Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Playoff finish in season articles infoboxes

Should the |playoffs= parameter only list the final playoff game played in NFL team season articles like NBA ones? (compare the 2023–24 Boston Celtics with the 2024 Philadelphia Eagles) Obviously making it to the Championship Game or Super Bowl means a team won playoff games to get there and it just clutters the infobox with not only the opponent but the score. Playoff history is still noted in prose and schedule tables. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:58, 19 March 2025 (UTC)

Agree with only the team's final playoff game appearing in the infobox like the NBA ones. Less is more per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE:

The less information that an infobox contains, the more effectively it serves its purpose, allowing readers to identify key facts at a glance.

As an aside, if consensus forms this way, it might be worth adding a hidden editor note on {{Infobox NFL team season}} and/or explaining this on its documentation sub-page. Left guide (talk) 05:13, 20 March 2025 (UTC)

There has been no dissent expressed over nearly two full days, which is a rather long time for how busy and active this project is, so I am now going to update the documentation sub-page and start trimming infoboxes. Left guide (talk) 21:45, 21 March 2025 (UTC)

Should the score still be listed? It's usually omitted in prose unless independently notable; NBA articles have series records instead. And while we're at it (didn't want to flood WT:NFL with yet another thread), the |radio= parameter should also be removed as it's almost never mentioned in the article and not relevant to the team's season even if so. I know some editors remove it locally too. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

The score is probably already in some table in the body with the schedule results. —Bagumba (talk) 01:51, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I personally think the score of the team's last playoff battle is useful for the infobox in lieu of series records, for example, to know if it was a ridiculous blowout or a difference of less than a field goal. But I won't fight tooth and nail over it, and am willing to incorporate their removal in my edit runs if consensus is against me. By the way, I went through the 2024, 2023, and 2022 articles already. I'll have some time later today to continue this reverse chronology. Left guide (talk) 02:17, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If we're doing this, I think "playoffs" should be changed to "playoff finish" like the NBA one. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 02:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

@WikiOriginal-9: Agreed, I have filed an edit request for this purpose at Template talk:Infobox NFL team season#Template-protected edit request. Left guide (talk) 03:16, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

 Task complete. Left guide (talk) 09:29, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I think it's a bit soon for you to have implemented this change, especially since it would mean changing nearly every NFL team season article. Discussions like this should typically last at least a week, if not longer. – PeeJay 14:31, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:NOTBURO, 2–3 days is plenty of time to get a feel for consensus in this project. See how quickly the two image-related threads above attracted replies from a wide range of participants. Happy to pause the changes if someone enters an actual objection that amounts to more than stonewalling, but that has not occurred. Left guide (talk) 18:49, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm just pointing out that some people don't check this page on more than a daily basis, and some check it barely weekly. Why don't we treat the playoffs parameter like the pro bowl and all pro parameters, with a collapsible box to show the team's entire playoff run? It's only four lines at most. – PeeJay 19:14, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Why exactly are we doing this though? And i agree that this definitely needs more time before making this change on nearly *every* nfl article.

To me, it seems like a useless change 2600:1004:B117:B0EA:805B:AA16:2CE7:93D9 (talk) 20:34, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm cool if people disagree, but to be clear it doesn't affect every or nearly every team season article, only the ones that won playoff games, which is generally 6–8 teams per season (so less than a quarter). Left guide (talk) 20:38, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

Mb i didnt see this reply when making that second comment, but im not totally opposed, but it just feels unnecessary to me. 2600:1004:B117:B0EA:805B:AA16:2CE7:93D9 (talk) 20:43, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

It is mostly clutter and it doesn't seem to be an issue in NBA articles. The same information should go in the lead instead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:56, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

If youre attempting to make it easier to see at a glance, removing two lines of information that can be read within a few seconds doesnt change much

It makes it harder for people to see every playoff game at a glance, meaning theyd have to look down and scroll through the games.

Just feels useless to change every nfl article over something this minor 2600:1004:B117:B0EA:805B:AA16:2CE7:93D9 (talk) 20:41, 22 March 2025 (UTC)

THIS. Eg224 (talk) 08:27, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

This is a ridiculous, unnecessary change and just makes things harder for the reader to see the important information at a glance. Changing every NFL season article over this is peak deletionist nonsense. And two people pushing it through in the dead of night after not even allowing for a week’s debate on such a major change is even more ridiculous. Thecourierncrforlife (talk) 01:15, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

EXACTLY. Eg224 (talk) 08:28, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I just wanted to see who the 2018 Rams beat to make the horrible NFC Championship that they "won" and was completely thrown off to not see it in the infobox. it takes two seconds extra to glance over and will require the editing of more than 500 articles to revise all of these.

Removing Hall of Famers from Super Bowl info boxes was also dumb, that happened a while ago and it’s still like that. Hate it. Hate these changes. They make the articles worse. Not everyone can read through a whole block of text like that. Eg224 (talk) 08:31, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

I actually like that change, it's not particularly relevant and gives undue weight to the hall of famers. They may have played like garbage, the win may be the result of a few specific players, it doesn't tell us anything beneficial to include that in the infoboxes. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:19, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

No. Abhiramakella (talk) 04:55, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

While that may be true, I believe listing all playoff games in the |playoffs= parameter provides better clarity on a team’s postseason journey. Whether a team’s season ends in the Wild Card Playoffs, Divisional Round, or Conference Championship, each game played is an important part of their story. Removing earlier rounds diminishes key context, such as how competitive or dominant a team was throughout the playoffs.

For instance, in the 2024 Buffalo Bills season page, the |playoffs= parameter now only reads: Lost AFC Championship (vs. Chiefs) 29–32. This completely omits the Buffalo Bills previous playoff victories, making it seem as if the Buffalo Bills went straight to the AFC Championship rather than earning their way there. The infobox should serve as a comprehensive snapshot, not just a single-game summary. Abhiramakella (talk) 06:38, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes are not supposed to be fully comprehensive per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. Again, has this ever been brought up in NBA seasons articles as an issue? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:09, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I don't think so, unless WT:WikiProject National Basketball Association/Archive 31#Playoff Finish Infobox Category counts, but it's tough to tell at first glance what that thread is about. Left guide (talk) 22:28, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Re: "comprehensive", in addition to MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE there are multiple policy points to the contrary.

WP:NOTEVERYTHING:

Information should not be included solely because it is true or useful. An article should not be a complete presentation of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject. Verifiable and sourced statements should be treated with appropriate weight.

WP:INDISCRIMINATE:

…merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia.

One of those even cites an Arbitration Committee ruling which says:

An encyclopedia article is a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject, not a complete exposition of all possible details.

Left guide (talk) 03:24, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that this is a very unnecessary move to make. Removing note of previous playoff victories in the parameter undermines quick context of the team's playoff journey for the reader. Also, for teams like the Ravens who won a playoff game before eventually being eliminated, I believe it is especially damaging. EZBird (talk) 15:07, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

The 1985 New England Patriots were the first team in NFL history to reach the Super Bowl after winning 3 straight road playoff games. Under this change, that information would be gone from the playoff parameter. All you would see is that they were destroyed by the Bears 10–46 in Super Bowl XX. Which is disingenious to what they accomplished before that. Why make this change? I don't believe the clutter talking point holds much water. EZBird (talk) 15:23, 23 March 2025 (UTC)

They then became the first team in NFL history ever to advance to the Super Bowl by winning three playoff games on the road, defeating the New York Jets 26–14 in the AFC Wild Card Game, the Los Angeles Raiders 27–20 in the AFC Divisional Game and the Miami Dolphins 31–14 in the AFC Championship Game.

The same information is already in the lead. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 15:21, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not talking about the lead section. I'm talking about the infobox. This just feels like you are deleting stuff just to be deleting stuff. 2600:4040:A1A6:2600:B0C2:8F63:641F:DA3C (talk) 16:19, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm assuming you are EZBird, but the information still exists in "quick context of the team's playoff journey for the reader" in the lead. I also didn't delete anything, I simply brought up the proposal. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 16:24, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I would say Left gaurd made the change way to quickly, as of now it appears to be in favor of not doing it,

Idk why was this was even changed without a weeks worth (or more because of how big this change is) discussion

Now the articles are split between "playoff finish" and "playoffs"

Which could be Confusing for some.

I stand with it being extremely unnecessary, and feels like people just wanting to remove the journey a team goes through to win the superbowl, as someone else said. 2600:1004:B182:6E15:34B6:8FF2:B2F7:9ED6 (talk) 19:12, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Was there ever a project discussion establishing consensus for all playoff games to be included in the infobox? I searched the archives and could not find any. Also note WP:ONUS policy clause:

  The responsibility for achieving consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content.

  Left guide (talk) 21:23, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe a WP:SILENTCONSENSUS? I'm not gonna lose sleep over it either way. I'm surprised this many people cared, lol. ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 22:06, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

  I'm surprised this many people cared, lol: Some IPs and a new account to boot. —Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  This change is why I made my account Bagumba lol EZBird (talk) 07:46, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

  And one with 3,000 edits. Eg224 (talk) 18:21, 9 April 2025 (UTC)

Infoboxes on NFL pages have long been used as a quick glance for how the team did in a season. A big part of that is seeing the playoff journey a team took (or didn't take). I think skipping to the end would be a disservice to the readers. Jimania16 (talk) 16:00, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

You are right. Abhiramakella (talk) 20:40, 27 March 2025 (UTC)

No, it’s nice to be able to see how they got to that point quickly. Eg224 (talk) 08:25, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

If this format is to return can we at least use "Wild Card/Divisional Round" over "Playoffs", which is both its official name and less redundant as the |playoffs= parameter name already covers it? It also avoids a linebreak which aids readability. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:26, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I’m in agreement with that, that’s a sensible change. Thecourierncrforlife (talk) 02:40, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

I see no issue there. EZBird (talk) 11:13, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks

This should go back to having the chronological starters-by-year table like every other team instead of the new table that has an alphabetical list of names. The utility of these lists is the chronological history of who a team's starting QB was over time. And the sorting on the new table is not a valid replacement. Even after you sort it, you still have to do mental gymnastics to figure out who the starters were for any given year since a lot of QBs overlap into different years. Imagine if List of Green Bay Packers head coaches or List of New York Yankees Opening Day starting pitchers were alphabetical. That would defeat the whole purpose of those lists. Several people, besides me, have tried to add the old table back if you check the talk page and article history of the Packers list. I'm bringing this up now because another user has recently copied this style over to the Rams list. This really needs to be nipped in the bud. But let's be clear, I am not opposed to having the summary table in the article. It is useful to see how many different QBs a team has had instead of having to manually count down the yearly list while avoiding duplicates. However, I reiterate that the main utility of these lists is the yearly table. I am willing to compromise and have the summary table on top and the starters-by-year table below it like I have done at the Rams list. The Chargers list is featured and has the yearly table, so there is no reason the Packers list can't still be featured with both tables on it. Adding the yearly table back doesn't negate the good work Gonzo has done on the article at all. And as for Gonzo's rationale for removing the pre-1950 QBs. That's fine, we can leave those guys off since PFR QB win-loss records only go back to 1950 and QB wasn't as defined in the early days (halfbacks used to throw passes regularly too). Hopefully, better records come out later for those old timers. See the note I have left at the Rams list: "Note: Complete records for quarterback starts are unavailable prior to 1950". ~WikiOriginal-9~ (talk) 17:01, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree, these lists should have a chronological starters-by-year table, even if they have an alphabetical table as well. Assadzadeh (talk) 17:18, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Personally I LOVE this list, and I was actually planning to someday do the Lions' one the same way. This list provides relevant and interesting information, and after all, it's not titled List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks by season. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:22, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. A chronological table should be included. Useight (talk) 18:34, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

And as for Gonzo's rationale for removing the pre-1950 QBs. That's fine, we can leave those guys off since PFR QB win-loss records only go back to 1950 and QB wasn't as defined in the early days (halfbacks used to throw passes regularly too). Hopefully, better records come out later for those old timers. See the note I have left at the Rams list: "Note: Complete records for quarterback starts are unavailable prior to 1950". – honestly, I don't know why no one has compiled complete QB starts records – I think if anyone (with newspapers.com) wanted to they could probably do it, since newspapers almost always included boxscores listing the starters. BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

BeanieFan11, for the Packers it would be something like 300 separate references to cite this information. I'm guessing that would just be too much work, assuming all the references are available. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:30, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

• Comment not related to the arguments being made, but a ping would have been nice WikiOriginal-9. Regarding the arguments being made, first, both examples you provided (head coaches and opening day starters) typically are held by one person at a time, and in regards to head coaches, its extremely rare to have one season with more than two coaches. This can easily be handled by simple table wikicoding. The other example (opening day starters) is always a single person. This again lends itself well to a single row by year. I don't know what the record is, but starting QBs could have 4 or more starters in a season, with some of those starters starting multiple times over multiple consecutive or non-consecutive seasons. The actual compromise is that we still have a sortable table, this time by year, with separate columns for each starter each year. The old tables are antiquated and static. If the table is added back in, then it needs to be updated to match current table coding.

So instead of looking like this:

Season	Regular season	Postseason
2013	Aaron Rodgers (9) / Matt Flynn (4) / Scott Tolzien (2) / Seneca Wallace (1)	Aaron Rodgers (0-1)

It would look like this:

Season	Starting quarterback	Games started	Record				Refs
			W	L	T	%
2013	Aaron Rodgers	9	6	3	0	.667
	Matt Flynn	4	2	2	0	.500
	Scott Tolzien	2	0	1	1	.250
	Seneca Wallace	1	0	1	0	.000

Note, if someone really felt compelled, they could add additional columns for playoffs during that season (although I feel a separate playoff table makes more sense). But this gives you the gist of it. The second example meets all of our accessibility and functionality guidelines. Lastly, I would remiss if I didn't mention that just because a bad style has lasted so long, it doesn't make it right. I understand the opposing view to see who started in a specific season, but I think an essential aspect of a list of quarterbacks is the total number of games they started and their record. And the old table format fails that. I also try very hard not to have multiple tables hosting essentially the same information. It is confusing and duplicative, and requires more rigorous updating.

« Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:15, 24 March 2025 (UTC)

I completely agree. I actually haven't worked on List of Detroit Lions starting quarterbacks, or the other quarterback lists, because I HATE the format so much. Instead I've focused on the first-round picks (done) and seasons (WIP) lists because they're utilizing formats that I think are mostly good. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:23, 25 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Carl Zoll/archive1

An editor in the above nomination has requested fresh eyes for a copyedit of Carl Zoll during its FAC review. As we don't get FACs very often, I was hoping that someone here who hasn't seen the article before but has the subject matter expertise to do a good copyedit. If anyone is interested, please consider taking a look. Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:02, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Infobox List of Positions and External Links

Thetreesarespeakingtome and I are having a small disagreement regarding two items at Ed Policy. Since both issues are related to a claim of standard practice for NFL pages, I am bringing it here. I also have this at WP:GAN, so any disputes would jeopardize a review at this point.

1. How executive positions are listed in the infobox, specifically whether positions held with the same team and in a consecutive timeframe should have the team listed just once, or whether it needs to be restated for each position. My preference is that we shouldn't have to list the same team over and over again if someone stayed with the team and was promoted. This gets extremely burdensome for an executive/coach who promoted multiple times, making the infobox longer. Thetreesarespeakingtome's preference is this, noting that they believe it is generally accepted formatting for NFL info boxes. I'll note that their version looks like a wall of text and makes it difficult to quickly grasp the info, which is the purpose of an infobox. Note, I prefer the use of the {{Abbr}} template to tighten things up, but that isn't something I am concerned with either way.
2. How an external link is listed:
   • My preference: Ed Policy biography at Packers.com
   • Thetreesarespeakingtome's preference: Green Bay Packers profile
     • My reasoning is just based on plain English, my preference explains what the user is going to see and where they are getting it from. Importantly, it follows standard naming convention from some externalink templates, like {{YouTube}}, {{Twitter}}, {{Facebook}}, etc. The other version is ambiguous, as in plain English I read that to mean I am going to find a "Profile on the Green Bay Packers"

Any input or clarity would be appreciated. Courtesy pining Dissident93, who also made the same change to the external link on the same page a while back. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:18, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Howie Roseman

Philadelphia Eagles
Career history
As a staff member / executive:
Philadelphia Eagles (2000–present) Front office intern (2000) Salary cap staff counsel (2001–2002) Director of football administration (2003–2005) Vice president of football administration (2006–2007) Vice president of player personnel (2008–2009) General manager (2010–2014) Executive vice president of football operations (2015–2018) Executive vice president/general manager (2019−present)

1) For the infobox, wasn't there a proposed adjustment to the current format to indent/collapse different titles in tenure with the same team to avoid listing them multiple times? I can't find an example of it right now, but Howie Roseman's infobox in this format would only list the Eagles once with all of the various titles below (Front office intern (2000); Salary cap staff counsel (2001–2002) etc).

2) For profile links, I don't really see how "Green Bay Packers profile" is ambiguous when it should logically only apply to the subject on their article. Displaying "Biography" on the link can also be misleading for people who don't actually have any biographical information and only include stats like a random practice squad player (same reason I've been replacing "bio" with "profile" when I come across them). I personally find name conventions for social media templates to be superfluous, so if this were to change I'd go with Profile at Packers.com, which avoids any ambiguity or title redundancy. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:50, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Dissident93, take a look at this version of Lumberjack Band, specifically the external link section. This isn't the first time I have removed a generic Packers.com external link from a page. I am fine with your proposed rewrite of linking all the text to the external link and using "Profile" instead.

Howie Roseman is a great example of how ridiculous this all look when you have people promoting from within. This should change to just listing the team and then all the positions and years underneath. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:01, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

There are a couple of other ways the formating could be adjusted, but it's cleaner for sure. I'm pretty sure something like this was proposed in the past but it failed to catch on (was it just done locally on a few pages and not discussed here?) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:54, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I mean, this is exactly what I am talking about. So much cleaner and easier to read. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:12, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Is there any opposition to this from others? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:04, 1 April 2025 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I had actually proposed a formatting change a few years ago that seemed to get support, but that we never actually moved forward with. See this proposed format for coaches, which we could obviously apply for any staff member who changes positions. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:50, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Seeing as the original reason for the revert was Rev to generally accepted formatting for NFL info boxes, and that does not appear to hold true, I have restored the original version at Ed Policy. Any improvements based on additional discussion here are encouraged. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:18, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Seems like the only real difference is mine used indention; you can see the difference with Lance Newmark and Adam Peters. I'd like to settle on a single format before I start changing as they come up, so which is preferable? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:57, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't mind either way, as long as we are not repeating the team for each position. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:13, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

I can't personally decide which of the two I like more. Newmark's still has somewhat of a wall of text issue while Peters' might need *all* titles to be indented to feel cohesive. Is there perhaps a prettier third option? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:09, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

This should apply to assistant coaching roles too? Often a lots of space taken by repeated teams too.. (Actually in that 2021 discussion, I had suggested not listing the specific positions in the infobox, and just noting non-head coach positions with (asst.) or similar on the same line. The details can be covered in prose (with citations). For reference, baseball bios don't enumerate the specific coaching roles in the infobox (e.g. Don Zimmer).—Bagumba (talk) 09:11, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, anywhere teams are repeated consecutively under another title. I'd probably support generalizing assistant roles if it we could fully enforce it, which unfortunately tends to be a weakness of sports projects compared to others.

For players, we could also make team history follow how coach pages such as Joe Gibbs do it and merge years for the same team over multiple tenures. For example Calais Campbell, who just re-signed with Arizona this week, would display "Arizona Cardinals (2008–2016; 2025–present)". The {{NFL Year}} template could be adjusted to support more than one span to avoid manually typing it. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 23:06, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think its a big issue for players. Sometimes I see years omitted if they were on IR, but they were still under contract and taking up a spot, esp. when we go through the trouble to highlight other nuances like offseason and practice squads. If there was a gap because of lapsed contracts, it probably should be separate entries. —Bagumba (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Darian Durant

Darian Durant has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 30 March 2025 (UTC)

AAFC Teams

Now that the NFL has officially incorporated AAFC's records, should their teams from 1946–49 be added to Timeline of the National Football League, just like the AFL teams? Please reply at AAFC. Assadzadeh (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Schedule tables

I am bringing this topic up again. This time in its own thread. Can we finally implement a template for a header of the schedule tables? It would accomplish the following: a standardized format, remove random additions (networks for old seasons, the addition of broadcast pbp and analysts). They are becoming uglier over time, see 1923 Buffalo All-Americans season, which would look so much better if the profootballreference.com recaps would become a source.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 8#Schedule Templates from back in '08 shows a family of NFL schedule templates. Their "what links here" pages show no uses in mainspace. As you seem to indicate, there may also be similar past discussions worth examining to see where project consensus lies. Left guide (talk) 23:19, 6 April 2025 (UTC)

{{Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks}}

Yankees10 has reverted me twice on my removal of pre-1950 starting QBs from {{Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks}} with the justification that all other NFL teams include pre-1950 starting QBs and starting "Pro-Football-Reference exists". My removal is based on the following:

• List of Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks, the subject article for this navbox, does not include pre-1950s starting QBs.
• {{Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks}} is not currently on the article pages of any pre-1950 starting QB (note WP:NAVBOX says Every article that transcludes a given navbox should normally also be included as a link in the navbox, so that the navigation is bidirectional.)
• Most importantly, no reliable sources state that any player prior to 1950 was a "starting quarterback", especially when taking in the context of what an early QB did back then versus today. The burden of proof is on the inclusion of information to be reliably sourced.
• I do not understand the statement that "Pro-Football-Reference exists" as they specifically do not include quarterback starts before 1950. Take Arnie Herber, which PFR identifies as a tailback. Cliff Christl notes that although Herber was inducted into the HoF as a quarterback, he barely played that position during his career (this is revisionism, as by the time he was inducted, the QB had become the premier passer/leader on a team). The important part of all of this is that "starting QB" as a cohesive topic we know today isn't applicable to early professional football, because the QB was primarily a blocking back and because passing duties were shared between multiple backs. Take a look at any early "QBs", like Charlie Mathys, PFR has him as a blocking back. Even someone who is identified as a QB, like Jack Jacobs, PFR does not list a QB record and it is unclear whether he started as a QB, TB, or HB in 47 or 48, and he doesn't even have a position listed in some years.
• Lastly, there is no rule that things need to be consistent across all 32 teams. The burden to fix issues is not on me, a volunteer, so if I choose to challenge the sourcing and then fix the Packers template, just because the other 31 teams have it wrong doesn't mean the Packers template can't be right.

Any input would be welcome. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 19:18, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

Are there any master lists of Packers starting QBs published in reliable sources? If so, I'd say follow their inclusion criteria, both on the list page and the navbox (which I assume should match each other). Per WP:LISTCRITERIA:

Selection criteria (also known as inclusion criteria or membership criteria) should be unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources. Avoid original or arbitrary criteria that would synthesize a list that is not plainly verifiable in reliable sources.

Left guide (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2025 (UTC)