User talk:Chrisjnelson

Leave a new message.

NOTE: If you leave a message on my talk page, I will reply here. If I leave a message on your talk page, you should reply there and I will do the same.

			]	]
Talk (message)	Awards	Contributions	Edit Count	Logs	Subpages

Archives

---

1. October 2006 – November 2006
2. January 2007 – March 2007
3. April 2007
4. May 2007
5. June 2007
6. July 2007
7. August 2007
8. September 2007
9. October 2007
10. November 2007
11. December 2007
12. January 2008
13. February 2008
14. March 2008
15. April 2008
16. May 2008
17. June 2008
18. July 2008
19. August 2008
20. September 2008
21. October 2008
22. November 2008
23. December 2008

Slaton

Yeah, I planned on doing that when the preseason was over. But to keep up with the info, I just did it game-by-game like it is now. John (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's cool, just making sure.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Chad Ocho Cinco?

Why did you move Chad Johnson to Chad Ocho Cinco? Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's his legal name.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right after I clicked save, it came on ESPN. What do ya think about it? Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 21:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he has mental problems and is starved for attention.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Like he doesn't get enough. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Use the most common name of a person or thing" Chad Johnson is by far the most common name, and I would bet the barn that he will still be called and known as Chad Johnson, even though he has this idiotic "real" name. By all means, if the media accepts it and we stop hearing about Chad Johnson and we start hearing about Chad 85, then by all means move the page back. But right now it needs to be at the destination Chad Johnson. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just delaying the inevitable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop the gheyness on the Ocho Cinco talk page. Its just become spam and if it continues I will remove it... HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

About Nkang

The way I understand the NF/Inj list is that it is basically PUP with a specification on the cause of the injury. PUP still apply which mean that would either have to place him on the active roster or PUP. Since the former is clearly not the case I take it they put him on PUP as reported by NFL.com and Jaguars.com

Pats1 explained it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris, nice to see you back...see User talk:OaklandAthleticsfan for the Chargers' situation. Every other roster is at 54, and I doubled checked all inactive counts too. I don't feel like double-checking active counts, but I reviewed all edits to the rosters from today, and everything looks good. Pats1 ^T/C 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, you're not back... Pats1 ^T/C 01:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In my imagination, you had said "Pats1 explained it" about 4 hours after you actually said it. Pats1 ^T/C 12:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just double checked the miami herald. It was Josh McCown who got traded, not Beck. I remembered it incorrectly. Halli B (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Category:Green Bay Packers quarterbacks

Hey Chris, I have deleted this category again, as it still has no navigational use to the project. The category itself is too broadly defined to actually be useful in navigation. Would we add every player who has ever played the QB position to the category? Every Packers player who has been listed as a QB, but never played? Only the starters? Only the main QBs who have played a lot? As you can see, the category is subjective and will never be properly filled. Now you state that all the other teams have it, which is fine and dandy, but there is no reason to embrace a problem just because everyone has the problem. As a compromise, if you want a navigational category for Green Bay Packers QB's, why not create Category:Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks, which has a very easily defined scope and will allow us to fill the category accurately and not subjectively, and will create a category that will be very useful for navigation? I am of course open to other ideas, but Category:Green Bay Packers quarterbacks really doesnt help with navigation. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not such categories should exist is debatable, but you should not delete it because it is not black and white. If they are going to exist, they should exist for all 32 teams and not 31. If it should not exist, it shouldn't exist for any NFL team. Right now, there are 31 others so this one stays until you can argue that no such category should exist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, WP:OTHERCATEGORIESEXIST is not a justifiable reason to keep a category. How bout we just create Category:Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks, which I think we both can agree would be much more useful and a whole lot easier to maintain? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not applicable here. It would apply if, say, you were arguing this should exist because there were an Atlanta Braves pitchers category. But if Wikipedians have access to this type of category for 31 other NFL teams, they deserve access to this type for the 32nd team. I'm not even sure this kind of category should exist myself, but it is and will always be a package deal. It's up to you to nominate them all for deletion and argue it if you want, but you cannot delete one and leave 31 others. You also cannot simply delete it without any kind of debate, as it is not black and white and is an abuse of admin powers.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How bout we just create Category:Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks and use it as a replacement for Category:Green Bay Packers quarterbacks? And please don't accuse me of admin abuse, cuz we both know that is bs. Deleting a category one thinks is useless is not abuse. Now say if I deleted the category again right now, after someone has stated they oppose deletion, then one could make a case for abuse. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My opposition to deletion was clear the first time it had to re-create it, so deleting it today was admin abuse.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

$.02: I don't see how having a starting quarterbacks category is "easier to maintain." What if you have someone like Cleo Lemon who started a few games here and there? Is he considered a starting quarterback? Or what if Tom Brady goes down in Week 16 and Matt Cassel starts Week 17? Having just a quarterbacks category is easier to maintain, because it eliminates that element of picking-and-choosing. Pats1 ^T/C 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Pats1, Any quarterback who has started for the Packers. No picking and choosing whatsoever. Seems pretty simple to me. The broad "quarterbacks" category is the one where you have to "pick-and-choose." Should we include every Green Bay Packers player who has been listed as a quarterback? Or just ones who have played as quarterback? How bout the players on the practice squad? Or do we only just list ones who have made significant contributions as a quarterback? So unless we add every single quarterback that has ever been listed as such for the Packers, then we are going to have to pick and choose.

@ Chris, Making a passing comment in an edit summary is not clear or straightforward opposition. When you oppose something, use a damn talk page for once in your life and try and discuss the issue before you go around undoing actions you feel were wrong. And nevermind about this stupid debate Chris, there is no point in discussing anything with you, your words are always The Truth anyway. Go ahead and do whatever. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, be a baby.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You never cease to amaze me with comments like that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Just a quick rhetorical question

Did your edit summary in Template:Cincinnati Bengals roster just now gain anything by the addition of the invective "bitch"? - Vianello (talk) 21:40, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:41, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

"Bitch please." It's a joke. I know what Chris meant. Pats1 ^T/C 00:18, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Chad

I know what you mean, I've been in that spot before. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 05:05, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Which name to use (Johnson/Ocho Cino)

In a biography, yes, it is appropriate to use their current legal/well known name at all times. However, in historical listings, it is appropriate to use the person's name at the time. In a listing of Olympic gold medal boxing winners, it is appropriate to say Cassius Clay won in 1960. but you don't say it like that in Ali's bio. Look at the templates on Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's page. This is actually much more common in women's sports (when they get married) - see Chris Evert, who spent most of the 80's known as Chris Evert-Lloyd; All of her championships when she was married is listed as such, but obviously her bio does not call her that during that time. I don't know if there is a wiki policy on this - but this is the way that it is done everywhere (media, etc). So.... it's proper to list Chad Johnson in the 2007 Pro Bowl template, as that was his name at the time.JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Larry Allen

I have a question about your changes. The "retired" back to "former" is understandible, after I read it again, I could agree, because usually "former" makes you think their dead, until I re-read it. lol However, in the infobox, why re-order his numbers? I placed them in cronlogical order, it only seemed like it would be the right thing to do. Also, It says "Super Bowl Champion (XXX)", he only won one, so why not leave it as "Super Bowl XXX Champion"?? It saves some space. Just thought I'd ask. Hope you like how I expanded it, and if you look at my edit summaries I provide a link to what some of my summaries mean. lol Lastly, please use the {{Talk back}} feature when/if you respone to this message so that I'll know you have responded, I'd really appreicate it. Thanks, Crash Underride 16:09, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

In my experience, the numbers have been in numerical order. The numbers shouldn't be meant to tell you what teams he played for, it's just a list of the numbers he wore during a career. The same goes for the way Super Bowls are listed. In the current one it is the standard and I don't think that should change between active to retired infoboxes. I also don't know what talk back is.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:22, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree about the Super Bowls changing between infoboxs. I think if a player wins one it should be "Super Bowl XXX Champion", and then if they win more than one, change it too, "2x Super Bowl Champion (XXX, XXXIV)" and so on and so forth. That's what I mean. I just figured the numbers should be in order, just so you can see what number he had on what team, by goin' "Ok, Larry Allen wore 73 first, and he played in Dallas first, and then changed to 71 when he played in S.F." That sorta thing. {{Talkback}} is somethin' you can add to my talk page that tells me I have a response on your talk page, it doesn't interupte the conversation by jumpin' from one page to another. The template page tells about it and how it works, it's not that hard, I don't think. Crash Underride 17:28, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Well my reasoning is that the years are in parentheses because they essentially take the place of years. For everything else, we do years in parentheses, like "3x Pro Bowl selection (2002, 2003, 2004)." The Super Bowls we do the exact same way, only the number of the super bowl is more relevant than the year so we replace it. Doing "Super Bowl XX champion" is in my view no different than doing "2004 Pro Bowl selection." I think we should just be consistent throughout.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:32, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand the whole (XXX) in parentheses if they have more than one, same with "2x Pro Bowl (2004, 2006)", but if they only have one for their career, up to that point, or the whole thing, why couldn't it be "2004 Pro Bowl" or "Super Bowl XXX Champion"? I mean it's simpler, saves some space, and it sounds better (imo).Crash Underride 17:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

I just think it should all be the same way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:00, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Image credits in captions

Hi. Very nice photos you've taken.

I am not sure if this has been discussed with you in the past, but I noticed that you stipulate on your image description pages that you be credited in the image captions of articles - not just on the image description pages. Unfortunately, this seems to violate WP policy (last sentence in the section). Also, there has been moderate conflict with others in similar situations that seem to have been resolved quite easily (in particular, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive302#Photography_edit_war_on_model_Ana_Beatriz_Barros). Do you think you might be able to make your image use request more compliant with WP policy? -Seidenstud (talk) 13:04, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Would you be willing to remove the captions? -Seidenstud (talk) 19:42, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not gonna go through and remove them because it'd take too long, but people can if they want. I'm aware of the policy so it's fine with me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:57, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

User page vandalism

Someone blanked out your barnstars section and replaced them with "thanks". I took care of it for ya. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 01:40, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination

Who do you think you are banning me without any proof? I don't even know you, where does it say that Bsaleem undid your Barnstars...You should be banned.

...What?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:23, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Haha

left other people work,you edit enough and the other users dont like it,and stop deleting idiot you feel great but you are a stupid — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinal7 (talk • contribs)

Question

Do you know how to propose a template for deletion?--Yankees10 01:20, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I would imagine WP:Templates for deletion would help.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:23, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks--Yankees10 01:34, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

updating a template

the last time i checked it;Template:CurrentNFLKickers was about 2 months out of date. If it's going to be used; it needs to be updated currently. Please help in updating it. - -The Spooky One (talk to me) 21:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

More like two weeks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:53, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

And I only saw one name wrong.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:56, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

It's been updated since the last time i looked at it, and it looks much better now; but shouldn't it list all the kickers? There are a couple of teams that have more than 1 kicker. If not, then it should probally be renamed to StartingNFLKickers..- -The Spooky One (talk to me) 21:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Pacman_Jones#Requested_move_to_Adam_Jones_.28football.29_revisited

I would like to solicit feedback concerning moving this to Adam Jones (football). It makes sense to me, but is there consensus? Please opine in the section of the article talk page. Cheers, Dlohcierekim's sock (talk) 20:36, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

My life

you have nothing to do in your life true? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcarranza (talk • contribs) 04:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Tony Gonzalez

Chris, would you mind explaining to me why you moved Tony Gonzalez (American football) to Tony Gonzalez (tight end)? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 17:59, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Because there's a wide receiver, and it didn't seem to make sense to me to have an American football disambiguation on one page and a wide receiver one on another page, since wide receiver is part of American football.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

There is a flaw in that thinking. The article about the Chiefs tight end's name is Tony Gonzalez; on the opposite side of the equation, the wide outs article name is Anthony Gonzalez. Because the articles are named differently, all one would have to is to place {{otheruses4|USE1|USE2|PAGE2}} on both of the pages, and your problem is solved. For an example, see Adrian L. Peterson and Adrian N. Peterson. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 20:19, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not referring to Anthony Gonzalez. I'm referring to former Boston College wideout Tony Gonzalez (wide receiver), who signed with the Falcons as an undrafted free agent.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:25, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

OK, but let me ask you this, is he really notable enough to have an article? BTW, sorry 'bout slow reply time, busy doing real life stuff. RC-0722 ^361.0/1 19:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Chris Horton

Thanks for your additions and fixes on Chris Horton. I am wondering if you have some definitive authority/citation to settle the question of his birthplace. As I noted on his talk page, there is some apparent discrepancy about this. An editor before me had changed his birthplace to Los Angeles and had deleted all the references to Horton as a New Orleanian; I restored the New Orleans references and provided a source that he attended De La Salle High School. But as to his actual birthplace I found the sources in conflict. Some say he was born in New Orleans and I do suspect that is true, but here are two sources that say he was born in Los Angeles.

http://uclabruins.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl/mtt/horton_chris00.html (see under "Personal")

http://www.nfl.com/players/chrishorton/profile?id=HOR552347

I suspect that these are in error and I am hopeful you know of a definitive authority that settles this. Thanks.--Arxiloxos (talk) 01:06, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say I do not know for sure. The problem is, a lot of sites, (college sites, NFL sites) end up adopting the high school location for the birth place. This can make it hard to get a true answer unless you find a college bio that says "born on [day] in [place]." For what it's worth, NFL.com is usually wrong and usually has the high school location. Though I'm not sure what to think since LA wasn't where he played high school.

I've added Horton on facebook so if/when he accepts my friend request, I'll look on there and see if it's in his profile. If not, I could ask him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:20, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Problem solved, he said L.A.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Um, is facebook really a reliable source for things like this? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Considering he literally told me himself, I'd say so.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

But what if he's lying? What if your lying (not accusing you of lying, this is just a what if situation)? We don't know who you have for facebook friends; and for that matter you don't know if he's a poser! So, is facebook still a reliable source? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:37, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, he is not the only source on this. NFL.com and other sources say L.A. so it is certainly verifiable. There was just some debate as to whether to whether it was L.A. or New Orleans, and I had him confirm it.

Secondly, his facebook profile proves he is not a poser. There is no question it's him, and anyone can add him if they want.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:42, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, but why didn't you just cite NFL.com? Why risk being fed false info from what you assume to be a reliable source? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 00:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

We already knew what NFL.com said. The problem is there were sources for New Orleans too, so I was attempting to confirm it from him. I did, and I'm not "assuming" it's a reliable source. I know it is.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:59, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is apparent I will have to make my point via example:

I am a Tony Gonzalez fan (I'm sure you know which one I'm talking about), and suppose I am trying to find out how many yards he needs to break Shannon Sharpe's record. Now, lets suppose that NFL.com and other sources say that he needs 3 yards, but, lets suppose just for the sake of supposing that I find other reliable sources that say he needs 2 yards to break the all time receiving yards by tight ends record. Now me, being the investigative guy that I am, decide to e-mail Tony G personally and get the truth right from the TE's mouth. Tony e-mails me back a few days later confirming that it was, in fact, three yards. Can I cite this e-mail? No. Why? Per WP:V. It says (and I quote), "Material challenged or likely to be challenged, and all quotations, must be attributed to a reliable, published source." Note the word "published" Now, I decided to go ahead and find the definition of published and (from Answers.com) it says, "To prepare and issue (printed material) for public distribution or sale." Now, let me ask you this: how does facebook classify as a reliable source? RC-0722 ^361.0/1 03:53, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Well first of all, that comparison is insanely weak. Can you honestly say an NFL player is equally as likely to know all his statistics and another player's as he is his own birth place? That is ridiculous. Horton is a 100% reliable source of his birth place, while an NFL player would not be the most reliable source for his statistics. Here's a quick quiz for you:

1. Where were you born?
2. Please list all the grades you've received on every school assignment you've ever had.

How's that going? Having a little trouble with #2? Then I guess, by your logic. I can't trust that you know where you were born either.

Secondly, and most importantly, I am not using Horton's word as the source of the edit. I am using him to throw in his two cents between two conflicting by verifiable edits. It is verifiable from some sources that Horton was born in New Orleans. It is equally verifiable from other sources that Horton was born in Los Angeles. Since we have two conflicting sources, I went to Horton as the tie-breaker. Do you think we should say "Chris Horton was possibly born in Los Angels or New Orleans" or should we say "Chris Horton was born in Los Angeles" accompanied by a verifiable source and knowing that Horton himself confirmed it? If you choose the former, then you're just being stupid.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why you're pursuing this when it is both verifiable from the man himself in addition to being verifiable from a reliable source (NFL.com). You clearly don't intend to undo my edit (and I wouldn't allow it to stand anyway if you did), so what are we doing here? I am not wasting any more of my time discussing an accurate and verifiable edit, and I suggest you do the same. Do not post here again, as any further messages from you will be deleted.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Najeh Davenport

You got a source on that? That would be a good fantasy steal. Grsz^talk 18:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I saw it on Pro Football Talk, but I'm sure you can find more sources by googling it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I was Dustin's Brother In Law.

Dustin was born in Wahiawa, Hawaii. I was married to his sister for 8 years. His dad served in the Navy, and he was born in Hawaii. Please don't change it back to Summerville. Yes, he went to High School there, but he didn't move there until he was 14 years old. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.132.44 (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is it has to be verifiable. The goal here is verifiability, not truth. I do believe you, but unless you have a source of his birth place that says otherwise, we cannot include it in the encyclopedia. Any reader has to be able to check something in the encyclopedia, so whether or not something is true doesn't mean much if they can't do that. I know it can be frustrating, that's just how it works.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't care enough to send you a copy of his birth cerificate, I won't give his or any of his relatives' phone numbers, but, I can tell you that he was born in Hawaii. Don't you think I would pick somebody a little more interesting than an offensive lineman on the practice squad of the worst team in the NFL to make up stuff about? Hell, I can tell you everywhere he's lived up to Summerville: Hawaii; Texas; Virginia Beach, Virginia; Rota, Spain; Pensacola, Florida then Summerville. Like I said before, his dad was in the Navy for 24 years. He was not raised in Summerville, SC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.179.132.44 (talk) 01:37, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Please see my comment above. I do believe you, and I realize it's highly unlikely someone makes up something so specific about a random football player. I'm sure you're being honest. But, for the reasons I outlined above, the fact that it may be true does not mean it can be included here. The point of the encyclopedia is that it should be able to be verified by any reader that comes by. If someone goes to Dustin Fry and sees it saying he was born in Hawaii, they need to be able to find verification for this from a published source. Right now, we have none. Like I said, I do believe you, but the policy WP:VERIFY states that the goal is verifiability, and not necessarily truth.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

My other username was suspended so I had to get another one.

thank you for your help on the adam stenavich page. I think the finishing touch you put on it for pre draft was done quite well.

Once again

thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystoneridin (talk • contribs) 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam stenavich article

Chris,

I am not sure how to add sources so I would need your help. I think Stenavich's run in with his hometown law back in 2004 I think it was is relavant to this article. The laws he broke prevented him from playing football in the rosebowl that year which they ended up losing anyways. I will edit it myself, but I need your help with the references.

Thanks,

keystoneridin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystoneridin (talk • contribs) 08:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

You can use this and just replace all the info:

<ref name="GrizzliesBio">{{cite web | title = Dan Carpenter | work = MontanaGrizzlies.com | url = http://wpe1.montanagrizzlies.com/fmi/xsl/mt_griz/db/roster/xsl/detail_roster.xsl?-db=mtgriz_content&-lay=content_roster_detail&id_record=1982&-max=1&-find | accessdate = 4 July | accessyear = 2008 }} </ref>

Add the info with the reference and I'll fix anything that needs to be fixed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 08:09, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Football infobox

Hi Chris. Thanks for your message.

I agree that the changes you suggest would make the infobox more useful and inclusive. If it was to be used for multiple leagues, then I think the name should also be changed from NFL but that could be easily accomplished, of course, with redirects. There may be some other issues that I forget/haven't thought of as well but I'm certain it could be worked out.

I still dislike the NFLactive/retired (or whatever the two are) concept. It seems silly, overly-complicated, and counter-productive to have to completely change the template everytime a player retires (or returns). There are also some style things I dislike about it but that could be worked out and I would bow to multiple football WikiProject consensus on those.

I completely agree that it makes good sense to use a common template for the different forms of North American football. Many players move between College/CIS football, NFL, CFL, Arena, and the other pro leagues that occasionally pop up and there is not enough significant differences that a single template could not allow for. That is why I went along with the {{Infobox Gridiron football person}} solution and worked on perfecting it.

Could you explain why you supported (led?) the move away from {{Infobox NFL player}} to the multiple templates for active and retired players?

Cheers! DoubleBlue (Talk) 22:46, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

CFL

Yes. DoubleBlue (Talk) 04:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, you have it nicely. The CFL.ca site has been pretty frustrating this year with a new look and site map. It used to be contracted out to canoe.ca but I believe they've hired their own web guys now. Some sections have been completely abandoned and others orphaned but it looks like they are back on track with updating the transactions page.

• IMP is import, NIP is non-import
• ADD under Roster, signed to the active roster
• ADD under the Non-Active section means assigned to the practice squad
• DEL under roster means removed from active
• REM under Non-Active means removed from practice roster (though I don't know why they don't use DEL here as well)
  • UNS - unsigned
  • SGD - signed
• ADD from INJURED means moved from the injured list back to active
• EXT on INJURED means an extension on their inactive list time
• TFR to INJURED means transferred to injured

I'm certain that Donovan Alexander has been returned to the practice squad and the roster has just not been updated yet. He was only activated for the October 4th game as a back-up because of several Alouettes injuries. DoubleBlue (Talk) 05:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

One last thing: If I'm reading these transactions correctly, does this edit appear to be correct?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:45, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, something seems wrong there. There are only 7 players permitted on the Practice Roster (except during the NFL Roster Cut-Downs, when it can be 12, but that's over, is it not?) I'm too pre-occupied at the moment to investigate. I also have some thoughts on your changes to the roster templates but I'll get back to you on that.

There used to be a page on cfl.ca on the Roster rules and Salary Management System but I can't find it now. Anyway, the Roster rules are:

• maximum of 46 players on Active Roster
  • 4 of whom may be on the Reserve Roster, meaning they are paid full salary but not dressed for the game
  • meaning 42 dressed players per game, at least 20 of whom are non-imports, max 19 imports (3 quarterbacks not counting on import rule)
• Max 7 players on Practice Roster, at least one must be non-import
  • 12 players may be Practice Roster during the time of the NFL Cut-Down period
  • If there are 7 players on PR, then one must be from last CFL Draft

I'll get back to you later. DoubleBlue (Talk) 20:16, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

There's an archive of the SMS at http://web.archive.org/web/20070927234510/http://www.cfl.ca/index.php?module=page&id=17 and someone was good enough to post a portion of the CBA at http://www.13thman.com/cheers/viewtopic.php?f=24&t=34164&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=15#p695941 DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Roster templates

I am glad to see you take on standardising the roster templates. I've had it on my to do list. You can see that I started with Template:Toronto Argonauts roster at the beginning of the season but encountered mild opposition to getting rid of the silly flags. I decided to leave it at Argos for a bit to see if a discussion might occur on how the roster templates should look but none ensued and I never got around to the other teams.

I have some concerns about your design. The Import rule is of critical importance on the roster and deciding which players play and needs to be listed on the roster template. The flag idea was inappropriate because it doesn't accurately reflect import or non-import. My solution was using codes IMP and N/I, which is generally used (or I and N) on CFL lists. I also made the Template:CFL player to allow the simple making of the roster list by encoding the font styles in it. I think I'd rather return to using that template (changed to courier new, if you prefer) than having the span styles all over the roster template.

I'd also like to change the Practice Squad title back to Practice Roster as that's how they are referred to in CFL circles and I think I'll just go ahead with that change. I'll await your thoughts on how to best encode #, import status, name, pos before changing it. DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Well if you ever run into opposition about removing flags, just point them to WP:FLAG. It's very clear that they are not to be used for such things. It's an open-and-shut case and you're on the right side.

Perhaps we could just italicize one or the other, imports or non-imports. Which ever is less plentiful maybe. I'd rather do that than having notations.

And yeah, we can definitely make it Practice Roster, you know the game better than I do.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:47, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

We've always marked the starters previously with italics. It is of interest which players are starting and which are just back-ups but it is an extra job to keep changing who the starters are so I'm undecided whether to return that feature. Why would you rather not have IMP,N/I? Another option is to asterisk the imports, that is another way it is occasionally done on CFL roster lists. I'm going to play with the Argos roster template to see how it looks. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the result with Toronto Argonauts roster. DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:21, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I am firmly against marking starters on the roster templates. We do not do it on the NFL ones, and back when we used to have depth chart templates, we decided this was not he place for them. Depth charts can be linked externally; all we need here is a current list of players. In my mind, the import/non-import thing is the only necessary addition.

Also, I do not really like the way you've done it on the Argos roster. The N's and I's get cluttered with the numbers there. To me, there's no point in taking up extra space when it can all be done with italics, and since noting starters is really not necessary and too much of a hassle to keep up (plus what do you do about injuries, etc.?) we can use italics for imports or non-imports.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with not bothering with starters identification. Though I've never seen imports identified by italics anywhere, I thought I'd give it a try. In my opinion, it is good. We'll see if others object, I suppose. Good night, DoubleBlue (Talk) 07:40, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I just feel like it's good because it really doesn't add any extra space or text (this can especially make things look cluttered with jersey numbers and text on both sides of the players) and yet it's still easy to just go through the roster and know which player is which once you know what the italics mean.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:43, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

How do you feel about the roster counts you have at the bottom of these templates (e.g., 46 Active, 8 Inactive, 7 Practice). Will it not be a pain to keep up to date and surely anyone truly interested can count themselves? DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Player dabs

I believe we've had this discussion before but I will outline some of my objections to dabs of the form (American football) here.

• Wikipedia:Naming conventions (people) - It is best to use a noun that describes the person rather than a noun that describes the sport. --> (football player) rather than (football)
• WP:DAB - The dab should be as simple, generic, and clear as possible adding precision only in order to further disambiguate players who would qualify for same dab. --> (football player) rather than (American football player) unless there are other football players with the same name
• DABbing a player with (American football) restricts them to that code of football but many players move between codes of football: American, Canadian, Arena, and others so being more precise about the code of football when no other football player has same name is unhelpful.
• DABbing with (American football player) is very ambiguous. Is it an American player playing some form of football (including soccer, which you claim to be the reason we can't just use (football player)), or a player playing American football? Not really a problem if it's both but choosing it over (football player) to be more precise is false reasoning; it is not more precise.

There is simply need for these problems if one observes the principles above that prefer (football player). DoubleBlue (Talk) 19:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Well really in my opinion, the disambiguation in my opinion should be "gridiron football" but I haven't pushed it because so many would need to be changed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:16, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have some sympathy with that view as it's both more and less precise, in good ways, and I've seen it tried as dabs before and think that I've always left them alone but we have to admit it is a rather less used term in North America. DoubleBlue (Talk) 21:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but the article here is called that so it's certainly appropriate.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stenavich article

I edited a portion of the college career for Adam Stenavich. When you look at the reference page, please look all the way at the bottom. It says who he was replaced by and what he was charged for. Thanks!Keystoneridin (talk) 06:17, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Steve Sanders

Why did you remove everything about him being in the Arena Football League??? Check their site, he's on their Exempt list. Crash Underride 18:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I removed it from the infobox because he's currently with the Browns.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:12, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that was fine, but you removed EVERY mention of him playin' in the AFL. That's what I can't figure out. The reference too it in the intro, infobox, professional career section, the category. Why all of it? Crash Underride 17:47, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Because he never has played in the NFL. He's been a Brown since he entered the NFL in 2006. Maybe he is on the Gladiators' exempt list, but he's never played for them and that really only means "if you ever are out of the NFL, you can play for us."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

All-Pro

This bullshit with seperating the All-Pros is starting again and the user is also replacing all the NFL.com links with PFR links, I dont know if you care, I just thought i'd tell you--Yankees10 22:41, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Seahawks template

Shouldn't the primary color for the template be Seahawks blue instead of navy, since Seahawks blue is the primary color of the uniforms? Also, the color of the secondary boxes is green with navy lettering. It should be the other way around, since green is hardly used in the uniforms. I tried to change it earlier, but it got reverted pretty quickly. I also see in the Seahawks discussion page that this has been suggested before. Richiekim (talk) 03:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here's my proposed color change:

There seems to be no way of changing the color of the infobox. How is it possible to do it? Richiekim (talk) 12:23, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Neutral infobox.

Here's the thing. This infobox is neutral in everyway. It doesn't have any league name in the title, it lists the league's alphabetically, and if the player hasn't played in one of the leagues, that league won't appear. Have a look here, and here's a look at what it looks like when it's used. Let me know what you think. I plan to move the AFL box to something like Infobox American football active or something to that effect so it will be netural and nothing would need to be changed once the box is used. Crash Underride 21:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow

I'm amazed at how fast you are at updating the NFL Free Agent market. How do you do it?.Iamawesome800 (talk) 02:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I mean how you get updates on player pages almost as soon as it happens.Iamawesome800 (talk) 02:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

I just update them as I see NFL transactions.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Categories

The user Jwalte04 is changing the order of the categories to alphabetical from the way that we usually do it, I wanted to know what you thaught about this and if you think we should change it to the way he does it--Yankees10 05:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I've seen someone else do it too. I don't know if there is a policy on this or not.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:55, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I dont think there is either, I kind of like it alphabetical but then again I like the way that it was also--Yankees10 05:58, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

RE:Categories

How is it not common when most of the Featured Article categories are in Alphabetical order? Jwalte04 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a link to a policy on this?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Nah I dont, I just noticed it (and it may be wrong, but from the featured articles I have seen I think its for the most part right). I just feel like alphabetical order is the way to go because a first-time editor can understand the ordering process instead of figuring out the chronological order, as well as anyone wanting to add a cateogry can easily put it in properly. Let me know your thoughts (also wanted to have Yankees10 read this). It there a more appropriate place for me to bring this up? Jwalte04 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You might be right.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I will stop doing the different order for now until this gets resolved. But I would like it resolved soon, because I am going through my complete watchlist and doing edits to all of my pages then getting rid of the ones I dont care about. Thanks.Jwalte04 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I really don't know where you should take it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we bring this up to Pats1 or JustAGal too and other NFL bigwigs? Jwalte04 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I think we should bring it to WP:NFL--Yankees10 01:12, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm not really sure how to start that conversation...(I usually like to stay silent...) Do I need to start it? Jwalte04 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I'll start it I guess, but my writing and spelling skills are horrible so if theres any errors feel free to correct them--Yankees10 01:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Will do. CJN, Thanks for letting us use your page haha. Jwalte04 (talk) 01:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I did it but it sounds terrible, feel free to fix it if you want--Yankees10 01:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Linking to seasons in infoboxes

According to this discussion, the consensus was to permit the linking of season years. I noticed that you were the only one who felt otherwise, so perhaps that's why you remember the consensus incorrectly? I posted a new discussion at WP:NFL on the issue.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That discussion was about Template:Infobox NFLretired.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:59, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

I've changed my mind and also believe that there should be no links, because why should there be links on retired and not active, makes no sense.--Yankees10 02:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking in NFL pages

Ummm, I already discussed this over on Yankee's10's page, agreed that I had made some mistakes, apologized, and went back through the articles and undid some of the removals. But since you also for some reason seem to need an explanation, let me repeat what I said there:

Sorry, new toy. I'll go back through those articles and put back the infobox links to birthplaces and birthdates. But the way the MoS reads, if a term had already been linked in an article, that's all it gets. For example, Barry Sanders has Detroit Lions linked 3-4 times, so I'll bring it down to the first one. I removed the extra links due to this from Maual of Style for one of two reasons.

1. Some were general links to months, days, or years: "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason—such as 1995, 1980s, and 20th century." I also took advice from this directive, "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" to remove general links to dates such as 15 August etc.

2. "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article. "Excessive" typically means more than once for the same term in an article. So I removed multiple instances of links.

Number 2 doesn't make any exception for length between the excessive links. And Yankees10 seemed to be okay with my explanation and apology. I hope you are satisfied now too.--User:2008Olympian_chitchat^seemywork 05:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

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