This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

National Football League Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Green Bay Packers High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Green Bay Packers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Green Bay Packers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Green Bay PackersWikipedia:WikiProject Green Bay PackersTemplate:WikiProject Green Bay PackersGreen Bay Packers High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Wisconsin Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Wisconsin on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WisconsinWikipedia:WikiProject WisconsinTemplate:WikiProject WisconsinWisconsin Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Charlesaaronthompson I have done this on a number of "game" articles, including some GAs. I always put the home team on the bottom. Stacking them makes them legible. I only do this for articles without a clear image for the infobox. Is there some policy you are pushing or some strong reason you feel it needs to be this way? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. I do not believe that team logos belong in the infobox of notable NFL game articles. I believe that the NFL team wordmark logos belong only in NFL rivalry articles to visually describe and represent the specific team's name branding. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 23:51, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

[1][2][3][4][5] these edits are shockingly disruptive and pointy Charlesaaronthompson while an active discussion and dispute is ongoing. Per WP:BRD, I have undone them all. If all you are espousing is a preference for some other way, you know what to do. Establish consensus, I recommend at WP:NFL. I am legit shocked that this is your course of action for an editor of your tenure. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:16, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe this is WP:DISRUPT. I find it redundant to include team logos in game articles on this encyclopedia. I don't know why you oppose using images of the stadiums where the game was played in the infobox of each article, or, in the case of Fail Mary, an image of the play in question. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And I dont understand why you want random pictures of stadiums in the infobox. Its a content dispute. If it matters that much, than follow WP:BRD, probably at WP:NFL. And youll note Fail Mary wasnt reverted. That makes sense to me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:41, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'll explain why: it makes more sense to me to have pictures of the stadium in the infobox because it could show the reader visually where the game in question was being played. So, I guess the question is this: how do you propose we resolve our dispute so there's WP:CONSENSUS? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would propose you start a discussion at WP:NFL. I obviously feel that the logos provide the reader more beneficial visual cues because it allows for a quick understanding of who played, which is typically way more relevant than where. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 00:59, 27 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"We want the ball and we're going to score!" was a National Football League (NFL) Wild Card Playoff game...

Saying it was the game (rather than a reference to the game or a quote from the game) doesn't sound right. It would make some sense and sound more natural if it was a simple nickname like the Ice Bowl. Which sources use "We want the ball..." as the name or nickname of the game itself, rather than as a quotation from it? --Jameboy (talk) 16:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jameboy It is confusing. It really is the "We want the ball and we're going to score! game" but "game" is not included in the styling in sources. Unlike say the Instant Replay Game which sources include "game" in. There was a past discussion on this that fizzled out, but I was open to just moving the article to 2003 NFC Wild Card playoff game (Seattle–Green Bay), which would make the opening sentence easier to write.

There probably needs to be a bigger discussion on some of these games, as what was originally a famous play has become eponymous with the game itself. I.e. what is actually notable is a game that became famous for something that happened during that game. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]