Talk:Ty Law

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 17:31, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Peyton manning add[edit]

I added a small part to the trivia. Ty Law has picked off Peyton Manning more than any other cornerback. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Cornerback / Safety[edit]

Let me kick this discussion off by saying that ESPN and Yahoo! Sports both say that he is a CB, and not a safety. So, one could (hypothetically) say that unless someone can find a reliable source proving that he is also a safety, that this is an open and shut case. Kimu 14:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I dont recall him playing safety ever either.--Yankees10 19:38, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Looks like some people need to learn to read. We all know Law has played cornerback his whole NFL career. No one is disputing that. BUT, all the articles about him signing with the Jets quote Law as saying the Jets told him he will play corner AND safety. Hence, he is both for the Jets now. The end. Learn to read. Jesus Christ.►Chris NelsonHolla! 21:55, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Ok, lets get a few things straight here. First off, I read the entire article, top to bottom, and yes it says that he will (not has) play safety and corner for the Jets. However, has he yet to play safety? No. To illustrate my point, read this example. The Lions are beating the Rams in week 17 of season X. The Lions have the ball, and are ahead 79-10 at the final 2:00 minute warning. Now, we all know the Lions will beat the Rams, but have they? No. So do we update the Lions record? No. Why? Because the game has yet to end. If we updated their record, then we would be updating prematurely (not to mention essentially ruling out a miracle).
So, let us recapitulate. Law is signed by Jets, with news articles saying that he will (not has) play safety and corner. Infobox is updated that he played (or plays) safety and corner despite the fact that he has yet to line up @ safety. So, my conclusion (<sarcasm>I know you just desperately want to hear it</sarcasm>)? We should not say that he plays safety until he actually take a snap in an actual game lined up as a safety. Kimu 18:11, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Despite your implication, this does not violate WP:CRYSTAL. Law has stated he will play both corner and safety, and therefore it is okay to call him that as a member of the Jets. Technically, Jordan Palmer hasn't played quarterback for the Bengals. Can we not call him a quarterback?►Chris NelsonHolla! 18:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
Seneca Wallace was used as a wide receiver, but we still list him as a quarterback, not as a quarterback / wide receiver. Also, Al Gore claims that he invented the internet, but did he? Ty Law can claim he will play safety, but until he lines up as a safety he isn't a safety / corner. Kimu 19:15, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

The Seneca Wallace situation does not compare, and there's no hope in discussing this with you if you're not intelligent enough. But I forgive you.►Chris NelsonHolla! 19:17, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Deion Sanders talked about playing wide receiver for a long time before he actually did play a little at wide receiver, yet he isn't listed as such in his infobox and I wouldn't think his long-stated desires to do so would have warranted a change in his page if wiki had been around then.

That aside, I don't see what the harm is in waiting to see what positions he actually plays this Sunday with the Jets, from either side in this debate. If he only lines up at cornerback, then we can remove the safety listing. Or the other way around: if he plays some safety in the game, then we can add the safety designation. It doesn't seem worth the effort to argue about it now when we'll find out on Sunday. Just let whomever is going to immaturely demand his way and be personally rude to have it until then. This is not an urgent situation.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:07, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Technically, he played Thursday. However, I'm not sure if he played safety or not (considering I didn't watch the game). However, I'm assuming that he didn't based on this article in the Boston Herald (what led me to believe that he didn't was the statement, "Matched up on Moss for most of the night, with safety help over the top") But once again, I didn't watch the game so I'm not 100%. So if anyone (third party, non-partisan user) did tune in, some info would be nice. Kimu 17:10, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
An idea just occurred to me. We could list him as a defensive back and cover all our bases. Kimu 05:14, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Appropriate photo and copyright use[edit]

Any photo of Ty Law owned by the NFL or it subsidiaries, like NFL Films, used strictly for informational purposes only, such as a Wikipedia page, is allowed by fair use. Use of fair use photos is allowed by wikipedia Constantly reverting to a photo of him in a Broncos uniform over concern that the uploader doesn't own the image themselves is either unwarranted or simply an excuse to keep their stupid joke on the article.

Template Image[edit]

Since Ty Law played the majority of, and had the best years of his career while playing for the New England Patriots, the image of him in the Denver Broncos uniform is misleading in terms of his career, a suitable replacement would be him in a New England Patriots uniform. The Denver image should be replaced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hydraxon XV (talkcontribs) 06:01, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should Ty Law in a Denver Broncos uniform be the most prominent image on his Wikipedia page?[edit]

The consensus is a better image of Ty Law is preferred but that the current image should be retained because it is the only free image of him presented here. Regarding including a fair use image in the article, the guideline Wikipedia:Non-free content says an image of a person is acceptable under the following criteria:

Pictures of deceased persons, in articles about that person, provided that ever obtaining a free close substitute is not reasonably likely. Note that in the case the image is from a press agency or photo agency (e.g., AP, Corbis or Getty Images) and is not itself the subject of critical commentary it is assumed automatically to fail "respect for commercial opportunity".

Cunard (talk) 00:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is Ty Law's 15 year NFL career best represented by an image of him on he team he started 2 games for? 2601:187:8400:E672:7C54:B799:50B3:3B25 (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

  • Ideally, no. If you can find an image of him in a Patriots uniform that complies with Wikipedia's image use policy, feel free to add it. The reason is most likely because there are no freely available images of Law in a Patriots uniform. It's not as simple as doing a Google image search and picking the best one. Our article on Steve McNair shows him with the Ravens, and some high-profile players don't have any images (Corey Dillon, for example). Lizard (talk) 02:41, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Since fair use is images are allowed in Wikipedia's image use policy, why not just use a fair use image? If not, no image seems preferable to the misleading Bronco image. Denverjeffrey is the only one who ever has added the image to the article and 10 other users have tried to remove it over the last 7 years. Considering his user name, that he always insists the image must be the most prominent one, and that he has never discussed it in the talk page despite multiple topics covering it, it is very likely he is a troll Broncos fan who is skirting the edge of permissible edits.2601:187:8400:E672:7C54:B799:50B3:3B25 (talk) 06:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Fair use is only allowed if absolutely no other free images can be found of the subject in question and the subject is deceased. If fair use was such a simple loophole around copyright it would all but nullify our image use policy. And let's try to assume good faith here. I'm sure User:Denverjeffrey has many better things to do with his time than push a pro-Broncos agenda in such a subliminal way. Lizard (talk) 07:46, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
  • CLOSE – this is not RFC material, just a simple content-related discussion topic, already answered. Dicklyon (talk) 04:26, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.