Template talk:Pittsburgh Steelers roster

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Pittsburgh (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject National Football League (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 
WikiProject Pittsburgh Steelers (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is part of the Pittsburgh Steelers subproject of WikiProject National Football League, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to the Pittsburgh Steelers and the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the subproject page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Linking to non-Existant pages[edit]

information regarding links per the MOS Internal links Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic. This can be done directly ("Ant", which results in "Ant"), or through a piped link ("five new species", which results in "five new species" in the text, but still links to the article "Ant").

Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.

Links add to the cohesion by conveniently accessing other article. Therefore, linking to non-existant pages detracts from cohesion and convenience. Reverting to links non-existant is a violation of this policy. IrishLass0128 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

You've proven absolutely nothing.►Chris Nelson 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I have gotten an admin involved. He will decide. What I've done is add the MOS for links, provided information to what is policy of Wikipedia. An admin will decide further how to handle the issue.IrishLass0128 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
An admin already said you were wrong on my talk page. You clearly don't understand the policy you cite.►Chris Nelson 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I don't see the one that I have asked for an explanation. I will wait for him. Oh, I see, AFTER, this page was addressed. That's why there are time stamps. Don't address issues or editors using assumptions. You are supposed to show good faith in working with other editors. You seem to not understand that based on how you have treated this editor.IrishLass0128 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
See my talk page. User:B practically proved you were wrong. The end.►Chris Nelson 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • You have a misconception of the words good faith. You should try it sometime. Oh, wait, it's a requirement of Wikipedia that you seem to feel exempt to. Check your time stamps on this page. They are helpful in understanding the flow of this discussion. IrishLass0128 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Null edits[edit]

Another way to say "running my edit count up". Grsz11 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Not really, considering a null edit does the same thing as editing the talk page.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It counts as a mainspace edit. Either way, it's annoying to come across a conversation through edit summaries. That's what the damn talk page is for. Grsz11 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
It's been the practice for a while to just talk using edit summaries, not sure why but it's the way it's been done on these roster templates.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

None of us care about our edit counts. I have no idea what mine is.►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

We've been having "null edit" talks on edit summaries for 3 years now. We don't care about our edit counts; mine is already above the level of "I have no life." Pats1 T/C 21:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)