User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 22

And now time for anohter barnstar

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		For improving, creating, and doing whatever to NFL-related articles - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 22:35, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a lot!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:53, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Sigh

Fool, don't label everything as forum Mallerd (talk) 14:40, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Just what I deemed fitting.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

infobox compromise

Sure, I don't mind a compromise. As far as I can tell, how I would improve the infobox is in four areas.

1. Permit the inclusion of pfr stat links in addition to, not in lieu of, nfl.com links. Just look at the stats for a Hall of Famer like Ronnie Lott for example to see how much more pfr gives you. I don't think that just because the nfl.com link is there, the other will never be used. I actually think that if they are both there, a lot of readers might think that there is a difference and investigate. The infobox as it stands after I made some changes permits both to be listed at the same time. Considering there are still a ton of infoboxes that have prf or dbase links still, I don't see uniformity to be a problem right now, and the use of both can just become the standard we evolve to.

2. Link the NFL seasons in the infoboxes. I started doing that because it was done in the retired boxes, and I saw no reason for them to differ, and much reason they should be the same. And the only discussion I can find was overwhelmingly in favor of doing so, based on the rationale that it would encourage exploration of personnel changes in the league as a whole in any given season.

3. Chronological order of infoboxes: listing pro accomplishments first. It seems that when one looks up an NFL player, one is most interested in what the player has done most recently, not most interested in what he did in high school or college, so I edited along those lines.

4. Order by importance of achievement within each area. I would order them NFL MVP, All-Pro, Super Bowl titles, Offensive/Defensive MVP, Pro Bowl selections, Rookie of the Year, Off.Def Rookie of the Year, then Individual Stat titles. In college I would list them in order from Heisman Trophy, National Champ seasons, Lesser individual trophies, All-Americans, then Bowl game MVPs.

I am willing to compromise on some of this. Although the order of accomplishments in numbers three and four make sense to me, I understand that would undo a lot of work already done. And although it makes sense to me as to why, I am probably being too picky and probably exhibiting too much personal preference.

As for number one, that I think is the most important in terms of making wikipedia a better encyclopedia. There is a lot that pfr has to offer the casual fan, and a lot of boxes still have that link on them, and I am willing to do a lot of adding myself. I don't see how having more info in there hurts or makes wikipedia unreliable. The same rationale, but on a lesser urgency, exists for the season links. We have many infoboxes that have those seasons linked, so I don't see harm in slowly adding them to the other players. I have seen the links in current players as well, although not as many. And I don't see that there is much chance of making wikipedia less reliable or professional-looking just because there will be a transition period.

So how about I drop numbers three and four and you are okay with one and two?--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 19:13, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry it took me so long to reply. Anyway, here's my response:

I have absolutely no problem with #1. PFR does provide stuff NFL.com does not, so that's fine.

As you know, 2 is my biggest problem. As we've discussed, I am willing to compromise on this point, but as far as I can tell there is one obstacle about this: What do you do about tenures that were not from the NFL? Where do you link the years from tenures from the CFL, AFL, af2, whatever?

As for 3 and 4, which I suppose you'll concede on if I do with 1 and 2, my reasoning for chronological is that it presents a timeline to the reader. We already have the teams played for in chronological order, which I think we'd agree is the best way, and it seems odd to me to two lists of things (teams players for and awards), one in chronological order and one the opposite.

So let me know what you think about #2. I'm willing to do it, I just don't know how we'll do it with the years for non-NFL tenures and I think having them not linked while others are will look odd.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

We link to those seasons as well: there are links available for the CFL from (1935)-(2008) and the Arena league for every year of its existence from (1987)-(2008), and af2 for every year of its existence as well from (2000)-(2008). See Mike Vanderjagt for an example.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 15:46, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Running Man Barnstar
		I, User:Iamawesome800 award you this barnstar for non-stop contributions to NFL free agency articles. Iamawesome800 (talk) 19:26, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

question

on the List of current NFL team rosters page, what does the Int'l on some of the practice squad players mean. That page should probably have a key on it because there are some terms that may not be common knowledge to people viewing the page - -' The Spook (TALK) _{(Share the Love with Barnstars)} 22:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Ty Law

replied on my talk. Kimu 14:29, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Fernando Bryant

Why did you remove the Template:lifetime from the Fernando Bryant article--Yankees10 19:44, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

My bad, I was just restoring some of my edits in an edit conflict.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:59, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Oh no problem--Yankees10 20:08, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

PS eligibility

A player is eligible for the practice squad if he:

• A) has not been on an active 45-man gameday roster for more than 8 games in any single season (this is the "G" column in NFL.com)
• B) has not been on a practice squad for more than three seasons
  • three games/bye weekends on a practice squad count as a season
  • players with two prior practice squad seasons can only be on a practice squad for their third season if the team's 53-man roster is filled (new rule in 2006)

There. Pats1 ^T/C 01:48, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Some other rules:

• • Practice squad players are free to sign with any other team's 53-man roster, but not a practice squad
    • Only exception is for upcoming opponents, who must sign these players six days before, or ten days before if it's a bye week.
  • If team B claims team A's practice squad player, and if team B waives him before a three-game period ends, that player will still count against team B's 53-man roster and will still be paid until that three-game period is over (essentially guaranteeing the player a credited season, which determines base salary). If team B then signs that player to their practice squad within that 3-game period, he will not count against that PS limit until the three-game period ends.

Ben Graham

Why did you change Ben Graham (football) back to Ben Graham (American football)? It was concluded that it should be Ben Graham (football). Please change it back.LPWRHR (talk) 08:43, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That's not how you move a page, and who "concluded" that?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:20, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

That was "concluded" on his talk page. It doesn't seem right that a champion Australian Rules player is so closely related to American Football when he's only played a few seasons. This man was a champion player in the AFL before he left. You seem to know all the stuff about moving things, perhaps you could move the page the correct way.LPWRHR (talk) 01:53, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

As the guy above said, why did you move it? And if I did it the wrong way, then could you please do it the right way? The general consensus on the talk page seems to be that football is a lot more neutral than American football, and it is. He should be recognised for his career in both forms, not just an American football player or an Australian footballer.--Deansherr (talk) 08:02, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Spplemental Draft picks

Why are you removing the supplemental draft picks from the NFL draft pages? This is how all of them have been listed since the supp draft started in 1977, and it's how they are listed on other sites. Look at 2002 on dbase: 2002 Draft.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 02:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't feel like it's the right place. The supplemental draft is not the NFL draft, and the draft picks teams give up for supplementral players are taken away from the next year's draft. It just does not seem like the right place.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:54, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, all I have been doing is following the example of every other season's draft with these seasons. Go look at the 1989 NFL Draft for example, where those picks were pretty notable. In addition to dbase football listing them this way (see the link I provided above), it's also how they are listed on the Pro Football Hall of Fame's site. Those are pretty reliable sites. The next season's draft article always notes that the corresponding pick was forfeited because of the selection the previous year, and the lead states that the supplemental draft takes place after the regular draft but before the regular season. These guys get drafted, and they need to be listed somewhere. There's only around 34 of them total, and the fact that a player or two gets picked won't warrant a separate article.

And if you find the language "The league also held a supplemental draft after the regular draft and before the regular season." to be imprecise, then come up with some different language and use it, don't just delete this language which is used on every single draft page since 1977, except those seasons in which there were no supp draft selections.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 03:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What I find imprecise is putting supp. draft players in a Round # section of an NFL Draft. Manuel Wright was not a fifth-round pick in the 2005 NFL Draft. Wright was selected by Miami using a fifth-round pick in the 2006 NFL Draft. So to have Wright in the fifth round section of the 05 Draft article is factually incorrect.

Maybe all the articles do it this way, but that doesn't make it right. If we're going to have these players listed on the NFL Draft articles of the calendar year in which they turned pro (i.e. Wright on the 05 draft page) then it needs to be in a special section and not in the Round 5 section, since he had nothing to do with that round of that draft.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:15, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if you want to move them to a special section, I am all for that. Or we can move them to the following year's draft and put them in place of the round in which they were taken. I don't care which, I would think that the first would be best. But we can't just delete these players from the draft pages. Move them if you like, but don't just delete them.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 03:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well I don't think they should be in the future year's draft article (i.e. Wright in the 2006 draft article) since it'll confuse readers as the playes are already in the NFL. There is some value to having them in their draft year's article (Wright in the 05 article) because they were a college player turning pro that year. The only thing is they shouldn't be thrown into the true NFL draft's order, because they weren't selected during it and weren't selected with a pick from it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Chrisjnelson

Dear Chrisjnelson--My son did the edit and he's a kid and didn't know how to go about it. He's not made it to college yet and I am sure he'll become more skilled in editing much as I am sure you did. Thanks for your input and good luck with school!! Good Day to youPatesal1 (talk) 22:27, 16 November 2008 (UTC)G Salazar

football dabs

Hi Chris, I'd like to invite you to join the discussion at WT:NCP#Football dabs revisited. I thought that we had resolved our dispute about football player dabs but I see from discussion here that you are still using (American football). As you know, I am strongly opposed to these dabs as harmful and less useful than the more general (football player). Regards, DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:02, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

We "resolved" it on CFL players because I don't really edit them. But NFL players are all dab'ed this way so that's what we do. These dabs are not harmful and are simply better than "football player."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:08, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Why? DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:09, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

More info before you even get there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:12, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. So why don't we just name Steve Smith (born May 12, 1979 in Lynwood, California, an American football wide receiver for the Carolina Panthers, a third round pick in the 2001 NFL Draft who played college football at University of Utah). Maybe then I don't even have to read the article. Further, the disambiguation page does permit you to put some brief info there. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:19, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Slightly different.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Reductio ad absurdum I'll admit but the point is that the dab does not have to do that job. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

But if it can with no harm done, why not?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:59, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, I have tried to explain before that a simpler and more general is always preferable and you've seen plenty of examples where simply dabbing as (football player) is better than trying to choose a particular code. There is no good reason to be overly precise about the code of football unless there is more than one player with the same name. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:13, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

How is "football player" simpler than "American football" or "gridiron football"? You know what the difference is? A couple characters. That's it. It's essentially the same length, it has no negative effects on the article or its readers, yet it also informs those who may see the article listed on a disambiguation page who aren't sure what kind of football the guy plays. Perhaps a European reader only interested on soccer might see the DAB (American football) and not waste his time clicking the article out of curiosity because he knows he's not interested in an American football player. If it only said "football" or "football player" he might be curious who this guy is, click on the article only to find out he's an American football player and doesn't give a crap.

Like I said, slightly more informative with no negative consequences.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Which disambiguation page? The items on a disambiguation page should have a brief description to aid in identifying the subject. It's simpler because it doesn't specify the code of football. It has a negative effect because it complicates the choosing of dabs and is false for those players who have played more than one code of football. Also, on length, the difference is obviously in having the word "player", which I stand by. What we are really discussing is (American football player) vs (football player) or (American football) vs (football). DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:39, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt McCoy

KFFL [1], but Im starting to have the feeling its wrong because I cant find it anywhere else --Yankees10 05:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

It actually says at the Pewter Report website, that he is expected to sign, so I dont think it has actually happened yet.--Yankees10 05:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Johnny Baldwin

Is he a free agent or not because he is listed on the Template:Washington Redskins roster as a practice squad but is listed as a free agent on his bio. So which is it?--Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:22, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

He's on the Redskins' practice squad, only injured. Sometimes it gets reported a guy was released from the practice squad when actually he was just placed on the injured list.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:25, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

AJ DAVIS

Why do you keep deleting the information about his family? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire85 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I assume you are Davis' wife and I do believe you. However, because that kind of family information isn't readily available (as opposed to the college he played for) it really needs to be sourced. Stuff on Wikipedia needs to be able to be verified by any reader that comes across it. Plus, other than the name of his wife and immediate family, detailed family information isn't really relevant enough to be on Wikipedia anyway.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:16, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

AJ Davis

He was married May 17, 2008 and the post only contained the wife's and children's names (immediate family). The boys are 1 (Andrew) and 2 (Trey) years old. What type of source do you need? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spitfire85 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

As I said, something that any reader that comes across his page can look up themselves. For example, we can put Davis' college or current team because anyone that finds it can google it and see that it's true. We can reference that info a million places. But something like this that ISN'T in a million places on the internet, we can't put unless it can be verified. I see that your name is in his Colts bio, so we can put your name. The names of his children would still have to be excluded until it can be verified.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:21, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

RfC you might be interested in

Hey, I wanted to alert you to a couple of discussions you might want to weigh in on.

• Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC, specifically number four, which could change the way we link years in sports articles a great deal. There is a discussion underway on that talk page about the shape of this proposed RfC.
• The discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Morris has gotten into an involved debate as to the meaning of WP:ATHLETE, you may awnt to put in your two cents.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 01:58, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: Varsity Blues

Re:[2]. I added it because the Varsity Blues won the Grey Cup four times and I'd like to use the colour templates for Canadian football games infoboxes. I thought these colour templates were intended to be multi-use. If you disagree with having non-professional teams in the colour templates, I will stop using them and create my own. Let me know soon. DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 17:38, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Your opinion? DOUBLEBLUE (talk) 22:08, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Hey, sorry I didn't reply. It's cool, no big deal.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:45, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Tra Battle

Yeah you were right, he's on the Cowboys not the Chargers.--Iamawesome800 16:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Wikiproject NFL Award
		I, Iamawesome800, hereby award Chrisjnelson the WikiProject NFL Award for his/her valued contributions to WikiProject NFL. Awarded awarded 03:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks man.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:36, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

2008 Miami Dolphins season.

What did my summaries of the Dolphins 2008 regualar season games ever do to you? How do they offend you as a Dolphins fan? All I do is report it as it happen. If they're THAT repulsive to you, then why can't YOU type them?

Curious, Alakazam