Talk:2012 NFL draft

	2012 NFL draft is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so.
Article milestones Date Process Result July 30, 2022 Featured list candidate Promoted

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

Lists Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lists, an attempt to structure and organize all list pages on Wikipedia. If you wish to help, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.ListsWikipedia:WikiProject ListsTemplate:WikiProject ListsList articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. ‹ The template below (WikiProject National Football League) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. › ‹ The template below (WikiProject National Football League) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. › ‹ The template below (WikiProject National Football League) is being considered for merging. See templates for discussion to help reach a consensus. › 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 articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers. This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist. [[2014 NFL Draft#Pick 2|2nd]] Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

The Bunkley for a fifth rounder to Cleveland trade was undone (conflicting reports say he did not report, and that he did report but failed a physical). Bunkley was then sent to Denver for a 2013 pick to be named later. — Preceding unsigned comment added by InsultComicDog (talk • contribs) 12:25, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the information on the McNabb pick from Minnesota to Washington is incorrect. The way I understood it at the time and the way I still read it now is that Washington receives Minnesota's sixth rounder this year and the conditional one is for the draft of 2013. If that is true, the trade should be moved from undetermined to sixth round. Can somebody please verify? Kangolcone (talk) 04:01, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The Indianapolis Colts have the #1 draft pick because they have the "worst record" for the 2011 NFL season, not because they are the "worst team". Please correct this statement so it reads without subjectivity.

199.64.0.252 (talk) 20:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I have addressed this concern. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:42, 3 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the part about Indianapolis saying they are going to draft Luck because there may be conflicting news reports I haven't read about it. However, if it DOES become verified, it's absolutely relevant. Thought Wikipedia is not a "news site," as you say, it is germane to the event as as whole.

Also, saying the "Suck for Luck" campaign is not noteworthy is, with due respect, ludicrous. It was one of the biggest subplots of the 2011 season, and definitely the biggest story among the losing teams. If there is one way to put the 2012 draft in context (besides just being a list of draft picks that you can get at ESPN.com or Pro-Football-Reference.com), it is by highlighting the significance of the Luck pick and how it colored the 2011 season. That IS what Wikipedia is. Bill shannon (talk) 21:56, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I move the content down to the "Early entrants" section, I didn't delete everything. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:00, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can move it to a sub-heading since it is technically separate from the early entrants. That list is going to be removed anyway so I'll just leave it in as one paragraph, that should be enough. Thanks. Bill shannon (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, but I don't necessarily agree with your addition of the same thing to the lead of 2011 NFL season. It's not very relevant and belongs more so here than there. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:04, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering about the 2 picks the Patriots traded in the 7th round; now who (Kansas City or Minnesota) has the Patriots' original pick, and who has the Eagles' pick? What I've been able to find so far is the NE-PHI trade and the NE-KC trade happened on the same day and the NE-MIN trade about a month later. So, depending on the time of the 2 deals NE made with KC and PHI (haven't found anything indicating it was a 3-way deal) the Patriots possibly had 2 7th round picks available to them (their own and the Eagles') when they made the deal with KC. It would be good if we could have this information sourced and add it to the trade notes in the article. --LarryJeff (talk) 15:09, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please remove this trade from "Undetermined" and add it as a "Round Five" pick for Buffalo. The Bills announced on February 15 that the conditional sixth-round pick was improved to a fifth-round draft choice based on Lynch’s playing time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.103.109.141 (talk) _Buffalo_trade_for_Marshawn_Lynch_now_determined" class="ext-discussiontools-init-timestamplink">17:27, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Saints to lose 2nd round pick this year (and next year) link 188.221.79.22 (talk) 17:15, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the rows in the "Player selection" table have asterisks (at the end of the round). I assume that these are compensatory picks, but there's no explanation in the text. —Al E.^(talk) 16:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed I've uncommented the legend/key. The asterisks do indeed denote compensatory selections. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nebraska is still Mapping to the Big 12. Not sure if any other schools are misrepresented.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 02:10, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, the Regina Rams are mapping to N/A, when it should be mapping to Canada West. I'm not sure how to add these teams in, but if someone could, it might be an idea to add in all of the CIS teams as players are starting to be drafted out of them. There may be a second Canada West member drafted in a late round tomorrow too, so it would make it easier. Plus, then the template could also be used for the CFL Canadian Draft articles. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 04:48, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Fixed Nebraska is fixed. The template to edit is Template:Cfb_conf. Feel free to add the Canadian colleges. Just be careful with the template as it is pretty easy to miss something and mess up the syntax. Jmbox (talk) 13:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing this.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:31, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking that there should be as many as three summary tables for the draft.

1. Columns representing rounds and rows representing positions.
2. Columns representing rounds and rows representing college conferences.
3. Columns representing rounds and rows representing pro teams.

Thoughts?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not absolutely opposed to something like this, but I question why a user couldn't just use the sorting functionality in the player selection table to get this information (although not as neatly summarized). Frankly, these draft articles are already ponderous as they are without adding a bunch of additional tables, so you'd want to be mindful of that as well. The other concern I have is that without good sourcing there are those who would cite "original research" as a reason to strike this type of summary information. If you feel strongly about it, go ahead and implement it and see where it goes. — DeeJayK (talk) 15:46, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Malik Jackson that the page links to is a different Malik jackson. I tried to fix it but the layout is a little complicated. Can anyone who understands the layout fix it?--Daytona 500 18:12, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Unfortunate that they are both defensive ends! Jmbox (talk) 18:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I copy the templates, how do I handle the reflinks at 2011_Big_Ten_Conference_football_season#2012_NFL_Draft and 2011_Michigan_Wolverines_football_team#2012_NFL_Draft.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:53, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For example, Andrew Luck is a product of the Stanford Cardinal football program, not just the 2011 example of same. He was drafted by the Indianapolis Colts franchise, not just the 2012 team per se.

So if the talk page is now being censored, then somebody will delete this too, but they cannot delete the simple fact that these players are products of, and new members of certain football programs, and that the results of a specific season are really a very different subject.

The primary college and NFL team links on the draft article need to reflect that by directing to that school or franchise's overall football program, not to one single season. Thank you!

 PhotoBoothe (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see your points, but my counter-argument (for retaining the links to the specific seasons) is that when users are looking at these articles the more specific article is more often relevant. For example, if I see that Luck played for Stanford and click that link, it takes me to an article pertaining to his final season in the program. If what I wanted instead was more general information regarding the Stanford program, a link to the article I want will almost always be in the first sentence of the single-season article. If I want to see what the team did in the previous season, that link is immediately available in the infobox as well. If instead the link were to the more general article on Stanford Cardinal football, but what I really want is information about Luck's tenure with the program (which I see as a highly likely scenario) it isn't immediately clear where that more detailed information on his season(s) with the team can be found from that article. Similar arguments can be extended to the NFL team season links. Also, as more time passes from the date of this draft, the more difficult it will be for users to "drill down" from the more generalized team pages to those pertaining the the relevant season(s). — DeeJayK (talk) 21:55, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2012 NFL Draft's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Pro Bowler note":

• From 1969 NFL Draft: Players are identified as a Pro Shiiter if they were selected for the Pro-Bowl at any time in their career.
• From 2010 NFL Draft: Players are identified as a Pro Bowler if they were selected for the Pro Bowl at any time in their career.
• From 2002 NFL Expansion Draft: Players are identified as a Pro Bowler with an asterisk if they were selected for the Pro Bowl at any time in their career. A dagger indicates a player who was selected to the Pro Bowl only as a member of another team.
• From 1963 NFL Draft: Players are identified as a Pro Bowler if they were selected for the Pro-Bowl at any time in their career.
• From 1964 NFL Draft: Players are identified as a Pro Bowler if they were selected for the Pro-Bowl at any time in their careers.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 20:50, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why is Darron Thomas not listed under notable players undrafted? Please fix this — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.51.136 (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Because he is not only undrafted but also, as far as I know, unsigned by a NFL-team. Give proof of a contract with an NFL-team and he will be added to the list. But please, please, don't start editwarring over this. The Banner _talk 18:14, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

So, you don't accept that, mr. IP/Patriotsfan, that you now have put in Darron Thomas for the fourth time? The Banner _talk 22:45, 26 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

An anonymous user who employs different IP addresses (2606:6000:ce83:8400:a0f1:8aad:7470:2c88 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:b11d:cf36:5130:2d32 (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:848d:f811:202d:ed5c (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), 2605:a000:140d:4329:c569:4f92:ca28:4a7a (talk⁺ · tag · contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · proxy check · block user · block log · cross-wiki contribs · CheckUser (log)), etc)

Has reverted the edits in the Notable Undrafted Player section of the 1995 NFL Draft, 1996 NFL Draft, 1998 NFL Draft, 1999 NFL Draft, 2007 NFL Draft, 2009 NFL Draft, 2011 NFL Draft, 2012 NFL Draft, and others. Putting players that did not have a notable career and are just classified as undrafted. This is not the first time that it has happened with this user, so I would ask for somebody to review this case, because the essence of this section is to be selective with the players being put there.Makers267 (talk) 19:09, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]