even have in mind, some particular model. Just pointing out the range of variation in what the SNGs say and do. While I appreciate subjective judgements leave room for tis-tisn't arguments in evaluating them, I'm not even sure what an analogue of that for the NFL would be. I think the crux of it is ultimately going to rest on something GNG-like, and as I've said before, what we can maybe most usefully do it is to particularise what 'SIGCOV' looks like for a gridiron player. If we'd rough agreement on what the least-notable "notable" person looked like, and likewise the most-notable "not notable" one, we'd be getting someplace. 109.255.211.6 (talk) 00:59, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
- Are you suggesting something like WP:NACTOR, with subjective criteria like
- As I'm sure you recall being mentioned a time or twenty, not all SNGs are equal or equivalent in that respect. Some explicitly depend on the GNG, some explicitly replace it. Some talk about presumption, some just that notability is "likely" or "may" be the case. So I can't agree that it must work in one particular way, because clearly they don't. But if we're indeed ending up with the "intermediate layer of presumption" model -- I'm kinda exhausted by the whole RfC and its (non-)implementation at this point, so I might be behind in my memos as to where we're at with that right now, much less where we might end up -- in a way that a non-SIGCOV subject escapes deletion or merger for a significant or indefinite period, they have to be rare exceptions in the category. And not in an excessively time-travelly way, either, where we excuse huge holes in the 1920s players on the basis that if a player in the 2020s once thought about playing in the NFL, it's covered. Cbl62's cut at it seems plausible on the face of it, but I'm sure others will know much better than I what their GNG 'hit rate' is likely to be. And are the misses likely to be few enough that we can mop them up with upmergers to some list article, if push comes to shove? 109.255.211.6 (talk) 16:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)
- An SNG is supposedly supposed to afford some layer of presumption of notability. Otherwise, what is the point of having one? I think it's reasonable to pass a 1st round of an AfD with NSPORTS alone, but I'd expect GNG to be demonstrated in any subsequent AfD, if contested again. (For the record, I have voted delete on a page that met NSPORTS here.) It's a separate issue that some sports have really flimsy guidelines with 1-game requirements for seemingly every league on the planet. Those are two separate issues. Some appear to want no SNG for sports, period—not sure how many of that group are OK with SNGs for other domains.—Bagumba (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- On reflection, would these criteria not be shot down as "participation only" criteria? Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:16, 14 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure what this proposal really solves. The crux of the issue is what happens if significant coverage can't be found for the people who meet WP:NGRIDIRON, whatever GRIDIRON may say. The arguments during deletion discussions are "this person meets WP:GRIDIRON, so they should have an article" and "this person may meet WP:GRIDIRON, but they don't meet WP:SIGCOV or WP:GNG, so they shouldn't have an article". In my opinion, the real crux of the issue is A2 in WP:NSPORT's FAQs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:19, 29 March 2022 (UTC)
- I think you need to make an exception for the 1987 strike games.--Harper J. Cole (talk) 00:07, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the USFL should be on the list. A handful of star players (Walker, Young, Kelly etc.) had the bulk of the coverage, and they all went on to play in the NFL. A rank-and-file USFL player who never made the NFL isn't likely to have gained much coverage. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: @Cbl62: @Bagumba: Any thoughts on whether 1987 strike games should be discounted, and whether the USFL should count as notable? Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Although I love doing articles on replacement players) I'd say that not enough are GNG passes for them to be included in NGRIDIRON. However, I do believe that the USFL players get enough coverage to be included. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- On reflection, there have been whole books written about the USFL players, often delving into the less glamorous details, so I guess there is a decent chance of coverage even for the more obscure ones. For the strike players, if they were excluded from the new NGRIDIRON there would still be the option to create articles with the citations already in place, to avoid targeting for deletion as a stub. Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I doubt that the replacement players got much covg for the replacement games themselves. When I expanded Casey Tiumalu, who played for the LA Rams, all I could find for him were roster listings or transaction blurbs.—Bagumba (talk) 19:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- (Although I love doing articles on replacement players) I'd say that not enough are GNG passes for them to be included in NGRIDIRON. However, I do believe that the USFL players get enough coverage to be included. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- @BeanieFan11: @Cbl62: @Bagumba: Any thoughts on whether 1987 strike games should be discounted, and whether the USFL should count as notable? Harper J. Cole (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure the USFL should be on the list. A handful of star players (Walker, Young, Kelly etc.) had the bulk of the coverage, and they all went on to play in the NFL. A rank-and-file USFL player who never made the NFL isn't likely to have gained much coverage. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:30, 30 March 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2022 (UTC)
Non-participation criteria in the new NGRIDIRON
All,
Looking over the discussion on the recent NSPORT changes, it seems that any new notability criteria aren't allowed to be participation-only, so our current proposal would presumably be rejected (and would still be rejected even if the limit was set to 100 NFL games). In that case, it seems like we need a "non-participation" element. A requirement that the player must have been drafted by one of the listed leagues is the best I've been able to come up with.
Any thoughts?--Harper J. Cole (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2022 (UTC)
- See my previous comment here for my thoughts on this. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:22, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- The hardest part about this guideline is figuring out what to do with offensive linemen and pre-stat count players. I don't love the idea of being drafted as the threshold, a component of it sure, but there's a lot of players who get drafted but never take a snap in the NFL. When they say a non-participation element, is the intent to remove players who may have taken fewer than 5 snaps in the NFL? Or does that disallow us from using, let's say, 3-5 games played in as a threshold? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that raising the threshold number of games isn't enough, because proposal 4 in the Village Pump discussion concerned that and was ruled to have no consensus. I agree that being drafted alone isn't enough - the games played limit should be met as well. I hadn't thought about a statistical limit. We could have a participation limit for offensive linemen and pre-merger defensive players, and statistical limits for everyone else. I think that would be allowed. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- What about pre-1932 players (for which there was no draft and no statistics recorded)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- There again, it could be a five appearance limit. My only worry would be that the rule might end up being too complicated, with too many clauses. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- My worry about that is a deletionist might find a five-gamer they don't like, so then they say the criteria needs to be upped to six, seven, eight, etc., until its something ridiculous that makes the whole criteria worthless. Though its not like a new NGRIDIRON would have much value, as it now can only be the "sigcov could exist" nonsense that is not helpful, as articles meeting it can still be deleted. BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:50, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- There again, it could be a five appearance limit. My only worry would be that the rule might end up being too complicated, with too many clauses. Harper J. Cole (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- So no articles for offensive linemen who haven't received a large amount of significant coverage, Pro Bowl, or All-Pro. That makes sense! Hey man im josh (talk) 19:09, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- What about pre-1932 players (for which there was no draft and no statistics recorded)? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- My understanding is that raising the threshold number of games isn't enough, because proposal 4 in the Village Pump discussion concerned that and was ruled to have no consensus. I agree that being drafted alone isn't enough - the games played limit should be met as well. I hadn't thought about a statistical limit. We could have a participation limit for offensive linemen and pre-merger defensive players, and statistical limits for everyone else. I think that would be allowed. Harper J. Cole (talk) 19:02, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- The hardest part about this guideline is figuring out what to do with offensive linemen and pre-stat count players. I don't love the idea of being drafted as the threshold, a component of it sure, but there's a lot of players who get drafted but never take a snap in the NFL. When they say a non-participation element, is the intent to remove players who may have taken fewer than 5 snaps in the NFL? Or does that disallow us from using, let's say, 3-5 games played in as a threshold? Hey man im josh (talk) 01:40, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- If we limit the "participation" to the NFL in the modern era and the AFL during the 1960s, I believe that will be approved. The key IMO is to keep focused on moderr era and eliminate the leagues that are less reliable indicators of notability (e.g, CFL, USFL, etc.) Cbl62 (talk) 23:42, 22 April 2022 (UTC)
- I guess we could try that, and then think about modifications if it doesn't pass? I can't really think of good options for the pre-draft players. Harper J. Cole (talk) 13:36, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
Featured list removal candidate notification
I have nominated List of Jacksonville Jaguars first-round draft picks for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm Talk 20:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
User script to detect unreliable sources
I have (with the help of others) made a small user script to detect and highlight various links to unreliable sources and predatory journals. Some of you may already be familiar with it, given it is currently the 39th most imported script on Wikipedia. The idea is that it takes something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14. (
John Smith "[https://www.deprecated.com/article Article of things]" ''Deprecated.com''. Accessed 2020-02-14.
)
and turns it into something like
- John Smith "Article of things" Deprecated.com. Accessed 2020-02-14.
It will work on a variety of links, including those from {{cite web}}, {{cite journal}} and {{doi}}.
The script is mostly based on WP:RSPSOURCES, WP:NPPSG and WP:CITEWATCH and a good dose of common sense. I'm always expanding coverage and tweaking the script's logic, so general feedback and suggestions to expand coverage to other unreliable sources are always welcomed.
Do note that this is not a script to be mindlessly used, and several caveats apply. Details and instructions are available at User:Headbomb/unreliable. Questions, comments and requests can be made at User talk:Headbomb/unreliable.
This is a one time notice and can't be unsubscribed from. Delivered by: MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2022 (UTC)