Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 06:01, 6 May 2008

This talk page is automatically archived by User:MiszaBot II. Any sections older than 7 days are automatically archived to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 4. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by .

Selectivity on All-Pros

Drew Pearson (American football) is a perfect example. His "honors" were perfectly listed. However, for some reason, the "combining" did not take place with him. If the Alan Page "11 All-pro" model were to be followed then Pearson would be a 5-time All-Pro, but even after and update, he is listed as All-pro in 1975, 75, 77. That is 3 times. So, for him, the "new" and flawed rules don't apply, but for others (who some editors may like) they get their All-pro resumes puffed up. Like was mention potential synthesis 72.0.36.36 (talk)

ALl-Pros 2

As I predicted, all that changing of the All-pros two editors did now needs to be reversed. The wesbite they used for verification has changed its date to reflect accurately the All-Pros. [1] Ted Hendricks is not an 11-time All-Pro. Is there going to be control of editors who are out-of-control? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl XLVI

I've been working on a draft article, here, when would be an okay time to turn it into an official article? Thanks for any input, I don't want to start this up too soon. HoosierState^Talk 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a bit too early. i think you aught to wait bought a year. [lukethespook] | ^{[t c r]} 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also too early, and you should have waited before publishing it on to the mainspace.--~S R S~ 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

New multi-link stats template for external links sections

So I noticed that baseball players have a template in their External links sections that includes links to various stat websites. Well I don't know if there's an NFL equivalent, but I can't recall seeing one and I know for sure there isn't one widely in use on NFL player articles. To that end, I've created one and it's located at Template:Footballstats. It includes possible links to NFL.com, ESPN, CBS Sports, Yahoo!, Fox Sports, SI and Rotoworld. I'm also going to add links to CFL.ca and ArenaFan.com. If we all could start adding that to NFL player article, that'd be great. It'd definitely cut down on the space in the ELs section spent on various links.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:09, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Does this go for coaches too? I'm pretty sure www.pro-football-reference.com has every coach ever. I doubt sites like ESPN has the stats for Chuck Noll. Are there any other sites we could use for coaches? Black ngold29 13:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't think about coaches, but now I remember I need to add PFR to this template.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 14:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NFL first round picks

I tried to make a below template for all the NFL team first round pick templates. I ran into a problem because half of them use the {{navbox}} and half use the {{CFB navbox}}. The change I wanted to make was to add Template:NFL First Round Draft Pick template list to the bottom. The DFB half were a problem becuase something went wrong with my title color correction. The change has been WP:CSDed. However, part of the the problem is that the templates should all use the same style navbox. Then when one wants to make a change to all the templates it will be possible stylistically. All these templates should say see also {{List of NFL team first-round draft picks}} at the bottom. This would make my attempted change unnecessary.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 06:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some help

could someone help me find some images to use in the article for Trey Lewis. Pretty much every image i've managed to come up with has been shot down by a certian wikipedian who's really stiff on image rules. [lukethespook] | ^{[t c r]} 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Team Mascots

I recently re-wrote the article on Steely McBeam, including pretty much everything that I thought was notable (and maybe a few things that were not, such as the arrest). It's still pretty short, as are most mascot articles. Would it be reasonable to merge all team mascots into the team's main article? After looking down the List of National Football League mascots it would seem most of the article's are shorter than the team infobox at the bottom. The mascot's are notable, but maybe not notable enough to have their own article. Black ngold29 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Drafted or Originally Drafted

A mediation case has been started on how strictly NFL player articles should be standardized. Some feel all articles should say a person was "originally drafted by..." while others feel they should just say the player was drafted by such and such team unless they've moved on to another team. Please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think the word "originally" should be included. I see no reason as to why it should be. Simply saying "Bob Smith was drafted by Buffalo" is suffice. Saying "Bob Smith was originally drafted by Buffalo", seems to imply that he was drafted by Buffalo first (origianlly), but then another team came along and drafted him again (which is impossible as far as I know). Even if the player is traded it sounds fine to say "Bob Smith was drafted by Buffalo, then traded to Arizona." Unless a good reason is given as to why the word "originally" should be included I see it as making the sentence too wordy, and no need to discuss the topic further. (Can I also state this on the mediation page, as I was not invited?) Black ngold29 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally refers to the year, not the team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It makes no difference "Bob was drafted in 1989" makes complete sense. Black ngold29 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should say Originally, sounds better--Star QB (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How so? It makes complete sense to say "Bob was drated by the Bengals." Part of proper english is concise writing. Black ngold29 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Originally is entirely redundant, except for like 2-3 cases (Bo Jackson, and um, Bo Jackson, and maybe Bo Jackson too) where a player was drafted twice, players are only drafted ONCE. Thus, since there is no need to differentiate between separate drafts, there is no need to use the word originally. A player may have originally PLAYED for a different team, but he was only drafted once, thus originally is nonsensical in that context. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How is that wrong? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's not what the sentence is saying or implying.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's certainly what it implies to me, and I'm obviously not alone. Black ngold29 04:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The word "originally" is an adverb that modifies the verb "drafted". When there is only one draft that is relevent, why does it need to be modified? What two different drafts do we need to differentiate in order to use a modifier like the adverb "orginally"? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, you guys are still wrong. Think about it this way. I'm doing about to do a video for my Miami Dolphins blog on the acquisition of Akin Ayodele. I will probably say something like "He was originally drafted by the Jaguars in 2002 and played for seasons with the team. He played the previous two seasons in Dallas." Imagine that being said aloud. It does not imply he was drafted more than once at all - it's simply a way of saying that while it's not 2008 and he's a Dolphin, he originally entered the NFL as a third-round pick of the Jaguars in 2002.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about excluding the word "originally"? It still makes sense; does it not? Also, proper writing and speaking can differ. Black ngold29 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the word "originally" still makes no sense. If you said he originally PLAYED for the Jaguars, you'd be right. But it makes no sense with the word drafted. You could just say he was drafted by the Jaguars, but that he now plays for Dallas. You can say ~~"he originally entered the NFL as a draft pick of the Jaguars"~~ because originally is the modifier for the word "entered". Once you make it the modifier of the word "drafted" it makes no sense... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch that. Originally entered makes no sense either. Its redundant too. You can only enter once in this context. The only phrasing that makes sense with the word "orginally" is "originally played". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still wrong.

And Blackngold - I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense without the word - it would. But I feel this is better writing so I'm going to add it until forced to do otherwise.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So if it makes sense without it, why add it? If an english major is called into the discussion, and he says it's incorrect to add the word "originally" would you stop with no complaints? Black ngold29 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My fiancee has a journalism degree from the University of Minnesota and has been an editor at a publishing company for several years now. She's sleeping now but when I get a chance (probably will be tomorrow night) I'll ask her about the grammar of it. Even if she says the grammar is wrong to add "originally" on every single article I don't think it'll matter though. He's too stubborn and has too much emotionally invested in this now. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I add it because I feel it is a better-written sentence with it. If an actual expert could prove me wrong and explain why my phrasing is invalid, then I guess I'd cease adding it. But I'm pretty confident I'm not wrong here. Writing is what I do. And considering Jayron just showed he didn't know what he was talking about by initially offering what he thought correct alternative that proved to be identical to my phrasing, we are currently without such an expert.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need an expert. You just need someone that payed attention in 9th grade English class. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh good, I did. So I guess I win right?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No offense, but simply because something is your occupation does not mean you are good at it. I also paid attention in 9th grade english, and I would assume Jayron who was a Master's degree did also. Simply stating that he is incorrect because it doesn't sound right is not a very good rebuttal. As I stated above good speech =/= good writing. It is redundant, it makes sense without originally, and I still hold that is should not be included. Black ngold29 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Stating he is incorrect is just a fact.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is an opinion at this point. Either you are correct or we are; possibly both but I doubt it. Unless some evidence is presented that it is proper english to use the word originally is presented; Yes I feel you must present the evidence as you are the one who started the debate (by added originally); then I feel no further need to discuss this. Black ngold29 05:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 ::::So if it makes sense without it, why add it? If an english major is called into the discussion, and he says it's incorrect to add the word "originally" would you stop with no complaints? '''<span style="border: 2px Black solid;background:Black;font-family: Tahoma">[[User:Blackngold29|<font color="#CDB87C">Black</font>]][[User talk:Blackngold29|<font color="#CDB87C">ngold29</font>]]</span>''' 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
+:::::My fiancee has a journalism degree from the University of Minnesota and has been an editor at a publishing company for several years now.  She's sleeping now but when I get a chance (probably will be tomorrow night) I'll ask her about the grammar of it.  Even if she says the grammar is wrong to add "originally" on every single article I don't think it'll matter though.  He's too stubborn and has too much emotionally invested in this now. [[Special:Contributions/67.137.0.28|67.137.0.28]] ([[User talk:67.137.0.28|talk]]) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
 I add it because I feel it is a better-written sentence with it. If an actual expert could prove me wrong and explain why my phrasing is invalid, then I guess I'd cease adding it. But I'm pretty confident I'm not wrong here. Writing is what I do. And considering Jayron just showed he didn't know what he was talking about by initially offering what he thought correct alternative that proved to be identical to my phrasing, we are currently without such an expert.►'''[[User:Chrisjnelson|<span style="color: #005e6a">Chris </span><span style="color: #DF6108">Nelson</span>]]'''<sup>''[[User talk:Chrisjnelson|Holla!]]''</sup> 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)