User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 10

User:Chrisjnelson/Sandbox2[edit]

Hey, Chris. I saw what you were doing on this page, and I was wondering if you'd like any assistance in completing that. If you want any help, feel free to let me know. Ksy92003(talk) 05:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the offer, and hopefully you don't take this the wrong way, but I'd prefer to complete this list myself. I feel like if I do it on my own, I can be sure there won't be any mistakes or anything like that. I'd like to get it to the point where it's got every player on every team and can be continuously updated as transactions happen, like the roster templates themselves. If/when it ever becomes an actual article, it'd be fine for you and anyone else to update it. But I'd prefer to complete the list on my own so I can be sure it gets done the way I'm envisioning it. It's not you though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:27, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Also, right now it's really more about collecting data, which is why it's not completely aesthetic or organized into columns or anything, in case you were wondering. I'll get some input on it when I'm done. Hopefully it'll be worthy of being an article on some form. I think it'll provide some interesting info.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:28, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I actually had a strong feeling that you would've rather completed it yourself, but I thought that it wouldn't hurt to extend the offer. The reason why I felt that was exactly why you said it: if other people come and add to it, then that could throw you off. Thought I should ask, still; no problem. Ksy92003(talk) 13:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Polomalu...[edit]

You sure? If so ok. I'll take your word for it lol. --Cra sh U nderride 17:47, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Does "He may pretends to blitz" sound right to you?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:52, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey[edit]

Have you done anything stupid, got all bent out of shape, or pissed off any editors in good standing on here recently? (There is a point to this question, BTW). youngamerican (wtf?) 20:19, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, why?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, read these and see if you'd be interested in a couple of extra buttons someday. youngamerican (wtf?) 23:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. Well I can't imagine given my recent history I'd ever be voted an admin.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:06, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, play nicey-nice for a few months. youngamerican (wtf?) 02:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I imagine it'd take a few years.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:18, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MLB free agency[edit]

Besides Bartolo Colón, did any other Angels file for free agency? I noticed that you skipped them, as well as the Dodgers and the Indians. I removed Colón; are there any others that should be removed? Ksy92003(talk) 02:23, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Colon is the only one I've seen from the Angels. Here, use this. I think I got nearly all of them so far.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:28, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll try to keep my eye on the website that you provided me, and I'll make any changes that I see still need to be made when I can. Hopefully I can add the one person who could possibly upstage the World Series by having his agent announce his intent to opt out of the richest contract in MLB history during the eighth inning of the Red Sox' sweep of the Rockies to the Angels' roster sometime soon. Ksy92003(talk) 06:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find any hatred for A-Rod here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 11:05, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If A-Rod comes to Anaheim, then I'm never wearing my Vladimir Guerrero jersey to an Angels' game again =D

I just thought of something... is it possible that the reason why he had those postseason struggles is because he was forced to wear #13? You know... 13... unlucky number... although Joe Torre wore #6, and that hasn't stopped his career, which discredits that one theory. I have a strong feeling that A-Rod will become an Angel. I can just sense it. He won't play with the Yankees... the Red Sox'd rather have Lowell, and the Angels need a power bat and a third baseman. They were close to getting Tejada, and I think they'll [Arte Moreno and the new GM] will make a push to get him. Ksy92003(talk) 13:37, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You won't find any belief in superstition here either. A-Rod struggled in the postseason because it's a tiny sample size. And his "struggles" are only so well-documented because all the media and idiot Yankees fans have it in for the best player in baseball because he's not a "true Yankee." Derek Jeter is a fraction of the player A-Rod in every aspect of the game, and he had a worse ALDS, but no one cares about that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:39, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only place I can see A-Rod getting more attention from everybody in the postseason would be Tampa Bay, and for him, just getting them to a .500 season would be a miracle. A-Rod gets treated unfairly because he was getting paid $26.2 million, and everybody nneeds a story to write, so they ridicule the Rangers for making that huge contract offer and then A-Rod for not doing in October what he did the last six months.

Well, gotta go now. It's Homecoming for me and I'll be gone all day. I'll also be gone all day tomorrow because I've got soccer games to referee in the morning and I'm going to the Kings/Sharks game in the evening. Later. Ksy92003(talk) 13:44, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's insane people get on to A-Rod about his contract. It's not his fault Tom Hicks is a dumbass and offered him DOUBLE what the second-best offer was - Atlanta's $161 million.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:48, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Roster template[edit]

Looks great. I'd just make all the text that small courier size for continuity. Pats1 ^T/C 12:51, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And what about "Inactive" or "Other" for the third column? Pats1 ^T/C 13:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Al Wistert[edit]

This week I am working on the Wistert Brothers. Looking at Al Wistert, I think his article could really benefit from two types of templates. He could use 1948 and 1949 championship team templates and a Philadelphia Eagles captaincy succession box or navbox. Who would you go to for either of these things? Unfortunately, unlike the NBA and MLB or even the NCAA, we have not produced championship teams for the NFL. Is there a reason for this?--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 21:01, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have absolutely no clue...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:15, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Are your responding to Who would you go to or is there a reason for this? P.S. I prefer a response on my talk page because I forget who I have been querying.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 00:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Kjccc.jpg[edit]

Thanks for uploading Image:Kjccc.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

references[edit]

Are the reference(s) section also always supposed to be in the plural tense? I can't find the rule on that.--Brewcrewer 09:41, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We generally prefer it to be references because we generally prefer every article to have at least more than one reference. Ksy92003(talk) 14:07, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sections like that should probably always be plural. The title isn't saying "Here is the reference" or "Here are the references" - it's saying - "This is the section or ReferenceS." So I think sections like that should always be plural.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies Roster...[edit]

That's funny...I saw that Closer/Rotation change a little while ago, and I was going to message you (since you do a lot of the baseball roster transactions), and suggest that we go to just "Pitchers", and eliminate the closer designation in the off-season. Otherwise, predicting starting rotations or team's closers would violate Crystal Ball. Oh well, you beat me to the exact same change. Bjewiki (Talk) 15:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I feel they should be condensed and the designation eliminated, even in the cases of long-time, stud closers. No one is starting or closing games right now, and anything could happen between now and April 2008.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Random question...[edit]

Here is probably the most random question anybody will probably ever ask you on Wikipedia... how fast can you solve a Rubik's Cube? I see your userpage picture has you holding up a solved cube, and I assume that means you can finish one. Ksy92003(talk) 22:44, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hahaha. Well I'm not one of those speed guys or anything. My friend Sarah had one and said I couldn't finish it, so I finished it one Saturday a long time ago. Took maybe... four hours, on and off.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that you were so happy and then took the picture as proof that you had solved it =) Anyway, my personal best is about 30 seconds, which I did yesterday. I've done it under 40 seconds about 10 times in the past week. Ksy92003(talk) 23:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rays/Devil Rays[edit]

I saw the edit you made in which you moved the 2008 season article to "Rays" instead of "Devil Rays". Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that the name has been "officially" changed. If I am correct, I would suggest the article be moved back to avoid a potential page move/revert war, at least until an "official" announcement is made. Again, correct me if I'm wrong. Ksy92003(talk) 00:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[1].►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, just go to Rays.MLB.com.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:08, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh... okay. From what I read on Wikipedia, I inferred that the name change was a rumor... just speculation. But if MLB.com has it has official, then who are we to argue?

Btw, I'll be out tonight at a school concert, but hopefully I'll be back tomorrow night, just in case you were wondering. Ksy92003(talk) 01:18, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Dude, don't be so obvious.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eh... thanks. Didn't think about it, but best to be safe than sorry. Ksy92003(talk) 01:25, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha not what I meant. I was commenting on the transparent reasons you'd say such things.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So... you were trying to help me, and you helped me in a way different than you were trying to... the way you helped me was different than what you were trying... that's weird :) Ksy92003(talk) 06:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Bryant[edit]

What's wrong with the edit I made??? It's like that on most of the football player pages I've seen. --Cra sh U nderride 19:22, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not how it's being done for the most part, and I'm trying to keep them all standardized.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:59, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taguchi/Eckstein[edit]

From what I read about it in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Taguchi can *still* be signed by the Cardinals, so he technically isn't with any other team, so why remove him until he actually signs with another team?

Eckstein also can sign with the team. There is really no need to actually remove the players UNTIL THEY ARE WITH ANOTHER TEAM or retire/traded/released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katydidit (talk • contribs) 15:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to add this from MLB.com's Matthew Leach:

"Teams have exclusive negotiating rights with their own free agents until Monday, Nov. 12."

Just because they aren't signed AT THE MOMENT doesn't mean you should remove them permanently. --Katydidit 15:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link from Matthew Leach article on Oct. 30:

http://stlouis.cardinals.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20071030&content_id=2288315&vkey=news_stl&fext=.jsp&c_id=stl

Question: Why is *your* opinion worth more than anybody else's and why should I not re-add them again? If I do, are you going to keep going back-and-forth on this? At least wait until after Mon. Nov. 12 if you want to make the change then.

Of course, if either player re-signs with the Cardinals, you (or I) will have to re-add them back to the Roster. Why add more un-necessary future, make work? --Katydidit 15:58, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Saints colors[edit]

Because my memory sucks and I'm sure one day I'll check all the colors again, and unless they're in upper case, I'll change them back, because I'll forget about this day. About you. About this very moment. Pats1 ^T/C 01:19, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Because all the ones I did are in lower case, and all the ones that were found on websites or in media guides are in upper case. That's the only way I can tell the difference. Pats1 ^T/C 01:20, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Make sure you go through and do the coaches' templates and other templates too. Because I have some stuff to do...that is watching the Colts lose again. Pats1 ^T/C 01:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Channing Crowder[edit]

Hi!
Thanks for removing the unsourced quote. You were quicker than me. ;-) But I suppose it will be put back in the article. Let's watch it, shall we?
Regards
--Fromgermany 22:57, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL QB Template[edit]

Thanks, I had no idea. The news just came out here in Kansas City. I at least updated Huard and Croyle's pages so that it would say so. I'll leave the template alone for now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Conman33 (talk • contribs) 00:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Detroit Lions roster[edit]

Wow, I wasn't even thinking that Walters was already in the WR category. Tigersfan1992 00:56, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's all good.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:57, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball Infoboxes[edit]

I dont know if you saw this message or not so I thought i'd ask it again, you know the thing on the football infobox where you just have to type in the name of the team and it automatically has the colors, do you have any clue how to do that for the baseball infoboxes, cause I think with free agency coming up soo, it would be much easier and would take less time--Yankees10 23:40, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I saw your comment but I forgot to reply. Take a look at Template:NFLPrimaryColor and Template:NFLSecondaryColor. Click edit on each to the contents of each. Basically, it just has a list of hex codes for the colors of each team. Now look at Template:Infobox NFLactive. By inputting the team into the NFL template, it takes the colors from the Primary and Secondary Color templates and adds them to the infobox.

I'm probably doing a horrible job of explaining this. I can help you later if you need it, though I'm not very good with templates myself.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I dont know if i'm going to do it yet but, I'll ask you if I have any questions--Yankees10 01:40, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well take a look here - Template:MLBPrimaryColor and Template:MLBSecondaryColor. I've already made the templates, so the color schemes, so the only thing left to do is change the infobox code. Although if we want to make different sets of colors for different sections, we'd have to make two more templates for colors.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok, I didnt see that you did that, i'll proably try it tomorrow--Yankees10 02:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

All right how do we change to infobox code--Yankees10 23:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That I'm really not sure of. I'm not good with all that code. Know anyone that is?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no, do you think if I brought it to WP:Baseball then someone there could help?--Yankees10 00:08, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

good job, If theres anything you need me to do just tell me--Yankees10 01:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Cowboys official colors[edit]

Thanks for the quick correction.

No problem.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ravens[edit]

The only thing that really matters is where Suggs usually lines up. The way they list the DL - LDT, NT, RDT - and the depth chart on Ravens.com - LDT, NT, RDT, ROLB, LOLB, MLB, RLB, suggests that Suggs plays that sort of DE/OLB hybrid role. Sort of like Jason Taylor last year where some said the Phins were playing 3-4 because he was standing up sometimes. I'm not sure how much Suggs plays in the 2-point vs. the 3-point, as I haven't watched any Ravens games this year (they suck anyways). Pats1 ^T/C 00:52, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well the difference is the Ravens run primarily a 3-4 while we run primarily a 4-3. Meaning JT stands up sometimes but not most of the time, while Suggs stands up most of the time, a la a Ware, Merriman, etc.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I watched a few of the highlight packages from this season on NFL.com, and it seems like they had a 4-man line on most of the 1st and 2nd down snaps. Here are the lineups from the gamebooks from their last games of the season since 2003:

2007 Week 10: LDT Edwards, NT Gregg, RDT Ngata, LOLB J. Johnson, LILB Lewis, RILB Scott, ROLB Suggs

2006 Week 19: LDT Pryce, NT Gregg, RDT Ngata, LOLB Suggs, LILB Scott, RILB Lewis, ROLB Thomas

2005 Week 17: LDE Weaver, LDT J. Johnson, NT Kemoeatu, RDT Gregg, ROLB Suggs, RILB Polley, LILB Scott, LOLB Thomas (the vaunted 4-4 defense)

2004 Week 17: LDE Weaver, T Gregg, DE Douglas, LOLB Suggs, ILB Hartwell, ILB Slaughter, ROLB Thomas

2003 Week 18: LE Weaver, NT Gregg, RDE Douglas, LOLB Cornell Brown, LILB Hartwell, RILB Lewis, ROLB Suggs

What a messed up defense... Pats1 ^T/C 01:01, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Infobox MLB player[edit]

Chris: Could you remove the hardlinks from the team name in the infobox? This is causing infoboxes for Texas Rangers players to link to the wrong page. Thanks, Caknuck 16:20, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Damn, it, I can't figure out how. I'm not very good at this code stuff.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, I got it. Now if only I could figure out how to get the colors to fill into the other sections...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:30, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! I tried fixing it myself, but I'm at work and don't have the time right now to dig deep into it. Cheers, Caknuck 16:50, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thank you, great job!--Yankees10 23:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies Colors[edit]

I think we should change the colors of the Phillies to a little darker Red--Yankees10 03:30, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got it from the official site.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:35, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oh ok, by the way were do you find these colors, I have always tried to find them, just cause im curiuos where they are.--Yankees10 (talk) 00:32, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I took them from the official websites.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I know but where on them--Yankees10 (talk) 01:44, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Lorello.[edit]

What is your problem? You undo almost every one of my edits!!! I cited all the stuff I added to this article you had NO right to remove the links I added and the references I added as well!!! --Cra sh U nderride 16:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The miscellaneous section was entirely irrelevant, and most of the links were unnecessary.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion of Ryan Gibbons[edit]

A tag has been placed on Ryan Gibbons requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A3 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is an article with no content whatsoever, or whose contents consist only of external links, "See also" section, book reference, category tag, template tag, interwiki link, rephrasing of the title, or an attempt to contact the subject of the article. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Nburden ^(T) 20:22, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl templates/Eric Moore[edit]

Oh well, I missed one out of approx 2500 roster entries! Thanks for catching that and I edited the template to halt further Eric Moore confusion. - Masonpatriot (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LGV[edit]

You and Pats1 use that phrase alot in edit summaries. What does it mean? Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 01:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last good version. When a lot of crap happens and you revert a lot of bad stuff or whatever, you're reverting to the last good version of the article.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Gotcha. Happy Thanksgiving! _(Sasha) 02:18, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Roster Templates and WP:OWN[edit]

>> "nah pats1 and i agreed that it was pointless since being in that category makes them a receiver automatically. if you see any other receivers like that, please eliminate the WR"

First off, I agree with your reasoning here. Listing someone as a WR/PR in the WR list is redunant. But, for instance, I tried to make that change (w/ the same argument) a month or two ago, and was basically told by one of you (you or Pats1) that "This is how we do it". See, this is why I occasionally point out that there are some WP:OWN issues with the roster templates. When someone else wants to make a change to the way things are done, you guys basically take it upon yourselves to accept/reject the change. But when you guys want to make a change, it's made. Bjewiki (Talk) 18:45, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We're just trying to keep everything consistent. We want to do it all the same way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:47, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand (and appreciate) that everything should be the consistent. But that doesn't change the fact the what you guys do borders on WP:OWN. I'm not trying to start a fight here. Just trying to point this out to you, because in the past when someone (not just me) has brought up the possible WP:OWN issues on the roster templates, you always question where it is coming from. Bjewiki (Talk) 18:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I still don't see it that way. It's not that we're opposed to the edits. It's that if a different edit is made to one, and only one template, the other 31 are different so we want to keep them consistent at any given time. We're open to discussing anything, but since he and are are the two primary editors of the templates, we figure a discussion amongst ourselves is sufficient for a widespread change.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:57, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with you two making a widespread change. Anybody should be able to make a widespread change. What i'm saying is that no matter who suggested the idea (to not relist primary position) it was going to trigger all 31 templates being edited to match. What it came down to was that the idea was rejected when somebody else proposed it, and accepted when you guys wanted to do it. Bjewiki (Talk) 19:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But that's the thing. It wasn't undone because it was "rejected"; it was undone to keep things consistent.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it was. Instead of saying, "hey that's a good idea let's do that to all the pages"...it was, "that's not the way we do it". No discussion, just immediate reversion. Bjewiki (Talk) 20:49, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who do you want him to discuss it with? You're the only other person who edits the templates consistently. Pats1 ^T/C 00:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You misread my comment. I said when I attempted to make a similar change (in fact, the exact same convention) a month or two back, I was immediately reverted by one of you two, w/o any discussion. I have no problem with someone making a change like this, (that makes sense) w/o any discussion. That's the way it should be. The problem is that the only changes that get through without discussion/arguments are the ones that Chris/Pats1 enact. Also, he's not the only one who edits them. You edit them. I edit them. I see Street20 editing them quite a bit recently. Bjewiki (Talk) 01:23, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

...they don't get through because they (usually) aren't consistent with the rest of the templates. Pats1 ^T/C 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By way of my discussion with Chris of listing players, I don't believe that RB/KR or RB/PR is consistent. Anyone listed in the RB category is assumed to be a RB, unless specified otherwise. Only FBs get a special notation, Halfbacks (or runningbacks in this case) are just left as blank. Therefore, I would think it completely logical & consistent that if a player in the running back category is listed as "Player Name KR" he is a running back and a kick returner. Bjewiki (Talk) 01:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your "A player can be a RB or a FB" convention to make sense, then all RBs would have to be labeled either RB or FB. Bjewiki (Talk) 01:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The confusion with using just "KR" or "PR" is whether the player is a RB/FB/KR, a RB/KR, or a FB/KR. Pats1 ^T/C 02:00, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you're saying. I would think that if a player was solely a KR or PR, he would then be listed in the "Special Teams" section. If a guy is listed in the running back section, and has a KR next to his name, I think it's pretty obvious that he is a running back who also plays some kick returner. Just my thoughts. Bjewiki (Talk) 03:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The way the templates are done now, RB/KR is not how it would be. The way we do it, RB is never a necessary notation (unless on a reserve list). Bjewiki is correct in saying that anyone under the Running backs section without a position is a tailback, while fullbacks are specified with FB. So in the case of someone like Maurice Jones-Drew, it should read "Maurice Jones Drew KR." Here's the key: special teams notations (KR or PR) having nothing to do with the positional notations. Either an offensive or defensive position is always specified (like CB or T) or they are never specified (like QB, RB, TE, etc.).►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's what I ended up doing[edit]

See this. Thanks for your advice! --DNL at ArmchairGM (talk) 02:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Klecko et al[edit]

I understand what you're saying, though I disagree with keeping players on the template who actually weren't on the SB roster (and therefore, didn't even have a number). LOTS of people got rings, including players who finished the season with a different team get rings. The current standard I think works best and is consistent with the championship navboxes used for baseball and basketball. I see no compelling reason why football should be any different. Using your criteria of getting a ring, for example, players like Caesar Crespo, Phil Seibel, Lenny DiNardo and Sandy Martinez should be on the Red Sox 2004 navbox even though they never sniffed the postseason or WS (or were September call-ups). I and the Baseball task force don't think they belong in the navbox. I don't view the navbox as a place to put every person who got a ring (if that were the case, we should have the entire fronto office listed too), but to show the team and coaches on the field during the postseason and Super Bowl. Regardless, I hope you like the navboxes and am always open to more discussion on the issue. - Masonpatriot (talk) 04:49, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but why then are Tavarez and Wakefield on the Sox's 2007 template but Moss, Clayton, Buchholz, Hansack, and Corey not? You can't just arbitrarily make a cutoff, as you described on the talk page, such as "made significant contributions during the regular season." That violates WP:NPOV. For example, one could argue that Buchholz' no-hitter could be a "significant contribution." Pats1 ^T/C 14:15, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Major League Baseball Roster templates[edit]

Since the inactive roster no longer applies during the offseason, do you think we should change it to 'Spring Training Roster Invitees'? -Street20 14:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Holmes[edit]

Whatever. Like I said in my last edit to the article, I merely thought that him announcing his retirement was good enough to change the box to the retired one. I won't revert any more changes to the article, you're right Soxrock^Talk/_Edits 18:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jamal Robertson[edit]

Just thought I'd point out that Jamal Robertson was not released by the Riders. Rather, the transaction is slightly confusing. He was "released" from the Developmental Squad because he had been "signed." This is simply a paper transaction that has him being moved to the Active Roster with the Riders. It likely means he will dress for the Grey Cup. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:24, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Riders are terrible for not updating their roster. In fact, the entire time he's been with the Riders he was never listed on Riderville.com However, take a look at CFL.ca's transactions for the Riders today, you will noticed that it says SGD next to his name. I've been following the Riders transactions all season (as I update the Riders Wikipedia page) and when a player is released the CFL transaction shows a UNS next to the name. When a player is transferred to the Active Roster they use SGD. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 06:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jan Adams[edit]

Can you tell me what's going on at Jan Adams? There is info in the "edit this page" that doesn't come up in the actual article. --Brewcrewer (talk) 05:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Feeley[edit]

Fuck him. The team needed this though. Pats1 ^T/C 02:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know this Feeley guy looks pretty good. I hope my team trades a two for him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like the one you traded for His Awesomeness? Pats1 ^T/C 04:05, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am still 100% supportive of that trade - Samson Satele looks like a future Pro Bowler and we're 4th in the league in yards per carry when our OL coming into the season was a big question mark. Welker's production is a result of the team he's not, not his ability. So yeah, still in favor of the trade. Very appreciative of it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever makes you sleep at night. :) Pats1 ^T/C 04:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree, you're wrong. Any receiver in the NFL could produce what Wes is in that role on this Pats team. I could probably catch for about 600 yards.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But you wouldn't be as awesome. Pats1 ^T/C 04:26, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome and Wes Welker don't belong in the same sentence. Unless that sentence is "Randy Moss is awesome and Wes Welker is mediocre."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:29, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Randy Moss is awesome than Wes Welker's awesomeness." Fuck this. Pats win. I'm done. :P Pats1 ^T/C 04:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that made absolutely zero grammatical sense. Pats1 ^T/C 04:31, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pats post-game radio already gushing. "Welker has speed, quickness, toughness, and spectacular balance." And he's the horse trailer player of the game. That's badass, you must admit. Pats1 ^T/C 04:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It was supposed to be "and," not "than." And I don't care what anyone says about Welker. I know football, and I know exactly what he is better than anyone. Nothing can happen that will convince me otherwise, because I know exactly what he is - an average receiver on the best team in the history of the NFL.04:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Funny stuff: http://www.bangcartoon.com/2007/shulahula.htm Pats1 ^T/C 11:59, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Help![edit]

Do you think you can help me with an issue, the IP address 72.0.36.36‎ keeps making the highlights in the infobox for Randy Gradishar small, and it is not consistant with other retired players infoboxes highlights, I keep telling he/she that we are trying to keep things consistant on NFL players articles but they keep saying it is consistant with other infoboxes but its not at all--Yankees10 (talk) 00:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take offense or think this is personal, but I'm not sure I'm totally against making the font smaller if there are a significant amount of highlights. It makes sense to me. I just don't see it as a consistency issue; I think it's on a case-to-case basis.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

alright well thanks for your opinion--Yankees10 (talk) 00:24, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I couldn't help.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]