Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 67.137.0.28 (talk) at 19:16, 7 May 2008 (Adding a Response From and Expert). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcuts
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.

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. HoosierStateTalk 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is also too early, and you should have waited before publishing it on to the mainspace.--~SRS~ 03:13, 4 May 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. Blackngold29 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?) Blackngold29 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Originally refers to the year, not the team.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It makes no difference "Bob was drafted in 1989" makes complete sense. Blackngold29 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. Blackngold29 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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's certainly what it implies to me, and I'm obviously not alone. Blackngold29 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 NelsonHolla! 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. Blackngold29 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 NelsonHolla! 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? Blackngold29 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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 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. Blackngold29 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stating he is incorrect is just a fact.►Chris NelsonHolla! 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. Blackngold29 05:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously why is this such a big deal now, me and Chris have been doing this for a while and no one has complained or removed it before--Yankees10 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Had it been brought to my attention, I would have complained. I'm still waiting for evidence that it is proper english; if none can be presented soon there is no reason to keep this up. Blackngold29 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, Black and GOld go here: Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) So you can contribute to the discussion there, it would be helpful, Jayron32 you, too.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What a coincidence, because I'm waiting for evidence that it isn't proper english, and if none can be presented soon there is no reason to remove it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron already gave evidence, but you refuse to acknowlege it or present a mature rebuttal. Blackngold29 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) is a bunch of crap, the IP 67.137.0.28 went to all the users that agreed with not using originally, meaning everyone that goes there agrees with him, so what is going to be solved, when other users that agree with me and Chris dont see it--Yankees10 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So because there are people who disagree with you, it should be thrown out? Blackngold29 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Jayron didn't prove jack shit.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I'm concerned neither have you. If you are indeed correct would that not mean that you should have no trouble proving your argument? Blackngold29 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Love it.. I take a fairly decent-length hiatus from Wikipedia.. and this is the first thing on my watchlist. If it's not too much to ask, could everybody all just think about this short question: is the word "originally" really worth a huge debate? Ksy92003 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


No, it isn't. But I refuse to stand aside while people impliment improper english into Wikipedia. Blackngold29 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is it worth this? It goes to the heart of wiki rules. Wiki:Consensus and Wiki:Civil for openers. We have some users who I think break rules and the become uncivil, break specific rules and they seem to get away with it. It is my understanding this is not a dictatorship and it is apparant that chrisjnelson does not think the rules apply to him. Over this and other issues recently nelson and yankees10 have cursed me out, insulted by good-faith edits and other things. What I don't get is how a guy like nelson can be blocked a dozen or more times gets to stay. He is exactly the same as he was before he was blocked, maybe even emboldened to a degree. If he has not learned his lesson, why does he get so much say-so around here? He's made it clear he does think he's ever wrong, he's made it clear that if he wants to be uncivil, he will be uncivil. It is a matter of principle. Do wiki rules apply to all of us or are a few exempt. They may get their hand slapped, but there is never any real penalty, it seems to me, for uncivil behavior. So, are the rest of us supposed to cower? Are we supposed to try and consensus build though being insulted? So, User:Ksy92003, I simply ask how can good people stand up to something when little things that may get blown out of whack get looked at like all parties in the dispute are an equal footing? I suggest we are not. I suggest some have been uncivil and I suggest some of us have held our tounge and kept the rules and remained civil. Are those who keep the rules going to be punished? Are those who break the rules going to be punished? The more I read about wiki rules the more I like them. They present plenty of opportunites to work things out, but if some chose not to apply the rules to themselves then it makes it hard on the rest of us. Do we quit and give up because someone has more will-power to keep fights going? Or do we at least render our opinion? I wonder how many good editors have been lost through sheer attrition based on saying, "Is this worth it"? I simply ask for fairness and equity in this matter of uncivility and consesus, and the 5 pillars (i.e. good-faith edits). So, in the big picture this is worth it to me72.0.36.36 (talk) 04:27, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing that's not an issue here.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Response From An Expert: A Professional Editor With A 4 yr Journalism Degree

I asked my fiancee last night about this topic. She has two degrees: one is a Bachelor's of Arts in Speech Communications from Minnesota State University, Mankato and the other is a Bachelors of Science in journalism from the University of Minnesota. She's worked two years as an assistant editor at the American Journal of Kidney Disease when it was stationed in Minnesota, and now she's working as an Editor at Priority Publishing in Edina, MN. Needless to say, grammar is her life.

She said normally she wouldn't use Wikipedia or work on Wikipedia because in her field it's considered unreliable and sloppy, but since I've already gotten involved in this she'll help out. Instead of making a knee-jerk response she said she'd go to work and check her AP Stylebook and ask a couple of other editors at work so she could be 100% sure. While the ametuer journalist immediately says they are right because they figure they know better, the professional likes to get input from others. She asked two other editors at work today about this, one who has a Master's Degree and one who is a specialist in grammar. We just got done having a lengthy conversation on it.

Their Response:

It can be taken by a reader one of two ways: the first is to put the emphasis on drafted which would be making what is called a false statement on some articles because it would imply that they've been drafted more than once when in fact many have not. And you don't write things in articles as if they've already happened just because it may or may not happen in the future(WP:Crystal). The other way to take it would be to as Chrisjnelson wants you to take it which would be that they originally started at this team. This would also make it improper grammar because it is considered redundant and unnecessary. You should always use the least amount of words as possible to make your point across. A good rule of thumb on redundancy is that if you're reading a sentence, and by removing one word it still makes sense, then that word should be removed. Also keep in mind that some readers may see it as implyng they've already moved to another team (which is a false statement again).

My fiancee and the one with the Master's Degree took it as being drafted more than once, and the other person took it as this is the team they came from. All three of them said that if this article came across their desk the way it is now, they would take a red pen and cross the word "orginally" out because if it confuses the reader it shouldn't be in there. And adding "originally" in every article obviously confuses at least some readers here. The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information about a popular topic to the layperson, and confusing the reader undermines that purpose.

Also, she was wondering if Chrisjnelson had an alterior motive, because she said consistency doesn't overpower readability. Consistency is generally used within the scope of the same article, not multiple articles. Nobody wants to read the same thing over and over again in every article. In a way she said she could see where he is coming from, because when you're in school you are expected to write a little wordy but when actually writing in your profession you want as little words as possible to create a better finished product.

Also Chrisjnelson, when you actually get in the field your articles will be edited by sometimes two or three editors before being printed (and they will often edit each other's work). If you are going to be this defensive and combative on edits to your work this field isn't going to be for you. But she wasn't too worried about that in your case because this is something they usually teach you to work with in years 3 and 4 in college.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League&oldid=210864695"