This page is within the scope ofWikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of theNFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League
I was looking at theSuper Bowl XL article and realized the Seahawks and Steelers were backwards in terms of the template for the home and away teams. I checked the next two Super Bowls to see if it was a fluke and those were also wrong. When I tried to update Super Bowl XL’s infobox it gave me some funky results with the big score not changing sides and some other things not changing despite me putting them in the correct places on the template parameters. Then I had the idea to check the older Super Bowls starting withSuper Bowl I. Those early ones had some mixed results so I had the idea to go change every Super Bowls infobox to be correct and check them, but also thought that may be a good thing to bring up here to do as a collaborative effort.Eg224 (talk)15:59, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to look into it more to get a definitive answer, but based on other websites I am looking at, it looks like the Steelers were actually the home team in Super Bowl XL. Perhaps you may have been confused since the Steelers wore their road uniforms in that game, but the home team is allowed to have first choice on what uniform to wear, so it must have been a preference for them. I know the Patriots always preferred to wear their road white jerseys in the Super Bowl, even when they were the designated home team. That's why inSuper Bowl LII, the Patriots were the home team, but the Eagles still wore their home green jerseys.Red0ctober22 (talk)20:26, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It’s based on the city the game is in right? This one was in Detroit, that leads me to believe the Seahawks were the designated home team. Even when the Rams were in the Super Bowl a couple years ago they were the visiting team as the AFC’s turn picked the Chargers who have the same stadium.Eg224 (talk)06:26, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The stadium that hosts the Super Bowl doesn't determine whether the AFC or the NFC is the home team. Instead, it's on a rotating basis. In Super Bowl I, the AFL was the visiting team and the NFL was the home team and it has alternated ever since.Assadzadeh (talk)06:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The home team alternates between AFC and NFC every year. The home team can choose whether they wish to wear their coloured or white jerseys, that's completely up to them. The home team isn't forced to wear colours and the away team isn't forced to wear white. –PeeJay16:37, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think that year may have been in Minnesota? And now that you mention it, yeah thinking back on it they always did wear their white jerseys lol.Eg224 (talk)06:27, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As others have stated, and that we have also basically posted onSuper Bowl#Home team designation, the designated "home team" alternates between the NFC team in odd-numbered games and the AFC team in even-numbered games -- not based on the conference the host city's team. The home team is however given the choice of wearing its colored or white jerseys. There have been at least seven times when the home team wore white:Super Bowl XIII (Dallas Cowboys),Super Bowl XVII (Washington Redskins),Super Bowl XXVII (Dallas Cowboys),Super Bowl XL (Pittsburgh Steelers),Super Bowl 50 (Denver Broncos),Super Bowl LII (New England Patriots), andSuper Bowl LV (Tampa Bay Buccaneers). As to why many home teams in this sport may want to wear white,that is another story.Zzyzx11 (talk)16:43, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
okay it seems like the info boxes at least for the 8 or so i checked are fine then. This is why we have discussions. :) if anyone else sees any issues go ahead and fix them and i will do the same.Eg224 (talk)16:47, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There are no issues. I checked all 59 Super Bowls and the infobox for each correctly displays the home/away teams. So, if you see what you think is an error, I would suggest that you discuss it here first before editing.Assadzadeh (talk)16:54, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I finally understand why the Seahawks lostSuper Bowl XLIX. It was because they decided to wear their Navy blue jerseys, instead of their white jerseys, not because they didn't hand the ball off toMarshawn Lynch. Thanks for providing a source that finally sheds light on this mystery.Assadzadeh (talk)14:32, 30 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
RFC: Should NFL conference championship games be considered notable enough for their own article?
The following discussion is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
No consensus. The arguments were split evenly in number. Support !voters argued, generally, that the nature of championship games conferred inherent notability, thatWP:NSPORTSEVENT is a flawed guideline, and that there is sustained coverage of championship games. The opposition pointed toWP:NSPORTSEVENT and the possibility of aWP:LOCALCONSENSUS around inherent notability. Even after a belated crosspost toWT:NSPORTS to obtain non-project feedback, a clear consensus did not emerge.Iseult Δxtalk to me07:19, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
(Same TA as nom; browser crashed)Oppose separate articles for CCGs. A few are inherently notable like the2024 AFC Championship Game or2018 NFC Championship Game, but many are just routine games. We don’t have articles for conference finals in the NBA and NHL, and MLB does them for every round. I don’t see this as a necessity on Wikipedia. Especially since a lot of the articles are highly unsourced and don’t even expand on the respective playoff article.--~2026-37404-1 (talk)22:25, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Here is my argument that I provided in the discussion for the 2022 NFCCG article: I argue that notability is established through the historical nature of the two conferences, as both formerly operated as independently of each other. From that perspective, I see the NFC Championship Game and the AFC Championship Game to be the modern successors to the NFL and AFL Championship Games, respectively, and we have individual articles for each AFL and NFL title game. To take an example of a sport that has a similar nature to this is MLB with the NL and AL. For years, the AL and NL operated independently, and even though they are united together under MLB, the historical nature of both leagues is recognized, as every single NLCS and ALCS to ever be played has its own article. Red0ctober22 (talk)23:01, 17 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as Year AFC Championship Game articles & Year NFC Championship Game articles, are still in the process of being created.GoodDay (talk)05:07, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Not all Conference Championship games are notable enough to have their own article. As stated by Left GuideIndividual games are only notable inasmuch as they meet ournotability guideline for event articles on their own merits. As such, consider the following games:
These games, not all of which are Conference Championships, are still mentioned several decades later and therefore meet notability guidelines. By contrast, there many Conference Championship games that are forgotten and hardly mentioned by the media within a few years and therefore do not have enduring historical significance.Assadzadeh (talk)05:42, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I would say the 2014 NFC was pretty notable given the major comeback that occurred. However, I do agree that if we don't rule CCGs are inherently notable, then there are some existing pages that should probably be deleted (along with the ones I created).Red0ctober22 (talk)02:15, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The existing notability guidelineWP:NSPORTSEVENT reads:
For a game or series that is already covered as a subtopic in another article, considerdeveloping the topic in the existing article first until it becomes clear that a standalone article is warranted. Although a game or series may be notable, it may sometimes be better to present the topic in an existing article on a broader topicinstead of creating a new standalone page.
If so, the guideline talk page would be a more appropriate venue. If this RfC continues here, hopefully whatever conclusion reached is a neutral and accurate reflection of globalP&Gs rather than alocal consensus.Left guide (talk)05:58, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There is already an article for the playoffs each year. Most conference championships can be described perfectly well in those articles without the need for a standalone page and substantial duplication of all the material. The conferences being formerly separate leagues has no bearing on their structure as the semifinal game before the Super Bowl today. These should be merged unless there's really enough substance to justify separate articles. Please do not bulk-create pages for games merely for the sake of having pages for the games.Reywas92Talk17:57, 18 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes if every single college bowl game is somehow inherently notable, like the2019 Belk Bowl, than every NFL championship game is notable.WP:NSPORTSEVENT is poorly written and horribly enforced. We need something new and better reflecting of current consensus and coverage. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @19:00, 19 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The proposterous notion thatevery NFL CCG is automatically notable enough for its own article is ludicrous. Only the games that meet notibility criteria, such asWP:LASTING andWP:NEVENT, should have their own articles. I mean, it's not the Super Bowl. Make an article for the notable ones and write a summary on the corresponding playoff article for the rest.Masterhatch (talk)03:07, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support. All of these games are inherently notable as the determiner of the AFC and NFC championships, which are the second-highest team accomplishments in the NFL and awardchampionships and trophies. The games determine theLamar Hunt Trophy andGeorge S. Halas Trophy and the winner is forever-WP:LASTING remembered as the AFC/NFC champion in the records book, likely on prominent banners at the stadium, the second line of their Wikipedia championships infobox, etc. Regardless of the outcome of the Super Bowl. These games are notWP:ROUTINE and their notability does not rely on them being memorable football games.
Wikipedia has articles for every college footballconference championship game, and beyond that every single minor college footballbowl game. It's ludicrous that there isn't a dedicated article for every AFC/NFC championship game. We have articles for everyALCS andNLCS in baseball. The NFL should follow those examples and complete the list for both conferences.PK-WIKI (talk)08:03, 20 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such thing as "inherently notable". Just because something awards a trophy does not mean a separate article is needed. I've never heard of Wikipedia having standalone pages for anything "in the records book".WP:LASTING means having "a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance", not that a banner is put up. I think merging some bowl games would be a good idea, it's ludicrous to have so many pages on forgettable games by teams who barely had a winning season. The baseball league championships are at leastseries with four or more games included in the article. — Reywas92Talk03:27, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no clear definition of what is a historically significant NFL game. From the Wikipedia page forhistorical significance:Historical significance is typically assessed by judging an event against pre-defined criteria and numerous criteria for assessing historical significance have been proposed. However, these criteria are always subjective, and therefore debatable.
If a team puts up a banner in their stadium, that is an indication that it is significant to that team. If the league awards silverware for winning a CCG, that is an indication that is it significant to the league. That is why these are being mentioned as a indicator as being significant.Cfgauss77 (talk)12:00, 21 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
By "WP:INHERENT notability" I'm referring to "obvious notability" wherethe article is about a subject that is so well-known that everyone views it as notable, and therefore, no one is likely to ever challenge its presence. NFL CCGs are easily among the most obviously notable American sporting events of the year.
Here are a few examples ofWP:LASTING,WP:SUSTAINED coverage showing "a noted and sourced permanent effect of historical significance" for four teams:
Seahawks:an article yesterday inThe News Tribune going back and examining the four previous conference championship games in franchise history. All four of these games are clearly notable subjects for the team, fans, and reliable sources. They represent, just one tier below the obviously inherently notable Super Bowls, the team's greatest triumphs and missed opportunities.
I'm sure similar retrospective coverage can be found for every(*) team in the NFL and every historical conference championship game. And that's ignoring the massive amounts of contemporary coverage of these championship games, which are consistentlywatched by 50+ million Americans and are among the top-watched tv broadcasts of the year, topped only by the Super Bowl.PK-WIKI (talk)20:31, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - In the Super Bowl era, I don't think there's any reason to deem conference championship games as inherently notable. If they receive a lot of coverage in the aftermath, that's a different matter, but we shouldn't be indiscriminately creating articles for these games before the fact. –PeeJay13:56, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with this statement. Not every conference will have sufficient notability for a stand alone article and we wont know until after it has taken place.WP:SUSTAINED supports this"sustained coverage is an indicator of notability, as described by notability of events. New organizations and future events might passWP:GNG, but lack sufficient coverage to satisfyWP:NOTNEWSPAPER, and these must still also satisfyWP:NOTPROMOTION."Tepkunset (talk)20:56, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I agree with the suggestions that conference championship games are not inherently notable, but can be notable. I think a stronger argument would be made for the notability of the rounds themselves. I would support something like2026 Conference Championship Round to cover both games.Esolo5002 (talk)22:23, 22 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They haven't shown that these games are inherently notable, but they have given compelling reasons for those specific games to perhaps have articles. What exactly would an article about a specific Conference Championship game include that can't be included in the article about that season's playoffs as a whole? –PeeJay14:52, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What, in your opinion, would show the inherent notability of all the games? Does someone need to go through for every team to find sustained coverage? I can later this week if needed, but to me PK's work shows it is unnecessary.ESB541502:55, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Inherent notability is where the subject is assumed to be notable without needing to wait for sustained coverage. That's what I take inherent to mean, anyway. –PeeJay16:49, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's fair. I think that the sustained coverage for every conference championship games shows that they have inherent notability. Like, if we were on Wikipedia in the late 1960s when conference championship games were new, I would agree that we would need to wait for sustained coverage to determine if they deserve articles. But because every conference championship game has this type of sustained coverage, they should be inherently notable.ESB541520:45, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated somewhere below, I feel it doesn't always depend on the notability of the game itself, but instead the winning team and the storylines present. TakeSuper Bowl LV for the 2020/21 season. Nothing really notable about the game itself (aside from Mahomes getting sacked a ton of times), but so many lasting and important storylines that came from the Bucs winning: Brady gets his 7th ring in his first season away from New England, the Bucs win it all in their own stadium, Bruce Arians wins his first ring as a head coach, Brady vs. Mahomes debate, etc.
When you look at conference championships, certainly not all games themselves receive sustained coverage, but the winning teams usually do, being remembered with banners, rings, even sometimes anniversary reunions, similar to celebrations for Super Bowl-winning teams. Many people could name a lot about the2015 Carolina Panthers, but how many people could name something that happened in the2015 NFC Championship Game? Probably not a lot because it was such a blowout.Red0ctober22 (talk)20:08, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What I am saying is that the discussion should be about whether or not conference championship games are considered the championships for a "major league" asWikipedia:Notability (sports) describes, because then inherent notability is present. We shouldn't be searching every single AFC/NFC title game to see if the game was notable, because just like the Super Bowl, not all the games themselves were particularly significant.Red0ctober22 (talk)15:52, 29 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Support all as notable. The conference championships were the Super Bowl before the Super Bowl, and were the sole measure of NFL and AFL champions. After the merge they still retained the "conference" distinction and, importantly, they have their own trophies (indicative of both importance and notability).Randy Kryn (talk)12:07, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fine argument that they could be considered inherently notable prior to 1967 but not really afterwards. Every article should be justified on its own merits, not just considered inherently notable without substantiation. –PeeJay14:53, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I think we should recall the fact that not every Super Bowl has notability or lasting significance to it. How many times do you see people (aside from Patriots fans) look back onSuper Bowl LIII and discuss the lasting impact of that game? Yet, we still have an article for it, as regardless of how "good" of a game it was, the significance and prestige of winning the Super Bowl cannot be denied. Instead of debating the conference title games themselves, I think we should instead look at whether the accomplishment of winning the AFC/NFC is significant and notable enough to deserve to be highlighted in its own individual article.Red0ctober22 (talk)17:36, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on what we are referring to when we say the Super Bowl. Let's take an example ofSuper Bowl XXIV, where the 49ers blew out the Broncos, 55–10. If referring to the game itself, then no, there is absolutely not any continued coverage at all. No real impactful or interesting moments occurred aside from the 49ers just absolutely dominating Denver on both sides of the ball. What is notable are the storylines and the accomplishments that came with the 49ers winning. For example, Joe Montana ties Terry Bradshaw with the most SBs won by a QB, George Seifert wins his first SB as a head coach, John Elway loses yet another Super Bowl, and the 49ers go back-to-back and cement themselves as a dynasty of the 1980s.
With that, I argue the accomplishment of winning a conference championship, while obviously not as prestigious as winning the Super Bowl, still has a significance to it. To use a personal viewpoint as an Eagles fan, the1980 and2004 teams who won the NFC but lost the SB are still highly regarded and talked about in the fanbase and local sports media, and the 1980 and 2004 NFC title games are remembered as the highest achievements for these teams, even if the actual games themselves weren't really that notable. I even recall they gave out rings to the2022 Eagles team, even though they won the NFC but lost the Super Bowl. Now of course, if you compare this to more successful franchises like the Patriots, where I am sure not many fans care that much about the2017 team that won the AFC but lost the Super Bowl, but winning a conference championship is still a highly regarded thing in my opinion.Red0ctober22 (talk)18:04, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Having looked over the situation further. I've noticed there's only 'ten' such articles (1997, 1998, 2010, 2018–20, 2022–24) for NFC Championship Games & 'six' such articles (1970, 1975, 1995, 2022–24) for AFC Championship Games, with no attempts to doall the year articles. Best to change those few back to redirects to their respective Year NFL playoff articles.GoodDay (talk)18:18, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I actually started the process of filling in the gaps by doing the 2022 to 2024 ones, with the intent on eventually getting all of them, but I stopped once people started merge discussions. If we rule here that conference championship games are notable, I plan to continue.Red0ctober22 (talk)18:38, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm certain thatWP:BASEBALL wouldnever agree to deleting all their Year AL/NL Wild Card Game/Series, Year AL/NL Division Series, AL/NL Championship Series articles. As for the NHL? there's no Year Wales/Eastern Conference Final or Year Campbell/Western Conference Final articles. In the CFL, there's no Year East/West Division Final articles. But yes, if the consensus to keep Year AFC/NFC Championship Game articles prevails? then all 1970-present should be created.GoodDay (talk)18:50, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The difference with the NHL or the CFL is that the Wales/Campbell conferences and East/West Divisions never existed independent of the NHL or CFL, respectively. When you won the Wales or Campbell conferences or the East/West Division, there was always the Stanley Cup Final or Grey Cup to move on to. This wasn't always the case with winning the National League/American League or winning the AFC/AFL or the NFC/NFL pre-1970, so there is a historical element.Red0ctober22 (talk)19:09, 25 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay,there is no deadline to complete Wikipedia. Stating that just because some articles are created from a set while others aren't those articles should be deleted/redirected is somewhat bizarre. This is how Wikipedia is developed. Its a natural progression where some articles are started and others get inspired to keep it going. How else would a whole series be written? Do you truly expect someone to write 100+ articles all in a short period of time? Some of the NFC Championships games I have written have taken me multiple weeks to compile sources, write the article, and copyedit it before putting it in the article space. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @15:01, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You opposed becauseI've noticed there's only 'ten' such articles (1997, 1998, 2010, 2018–20, 2022–24) for NFC Championship Games & 'six' such articles (1970, 1975, 1995, 2022–24) for AFC Championship Games, with no attempts to doall the year articles. I'm merely stating that that is a poor reason to oppose and to state that existing articles should revert to redirects, because we are in the middle of the writing processnow. All you would be doing is stopping the article writing process now, when in a few years there may be articles for every game. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @16:21, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per PK-WIKI. They receive routine coverage within the markets of the teams involved for years to come. They are no less notable than the college football playoff semi-final and quarter-final games.Calwatch (talk)05:29, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I actually now believe that this RFC is premature and its scope is too focused. Rather, we should have a larger RFC, hosted atWP:NSPORTSEVENT that creates a larger discussion about what American football games should be considered or assumed to be inherently notable. The comparison of minor college bowl games and NFL conference championships games is so out of sorts, that that is the question we should be answering. I would prefer this RFC get closed as no consensus and a new one get created with a more defined question and located in a more appropriate talk page. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @15:46, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per PeeJay. Unless there's a specific reason why they become notable, e.g.Deflategate, then they aren't of sufficient importance in the Super Bowl era to warrant heir own articles, any more than a FIFA World Cup semi-final would. — Amakuru (talk)13:02, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed.Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
User:AloofStorm5476 has taken it upon themselves to update NFL players' infoboxes (e.g.Jalen Hurts) by adding unnecessary links. They were updating NBA players' infoboxes too by adding an irrelevant award, but when notified that they should seek consensus first, seemed toignore the advice. Just wanted to let other editor's know to keep an eye out.Assadzadeh (talk)22:21, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'd definitely keep an eye on them. Some of the NFL infobox links they did were done on other pages also. Example, what was just done forPatrick Mahomes, was done onSam Darnold already ... maybe he was the IP user. If we have something on them that sticks (consensus), I'm all for warning them. From what I've seen in the past, editors who ignore advice don't end up in a good place.Bringingthewood (talk)22:48, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Good question, I really don't know. That's one of the few places I never contaminated. That will be where the real consensus and or arguing will come up. Hopefully someone will chime in on this soon .. that's the only reason I didn't revert them already, lol.Bringingthewood (talk)23:12, 26 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think tar and feathering ... only kidding. I agree with the clutter. I also see someone changing the Super Bowl links, Warren whatever. I'm all for reverting.Bringingthewood (talk)01:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to start reverting. I would suggest others do so as well until a discussion has occurred. The editor has been invited to join conversations both here and atWP:NBA.Assadzadeh (talk)03:23, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
For now I was just planning to remove the links for the descriptors in the "Career NFL statistics" section of the infobox. UsingPatrick Mahomes as the example, some of the links that I believe are confusing, such as:
It should be assumed that someone reading about an NFL player already has a rudimentary understanding of the sport. If not, then they can search Wikipedia for an article about the subject. As support of my argument, other descriptors in the infobox aren't linked, such as "High school", "College", and "NFL draft".Assadzadeh (talk)04:28, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding the title, it seems to be a list of players, not a list of statistics. Do reliable sources talk about this grouping? Otherwise, it'sWP:OR to combine their stats, and would also failWP:LISTN.—Bagumba (talk)07:22, 4 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
From a cursory check, in the current version source #1 and a few in the #10–17 range seem to discuss the grouping, though I don't know which (if any) are considered reliable or SIGCOV.Left guide (talk)20:04, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Abot will list this discussion on therequested moves current discussionssubpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see theclosing instructions). Please base arguments onarticle title policy, and keep discussionsuccinct andcivil.
I agree, the link is definitely not needed. As a matter of fact, when I first noticed these additions, I posted a message on theeditor's talk page asking them to start an RfC here, but apparently they never did and I forgot to follow-up. So, thanks for starting the conversation.Assadzadeh (talk)20:34, 5 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
When looking at NFL players infoboxes, there are two awards that are missing, the Salute to Service award and the NFL Moment of the Year award. Can these two awards be included in their infoboxes because they are recognized at NFL honors and are officially announced by the NFL? I would love to add these 2 awards! Another question I have is what about the Fedex Air and Ground Player of the year, should those be included in their infoboxes as well?AloofStorm5476 (talk)15:49, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the list of "awards": Pro championships, League MVPs, Other honors (Offensive POY, etc.), First-team All-Pros Second-team All-Pros, Pro Bowls, Season statistical leaders, Pro career honors (retired number, etc.), College national championships, College awards, All-Americas and All-Conferences, College career honors. Frankly, many of these need to be more strictly defined.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)17:01, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
NFL awards: Most Valuable Player (MVP), Offensive Player of the Year (OPOY), Defensive Player of the Year (DPOY), Offensive Rookie of the Year (OROY), Defensive Rookie of the Year (DROY), Comeback Player of the Year (CPOY), Coach of the Year (COTY), Assistant Coach of the Year (ACOY), Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year, Moment of the Year, NFL Protector of the Year, Salute to Service award, Art Rooney Award, Deacon Jones Award, Jim Brown Award, Don Shula NFL High School Coach of the Year. I don't follow the NHL so I have no idea about their players infobox. I only follow the NBA and NFL.AloofStorm5476 (talk)17:21, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
At what point doesWP:NOTGETTINGIT apply? How often do we have to discuss the purpose of an infobox (and citing the same guideline repeatedly) before it becomes disruptive? It isn't like these have been omitted for years or longer by being completely overlooked.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)19:11, 6 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So I don't see a reason to exclude the Salute to Service award and the NFL Moment of the Year award. According to the WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE section, "Other NFL recognized awards (Art Rooney Award, Bart Starr Award, NFLPA Alan Page Community Award, etc.)". And according tohttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFL_Honors, it clearly shows those two awards under the "Other" section.AloofStorm5476 (talk)17:19, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
You bring up a good point.WP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE states that "Major league-wide awards" should be included, in addition to "Other NFL recognized awards", which is confusing. Why not just state that all NFL recognized awards should be included? I think we need to clearly define what awards should be included, regardless of whether they are considered "major" (by whom) or "other".Assadzadeh (talk)18:11, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
There is no single person that determines consensus. We, as a group, have these discussions in hopes of reaching consensus. Sometimes, no consensus is reached because the opposing viewpoints are evenly divided. You should readWikipedia:Consensus to become more familiar with the process.Assadzadeh (talk)18:40, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It seems almost everyone here is in fact against adding a lot of these. If anything there is consensus that the infoboxes havetoo much in them. We need to have a discussion on which awards need to be excluded as not a defining award.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)18:29, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba: Exactly my point. I remember on the CFB project we have had discussions about topics line-by-line. I think that needs to happen for this. I have even posted on the CFB talk page asking them to comment here. At this point, every award/championship pro-college, minor league, needs to be discussed, with zero ambiguity. This case-by-case basis (e.g. bowl game MVPs) is contrary to the "standardization" that many claim they want.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)21:54, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Case-by-case basis is ideal, but not in a crowd-sourced environment like WP. Ultimately, some drive-by editor will see it on one page, and add it to the missing ones for "consistency". —Bagumba (talk)22:12, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's why it's important to have guidelines (which we do), so that non-consensus additions can be removed on-sight without discussion, thus making pages "consistent" and dissuading drive-by editors. As Left Guide noted "Perhaps lack of enforcing the consensus is the issue." The problem with the NFL guideline (which the NBA one doesn't have) is the "Other NFL recognized awards" category, which causes editors to want to add "everything-but-the-kitchen-sink" awards.Assadzadeh (talk)22:41, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Then maybe we should come to consensus on fixing the "Other NFL recognized awards" and make sure that we have all the ones that are listed in that specific category.AloofStorm5476 (talk)22:48, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I created a table in my sandboxhere as to which awards I believe should be included and which ones should not, a few of which I'm undecided about. Feel free to add to the list and a column for your opinion as well.Assadzadeh (talk)23:31, 7 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
As far as the infobox goes, the Deacon Jones Award has been added per Josh and I agree. We have a member that usually disagrees with that, lol. Still it stands.Bringingthewood (talk)00:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. Deacon Jones Award and Jim Brown Award (which is probably written out as "rushing yards leader" in most infoboxes) are both approved already and should stay imo.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)01:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I don't recall that but obviously I did it. I feel like there was a discussion going on at that time that prompted that, so I'll look into it on Monday.Hey man im josh (talk)01:46, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: We don't include awards in the infobox which are awarded based on fan votes. It's literally a popularity contest and it provides no value or indication of a player's actual success and value during the season.Hey man im josh (talk)01:40, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One potential problem I see withWP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE is that several entries seem too vaguely and/or broadly-defined ("major league-wide awards", "NFL recognized awards", "major individual league records", "NFL records", "college highlights") to be useful, leaving the door open to individual editors interpreting it to suit their personal preference. Some of the most accomplished players could have hundreds of items in the infobox based on those criteria. And as evidenced by this thread, I'm not sure those definitions necessarily reflect consensus among WikiProject editors. IMO, it needs to be more granular to have utility.Left guide (talk)01:53, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Left guide, it shouldn't be vague. As like the jackass I dealt with yesterday, it needs to be in stone. Straight to the point, if we need consensus .. so be it. We have to tell someone .. HERE IT IS. It's not a city council meeting.Bringingthewood (talk)02:02, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, we need to be more detailed and specific. I think @Assadzadeh's sandbox creation is a good start to try and get consensus for the league awards. We can definitely expand on it for other highlights as well.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)02:19, 8 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose: Hey man im josh put it better than I could've. We need to significantly reduce the awards that are in infoboxes, not expand.Let'srun (talk)00:15, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
@Hey man im josh:,@Let'srun:. So where should we determine this? I know@Assadzadeh: created a sandbox. I did opine there. However, I question on whether that is a normal/traditional/proper place to record this, as it is userfied. It is also a small link (and hard to find) in what has become an obsurdly long conversation over something that is almost unanimously contended that we have too much in the infoboxes as it is.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)15:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's consensus not to add this award to the infobox, but as for trimming what should/shouldn't be added, I might say we just start a new section altogether with the porposal. Not subsection, but a whole new section, pinging participants from here as well. I suggest a new section instead of sub section just to make it entirely clear and not have it get lost in the mud.Hey man im josh (talk)16:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The sandbox is fine for identifying candidates for further discussion. But perWP:NOTVOTE, we need a more formal discussion where editors can discuss their rationales for a proposed change. —Bagumba (talk)17:42, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I might be missing something that I haven't come across, but from what I can tell the Super Bowl articles aren't consistent in how they structure the game summary subsections. For example,Super Bowl XXV uses subsections for each quarter, whileSuper Bowl 50 uses first half/second half. I don't have a strong preference either way, but it seems like we should aim for consistency across these pages. I'm interested in hearing what you guys think would be the best approach for these articles.Ccai2053 (talk)22:44, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. My personal preference is to divide them by quarters, but keep in mind that you're talking about LX Super Bowl articles. So, that could be a significant effort, unless it's only a handful that deviate from the norm.Assadzadeh (talk)22:49, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
What do you mean by LX Super Bowl articles? Also I will admit it is a significant effort to make all articles follow the same format but at the same time I feel like consistency is what matters.Ccai2053 (talk)22:53, 9 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's a minor cosmetic issue. The bigger issue to me is that there's little analysis from secondary sources on the key points of the game. Instead, too much monotonous, drive-by-drive minutiaeWP:OR cherry-picked from play-by-play transcripts. —Bagumba (talk)01:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's understandable, and again I'm not saying we should necessarily favor one over the other for the game summary subsections, I'm just trying to offer a suggestion since I feel like what's really important is we have consistency across all Super Bowl articles.Ccai2053 (talk)01:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This article claims thatCharlie Marr played one game of pro football. As far as I could tell,he signed with the (NFL) Brooklyn Dodgers in early 1935, but broke the contract to accept a coaching position. I searched PFA and PFR, but there's no mention of a Charlie/Charley/Charles Marr. Even then, he wasalready coaching in Mexico by that August, while the NFL season didn't start until September. It's also possible he played in another league at some point...
I've suggested this before, but I don't think we need an award section in the infobox anyway. Most of them get omitted in the lead and often aren't cited elsewhere in the article anyway. Any major award should just be written as prose in the lead. But this view is probably in the minority, so I'd suggest that if the section must remain that we only include major awards with less redundant formatting. We already did this withJayden Daniels during his FAN (which stalled because of nomination bureaucracy, but we saved like 4-5 lines by combining them as a footnote for the generic award). We could go even further and omit all lesser awards that have the same scope as for example, the Heisman Trophy, because how often does a Heisman winner not win the other several other POTY awards? TheDavey O'Brien Award,Manning Award,Johnny Unitas Golden Arm Award are all the same thing and just bloat the infobox as the majority of the time they get awarded to the same player every year. When sources/media discussJayden Daniels, they really only bring up his Heisman and ROTY award, so why doesn't Wikipedia? —Dissident93(talk)19:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I find value in the major awards, such as All-Pro, Pro Bowl, OPOY, DPOY, and MVP being listed in the infobox. If we were to reduce the entries. Ultimately, I think our biggest issue is the college awards. If we limited it to the Heisman and first/second/third division teams, we'd see a lot of improvement.Hey man im josh (talk)20:55, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but unless I missed it, the template doesn't state what accomplishments should be listed. So, I looked atWayne Gretzky andMario Lemieux as two examples. Neither infobox lists the Stanley Cups and major awards each player won. For Lemieux, it only lists the medals he won representing Canada. The other information is buried under the Awards section. For Gretzky, nothing. By contrast,Peyton Manning lists his Super Bowl wins, Super Bowl MVP, and NFL MVP in the infobox, although there are a lot of other awards and accomplishments that should be deleted. For example, is it really an accomplishment that he's in the Sports Hall of Fame of the four states where he played high school, college, and pro football, or a mere formality?Bottom line: I don't agree that we shouldUse the NHL player infobox format, but do agree that we need toheavily trim down the awards section by limiting the number of college awards allowed in the infobox.Assadzadeh (talk)22:16, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Keep awards: I would be open to trimming it down, but I am more concerned thatWP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE currently leaves itself open to the addition of awards that most editors here wouldn’t include. The way it says "etc." everywhere doesn’t help. We need to firm up EXACTLY what should be included and not have it be so open ended.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)00:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Endorse removing awards. The more I think about it. I think the hockey project had it right. DoesTom Hanks' article mention his Oscars? Yes. Is it in his Infobox? No. Does it really matter to a general reader that Brett Farve was second team All-South independent in 1990? That by the way erroneously links to theSun Belt Conference. The fact that Farve led the league in passing yards should be mentioned in relevant prose, along with winning the MVP award. Is it going to matter to a reader that Bill Belichick only won one Greasy Neal Award? Does Bill even know where that trophy is?-UCO2009bluejay (talk)20:03, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I oppose removing all awards, but I think we could heavily trim down the awards section by limiting the number of college awards allowed in the infobox. We could also, explicitly, limit the NFL awards to All-Pro, OPOY, DPOY, Pro Bowl, MVP, and maybe a couple others. My perspective is that college awards and franchise teams (Lions All-Time Team as an example) are responsible for the most bloat. If we limited college awards, it'd make sense to limit it to All-American/all-division selections and do away with the hundred or so individual conference awards that are often included.Hey man im josh (talk)20:57, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a middle ground to be found, because the infobox can contain a lot of relevant information that aids those unfamiliar with the sport if it's streamlined.Hey man im josh (talk)20:58, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another reason why I'm all for including every award an NFL player has won in their infoboxes is because there are a lot of players wikipedia pages that does not include any awards or honors and it would be a pain to create that entire section for hundreds or even thousands of wikipedia pages. Imagine how long that would take. By including it in their infoboxes, it can save a lot of time! Please do consider this!AloofStorm5476 (talk)22:37, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Every award might be a bit scary. Do you know what the size of the infobox will look like? The infobox material is also supposed to be mentioned in the article .. do you know what the length of some articles will look like? That reminds me of the stat sections for quarterbacks who rarely rush. Too many trivial items.Bringingthewood (talk)22:43, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, I believe it is important to highlight every award a NFL player has won! You have to realize while yes their are players such as Tom Brady who have a lot of things in their infobox, there are players who have little to no highlights or awards in their infoboxes, I'm not saying to decrease the amount of items in Brady's infobox I'm just using him as an example. I want to include all awards in their infoboxes! Another thing to realize is that not every NFL player has won each award but I can see the issue if an NFL player did in fact win every single award. To put all this in simple terms, I don't agree with the project or wikipedia with excluding items.AloofStorm5476 (talk)22:51, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
That's what award dedicated sections are for. To include every player of the week award for example would end up being way over the top. We don't NEED every player to have a massive list of awards, if they don't have the MOST notable awards, we simply don't NEED to include them.Hey man im josh (talk)13:51, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia isWP:NOTEVERYTHING. Frankly, most of this information should be included in prose when relevant. There is a reason that award sections are not universal to boot. Since you're new here let me tell you, believe it or not, the people in these discussion are the more friendly of the types of inclusions of this material as to others it seems likeWP:TRIVIA. There is a large amount of the editing community that think we have too much detail and want to delete a lot of material already here, including articles such as all of these awards. If we adopt the hockey philosophy we can put this issue to rest. To be blunt, the Infobox isn't a Topps Trading Card.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)22:52, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
While I do believe it's not a trading card, to have all awards removed doesn't seem right. Adding everything under the sun is too much bloat. I believe Josh and GOAT mentioned trimming it down. IfWP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE was precise and to the point, with awards agreed upon after consensus, it could all work out in the long run. If it's vague, it leads to confusion and eventually an argument.Bringingthewood (talk)02:08, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think doing away with the following line item fromWP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE would be a good start:
To minimize the amount of college awards and highlights, we could also get rid of most of the repetitive Player of the Year type awards by making it one bullet point with a footnote listing all the organizations that have honored them as such.GOAT Bones231012 (talk)03:11, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
One alternative middle ground could be to have specific parameters for awards there is consensus to include, rather than a completely open-ended "highlights" field which allows individual drive-by editors to add any awards they want. I think that would cull the systemic bloating. I suspect having the "highlights" field makes it virtually impossible to enforce any consensus due to the crowd-sourced nature.Left guide (talk)22:53, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
My view remains that we should be flexible in determining what is a career-defining accomplishment based on the nature of the career.
We should be stricter in what we allow for superstars to avoid turning the infobox into a total mess. Maybe put a cap of 10 highlight entries per infobox and discuss which are truly career-defining for that particular player. For example, nobody can seriously contend that "Second-team All-SEC (1996)" (or "Colorado Sports Hall of Fame") is a career-defining highlight forPeyton Manning. (Manning currenlty has 48 bullet points in the highlight section.)
In the case of a lesser player without big-time highlights, a looser standard would be more appropriate. In the context of Manning, a second-team All-SEC honor is clearly not career-defining or infobox-worthy. But for a lesser player with few or no highlights, it may well be.
My bottom-line: Career-defining depends on the career. What is career defining for Tom Brady is very different from what is career-defining for lesser players.Cbl62 (talk)23:04, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
But look at the NBA project. It has had NBA Include and Exclude for quite some time now and editors are still constantly having to revert, change and standardize articles. New editors and IPs come along and try to ask to add whatever Random Capitalist Sponsor of the year for new statistic to all of them,even if they have already been excluded. We spend entirely too much time discussing it. The whole reason that this has become an issue is because of the variability of the awards listed in the infoboxes. To play the UNO reverse card, how many hundreds or thousands of articles will we have to check to ensure this standard is maintained? How often do we have random additions to articles that stay there for years? I mentioned one error earlier, not to mention the possibility ofWP:OR added entries.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)23:11, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
The "problem" as I see it is that infoboxes for superstars are bloated. E.g.,Peyton Manning with 48 separate bullet-pointed highlights. Why doesn't a fixed cap of 10 solve that problem?Cbl62 (talk)23:17, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
How can it be enforced? What is to keep random as Bagumba calls them "drive by editors" from coming along and adding the award found in one player's Infobox and put them to other infoboxes? What would Jweiss say about consistency.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)23:20, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds." — Ralph Waldo Emerson.(See alsoWikipedia:Emerson and Wilde on consistency.) Flexibility is the real key. The cap might require debate about what's really career defining for a particular player, but that can be decided by consensus. In Manning's case the hierarchy would likely go something like: 5× NFL Most Valuable Player (2003, 2004, 2008, 2009, 2013); 7× First-team All-Pro (2003–2005, 2008, 2009, 2012, 2013); NFL 100th Anniversary All-Time Team; Indianapolis Colts No. 18 retired;Maxwell Award (1997); Tennessee Volunteers No. 16 retired;NFL records Most passing touchdowns in a season: 55 (2013); Most passing yards in a season: 5,477 (2013). The other 38 bullet points can go in a highlights section but shouldn't clutter an infobox.Cbl62 (talk)23:29, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is why I think having specific individual parameters is a good idea. The consistency would be automated and organically built into the infobox system at one location (the template and its talk page) rather than the current untenable situation of having to manually patrol thousands of articles. It would require far less volunteer hours of cumulative maintenance.Left guide (talk)23:34, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
If someone is already listed as an All-American, an obscure conference award likeAmeche–Dayne Running Back of the Year shouldn't be included (perhaps shouldn't be listed even if they weren't AA). We might even exclude all-conference selections for AAs. Are we on-board for patrolling the inevitable drive-by edits that add them back for "consistency"? —Bagumba (talk)17:55, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Those conference specific awards are what I credit the absolute most for the bloat. Division/conference specific awards (possibly aside from the All-Conference selections themselves) should all be excluded.Hey man im josh (talk)18:01, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
They're bloat for a lot of the accomplished players, yes. But for the greater part, there's way more players for whom all-conference is the top highlight of their career. —Bagumba (talk)18:05, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Brady andPeyton Manning are the two most accomplished QBs of all time. We shouldn't be using them as example infoboxes. Brady, likeLeBron James, basically defied aging. Brady could still be playing in the NFL today if he wanted too. A lot of NFL players only have a college all-conference team for a highlight in the infobox (and a lot not even that). Keep in mind that there are over like 25K NFL players all-time. Brady and Manning are extreme outliers.Brett Favre's highlights look managable to me. AlthoughSports Illustrated Sportsman of the Year doesn't seem that necessary since it's not a football-specific award. Also, it is not standard to include state hall of fames or college hall of fames in the infobox, so I have removed those five lines from Manning's infobox.
I would also remove individual publication's "Athlete of the Year" or "Sportsman of the Year" awards and individual team's "Hall of Fame" or "Ring of Honor" mentions, but leave No. retired. As for a player such as Peyton Manning who's now mostly known for his NFL career, is it even necessary to list all the college awards that he won any longer? If yes, then perhaps the "Awards and highlights" section should be divided into "professional" and "college" subsections.Assadzadeh (talk)16:45, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Having a number retired by a team is a pretty significant honour in the NFL, and I'd be on board with keeping it while removing individual teams' hall of fames/rings of honour.Hey man im josh (talk)18:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Another idea would be to only exclude team HOFs for players w/retired numbers. Very few players get numbers retired, and its only those bloated bios that really need trimming. Team HOF is otherwise the top highlight for most players, and generally mentioned in obits. —Bagumba (talk)18:13, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect, even though this discussion is not very old, we will not come to consensus to remove the awards altogether. Something worth considering is whether we start with a significant reduction by going down the path of inclusion/exclusion criteria.Hey man im josh (talk)18:04, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
So as it stands right now, we have four arguments (as best as I can tell):
A) Add everything. Aloofstorm5476 is the only one who has that stance.
B) Set hard parameters for inclusion for awards and modify the Infobox accordingly
C) Limit the number of awards, but keep editorial judgement about what to include in the infbox.
D) Delete all of the awards, following the precedent set by WP:HOCKEY.
@UCO2009bluejay: Somewhat similar to B, I also mentioned above the idea of imposing a word/character limit on the infobox's highlights parameter. However, I do not know if that's feasible from a technical standpoint. I'm also not sure that it would be easy to maintain across thousands of articles if it can only be enforced socially. It wouldn't be unprecedented; perMOS:PLOT there's community consensus that plot summaries should be no more than 700 words.Left guide (talk)23:50, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I think Left guide added that link due to what you mentioned earlier: "Another reason why I'm all for including every award an NFL player has won in their infoboxes". Then I responded: "Every award might be a bit scary". I took it the same way.Bringingthewood (talk)03:48, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
It's scary because you're the only one proposing it. Wikipedia on a whole doesn't want the infobox to go on and on. Many miscellaneous awards are listed in the article under 'awards and accomplishments'. It worked out fine until NFLINFOBOXNOT had to be created so a players whole life story didn't end up in the infobox.Bringingthewood (talk)04:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
This is what AloofStorm said atWT:NBA in a similar discussion.Much like with NFL awards, I have a lot of issues and disagreements with this community about excluding awards. Who cares if it clutters their infobox.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)04:01, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Here is what is scary about it. If you want all of us to ignoreMOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE and we add all of this. Some editors that have contempt for all of the sports coverage will notice, and have plenty of legitimate policy concerns. The discussion could be atWP:CENT, orWP:VPP instead of here. Editors that hang around there are much less knowledgable/caring about the NFL, NBA, and American sports in general. If you think this discussion is frustrating, wait until you deal with the non-sports oriented crowd. Have you ever stopped to consider that maybe many editorsknow what we are doing? Have you ever considered that the construction of these infoboxes were through discussions and through careful consideration? That some of us in this discussion have been here a decade or longer. But if you want to have the hubris to think that the obstinence of holding on to that position against what literally everyone is saying "no" to will get you anywhere. It won't. That position has gained zero traction. I genuinely think that you will be a very productive and helpful editor on this site. Many statistics are need of updating, and there are many ways that you can be a massive benefit to this project. However, I suggest that when it comes to adding every award. It is time to realize that it is time todrop the stick.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)04:44, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if this discussion is going to die on the vine. But if there's a vote coming soon, I guess we can vote and group together to figure out an infobox (do and don't list). I'm really not looking forward to Mr. Lowercase Sigma Guy coming along and archiving it in a month. This is way too much **** to sweep under the rug.Bringingthewood (talk)22:30, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Yall just don't know ball or understand these awards. Most NFL players don't have a subsection in their wikipedia pages dedicated to highlights, awards, and honors so it's gonna be a long process to create these subsections for thousands of NFL Players. What would you rather do, create a whole new subsection or include the awards in their infoboxes?AloofStorm5476 (talk)15:46, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
I created a stub on this NFL player back when playing a single game was enough to establish notability. My efforts to build a fuller biography, and to findWP:SIGCOV have been unsuccessful. Indeed, I've found that reliable sources seem to have mixed up biographical details of completely different persons. I am inclined to send this to Articles for Deletion, but before doing so I thought I would post here to see if any of our expert researchers can find SIGCOV that warrants keeping.Cbl62 (talk)00:57, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Templates such asTemplate:1920 Chicago Cardinals have beenlisted for discussion, which may result in the template beingmerged ordeleted byconsensus. You are invited to comment on the proposed action atthe entry on the Templates for discussion page.-UCO2009bluejay (talk)20:48, 27 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]
Removed fromWP:NFLINFOBOXINCLUDE per below.Left guide (talk)12:03, 17 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]
