Template talk:NFL predraft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject National Football League (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Pre-draft measurables
Ht Wt 40-yd dash 10-yd split 20-yd split 20-ss 3-cone Vert Broad BP
6 ft 1⅓ in lb

Height format[edit]

What is the appropriate format? I don't care either way, but I see that you guys are changing it back and forth. Also consider that this should be consistent with vertical and broad jump. Timneu22 (talk) 00:21, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

As I mentioned it does not have to be consistent with veritcal and broad. My point is that for decades sports teams have used the dash rather than the ' and ". If you look at rosters now, and for the last 50-60 years height and weights in sports use the dash. I am sure there are exceptions, but when there is tradtion and common usage I think we would stick with that. When it comes to common usage for long jumps and vertical leaps, the ' and " are the common usage and that's what you see in record books and so on. So, that's why they don't have to be consistent. Like in baseball. A hitter who gets 3 hits in 10 at bats in not a 30% hitter, he's a .300 hitter. Record books don't show QBs as having a 60.2% completion percentage, it just shows the 60.2. Same in basketball. So, with heights and weights most readers, serious or casual know that Wilt Chamberlain was 7-1, not 7'1". Ed Too Tall Jones was 6-9 not 6'9". It's just the way rosters were printed and the tradition continues to this day, with some but not many exceptions.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
One other note, if a player did not patricipate I think a "X" or even a "DNP" with a note that says he did not participate. I think the when it says: X reps, it may not have meaning to the casual reader.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
I'll modify the template so that if it says "X", the "rep" text (that you just added) won't show. Timneu22 (talk) 12:57, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
Timneu22 is correct, height should be consistent with broad jump. It should either be 6 ft 1 in or 6′1″. --bender235 (talk) 13:22, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
No, he is not "correct" he has an opinion. But, if consistency is the issue, then whi is the high jump 34.5 in. and the long jumop 9'10". Consistency is not the issue and there is no "correct" only tradition. And the tradition is overwhelmingly us8ng dashes. I think that is the consistent way to go.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 16:37, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Has there been any thought/discussion about using the {{convert}} template to display heights and weights using metric as well as US values? It may seem like overkill given that probably fewer than 10% of the followers of NFL football actually use the metric system, but it seems like it would be a step toward making the topic less provincial. — DeeJayK (talk) 19:59, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Optional parameters[edit]

Is there a reason why only arm length and hand size are optional parameters for this template? It seems that quite often some of this data is simply not available to the public (especially e.g. Wonderlic results), yet the table as it currently exists displays each of the columns regardless of whether a value is provided. Why not let all of the various categories be optional and only display the column if a value is provided? — DeeJayK (talk) 19:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

This was done because arm/hand values weren't prevalent. Something like 2% of the players had those values. You have a valid point, however. — Timneu22 · talk 19:20, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Why "ref" ?[edit]

Deejayk added "ref" parameter.

I disagree with your recent "ref" parameter addition. The "note" parameter is used for references. Several players have some values from Pro Day and other values from the combine. The note section is used for that. Why is the "ref" parameter needed? — Timneu22 · talk 19:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Parameter removed until further discussion. Hopefully you added it only to that one article. The intention is that the "note", in the article you edited, would say: NFL Combine[1].
This has been the standard for every other article. I see no need for "ref". — Timneu22 · talk 19:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
So much for "being bold". The parameter I added was optional and wouldn't effect any existing implementations of this template — and yet it gets whacked immediately. I understand the 'note' field could be used for this purpose, but I'm not sure what it really adds except another line to the table. — DeeJayK (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Bold is fine, but see WP:BRD; as that's the real pattern. The "note" adds more than another line to the table... it actually offers information about where the stats came from. Many people have notes like: Bench and 40 from LSU Pro Day, all others from NFL Combine[1][2]. Inherently, there's nothing wrong with your edit... it's just that we already have a way to do what you put on here. — Timneu22 · talk 21:12, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Point taken, re: my snarky bold comment. I guess the thinking behind my addition was that in the instance I was implementing the template for (Maurkice Pouncey), I didn't have detailed information on which forum (combine or pro-day) the numbers came from, so I didn't feel as if the note was adding much. That said, I can live with using the note field for the citation, especially now that the example in the doc page demonstrates that usage. — DeeJayK (talk) 21:55, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion to use a table caption[edit]

How about using a table caption for the "Pre-draft measureables" line rather than putting that in the table itself. It's purely cosmetic, but I happen to think it looks better (see example below). Anyone else have an opinion? — DeeJayK (talk) 20:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Pre-draft measureables
Ht Wt Arm length Hand size 40-yard dash 10-yd split 20-yd split 20-ss 3-cone Vert Broad BP Wonderlic
6'1½" 304 lb 35 10¾ 4.72 1.56 2.98 6.54 7.45 35 in. 8'4" 22 rep 29
All data from NFL Scouting Combine
Agreed. I think it looks better also. Unless there is a complaint on here, we should make the change. Wait a day or so to see if anyone else has feedback. — Timneu22 · talk 21:13, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
Change made. Thanks for the suggestion. — Timneu22 · talk 12:09, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


I hit rollback by accident. Sorry! But some fixes need to be made. I'll do those in a sec. — Timneu22 · talk 17:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Done. You need to specify that you'll show the "s" only if the parameter is declared. Otherwise you'd have a bunch of empty columns with "s". Also, I'm not sure why you changed "40-yard dash" so I didn't change it. — Timneu22 · talk 17:54, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

September 10 change[edit]

Bender changed the format of the template citing wiki rules and guidelines, style and such. However, this is one of those things that needs to be discussed, we have a WP:consensus and had healthy discussion and disagreement and settled on somethign we could all live with.

This is a template, and if we decide, after discussion to change, fine. Whatever the consensus is. But a template is a good place to assert WP:IAR Wikipedia:Understanding IAR Remember, this is wikipedia and this is the fifth pillar. Wikipedia:Ignore all rules.

So, rather than one person making a change . . . let's take some time and discuss.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:11, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

  • No change. The current style makes the most sense to NFL people. Terms like "he's six-two" make the current style relevant; no one says "he's six-foot-two-inches." Let's keep the ' marks. — Timneu22 · talk 10:34, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
  • No change. Agreed. The current style is better. I was on favor of the dash, because of the very thing you mention, the style that had been used by American sports isn't with the "marks", it is he's 6-7 or he's 6-2 or 5-11½. That's how all the draft stuff reads, that's how NFL,com reads, that's how football, baseball and basketball literature reads since the 1930s or so. So, while I would vote for dashes --- i.e. 6-5 if it were up for discussion, but definately NOT the full words. WP:IAR. In these uniquely American sports, stick with what the respective industries use . . . besides, it's a info box, and abberiations are appropriate.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)
JFYI: Wikipedia is not a football encyclopedia for football fans, which is to say that just because the average football fan knows what "6-2" or "4.5 40 time" refers to doesn't mean we don't have to explain those things to people w/out football knowledge. That's why we write "4.5 sec 40-yard dash", and "6 ft 2 in". I'd even suggest that we add {{convert}}, so that this template produces "6 ft 2 in (1.88 m)" and "220 lb (100 kg)", for that matter. —bender235 (talk) 12:42, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOSNUM: Standard symbols for units are undotted; e.g., m for the metre (not m.), kg for the kilogram (not kg.), in for the inch (not in., the quotation mark ", or the double prime ), and ft for foot (not ft., the apostrophe ', or the prime ).
End of discussion. In case you disagree, file a request to modify the Manual of Style here. Thanks. —bender235 (talk) 12:32, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Wrong. Right now this is 2-1 against your chance. You case has been made It does not override th concensus gathering process andyou have cimcumnavitgated around it. the Five pillars override your rules, and you rude "end of dicussion" will foce me to prompt a ANI incident againt your. You are the not boss, you are no better than us, all if us a requiredto work together. Thse votes can take weeks not thats and he default position is the way it was before you can in and changed the whole thing. WP:IARBigmaninthebox (talk) 07:22, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Bender235's vote counts as one vote for "change'. He will have no more say than that. He says the boxes against the rules of style. However, these boxes are outaide the perameter of thosestiles, not thought of. They are an exception.

My sense is that Bender235 is going to try and take control of this, he will fire from the skys rules and rudeness and try and control things. We shall stat friendly, follow the rules. However, right now the consensus is 2-1 for "No change"Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Simply put: WP:MOS is the layout standard in Wikipedia. So could you please name a good reason why this WikiProject should not embrace this standard? I mean, where is the benefit for the average reader to see "39 in." instead of "39 in", or "6'5"" instead of "6 ft 5 in"? Maybe there is a good reason I just don't see at the moment. Please tell me. Because otherwise this WikiProject has no right whatsoever to circumvent MOS. —bender235 (talk) 10:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, obviously no one has a reasonable point why not following MOS "prevents him from improving Wikipedia", therefore WP:IAR does not apply. If there's still no reaction within the next 24 hours, I'll restore this version of the template. —bender235 (talk) 23:57, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
My sense is your are making judgments like "no one has a reasonable point" when there have been reasonable points. Perhaps you need to be remined to be civil in this. As I mentioned this is a process and your interpretation is fine, but other have otehr views. You kind of came in and juts made the change. Okay, you say here is the reason, you are making changes in an infobox and the point of those infoboxes was to not interfere or be too obtrusive. So, if someone needs further info on a players' size or weight, there is ample opportunity to do so by following the references. When I rad an article out of my realm I do that all the time. . . when reading wiki I understand I may not know about gold records or literature.

The main thing is that there was a consensus and as you can see fair and honest debate. We came to a compromise and now you came in with rules that need not apply to a infobox. Were this text, then that may be one thing. But it is an infobox and there is a consensus. That should be enough to preserve the status quo without one persons' sole view that the inforbox is "reule-breaker" and must be changed witrhin 24 hours. Let the process work. By reading thing others will right over next few weeks, you may season something, but I'd advise againt restoring your edit without consensus. You are far too emotional by evoking "this WikiProject has no right whatsoever to circumvent MOS" Maybe you have "NO RIGHT?" to break IAR.

Is MOS greater than IAR? Is one of the pillars greater than MOS? I say yes. In this cae no harm, no foul.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 17:27, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately you still don't understand WP:IAR. It says ignore the rules if, and only if they prevent you from improving Wikipedia. Now please tell me where WP:MOS prevents you from that. Like I wrote above: "where is the benefit for the average reader to see "39 in." instead of "39 in", or "6'5"" instead of "6 ft 5 in"? Maybe there is a good reason I just don't see at the moment. Please tell me." I'm not talking about some subjective criteria like "'in.' looks better than 'in' in my eyes", I'm talking about a real argument (like "6 ft 5 in can be confused with ..., therefore I'd prefer 6'5"."). —bender235 (talk) 20:53, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
Okay, I made it 48 hours, and still not a single reason to elude WP:MOSNUM. I'll restore this version of the template now. —bender235 (talk) 16:01, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • MoS is the style guide on Wikipedia. There is no arguing against it. BMITB, please know that this is a discussion, not a vote. Bender has remained civil through this discussion, and it seems like you have been more in-your-face than he has. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:04, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Also, BMITB, you're bending WP:IAR way out of proportion; it's not a valid argument here. You can't say, "I don't like that rule, so I'll ignore it." I actually agree that the old way looks better, which is why I'm neutral on this subject. But if MOS says ft/in, I guess that's how it should go. — Timneu22 · talk 22:28, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
You cannot ignore IAR, either. MoS is a style guide, not a rule, this is exceptions to all rules, Eagles . . . but I was not trying to be in anyone's face, I was simply showing there are no hard and fast rules that have to be followed here as was suggested by Bender. This, like ALL wiki articles is the subject of all Wiki rules and IAR is as valid as MoS. It seemed to be hat bender got dug in and was going to do it even though there was a consensus against it. If I am bending IAR out of proportion, I'd like to soo HOW. I gave examples as to why MoS does not HAVE to apply to a infobox in and esoteric category. The MoS is mainly for proses, for articles, for text. And infor box is not that. To wit, this was setteled there needs to be a discussion, then a vote, since the previous consensus discused these very things and Bender had every oppotunity to comment then.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:01, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  1. MOS comprises every aspect of Wikipedia. Articles, diagrams, infoboxes, navboxes, tables, everything.
  2. For the umpteenth time: WP:IAR applies if, and only if a rule (i.e. MOS) "prevents you from improving Wikipedia". Now please tell me: where is the benefit from having "40 in." instead of "40 in", or "6′3″" instead of "6 ft 3 in"? —bender235 (talk) 19:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I've told you, the size of the infoboxes is an issue. That was part of the orginal discussion. The benefit is also more consistent with the abbreviations used in the NFL. I know you reject that, but nonethless, it is in a situation like this that IAR applies. It improves the articles by not having a infobox meant to be a small part of the article stretched to width of the page to meet a bueauarctic rule. WP is NOT a beauracracy and, with civility, you are not a beauracrat. WP:BURO
If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
It was the view of the consensus here that the inforbox AS IT IS, improved wiki. It was done in good faith by all of us. There were hard feelings then, but the consensus won out, as should occur here, right?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:40, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
What? Are you seriously telling me that replacing 6′3″ with 6 ft 3 in stretches the infobox too much? This is getting ridiculous. —bender235 (talk) 22:23, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. And you proved once again this is not about you being fair. It's about you being uncivil from jump street and not taking my suggestions serioulsly. It is about you invloking "rights" and "deadlines". How'd you feel if I said your view was rediculous. But, you got your way. You obviously don't care about my opinion anyway, why even bother calling it rediculous. But, yes, you changes, in totality stretch the box too much. Yes. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:15, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Time for a vote[edit]

Bender refuses to listen to the previous discussion and is making claims about MoS that are not more valid than WP:IAR. IAR is one of wiki 4 pillars. In this case I've stated and in previous discussions a style for the informoxes . .. not text . . . is appropriate and concise and is good reason to not be forced to use MoS. Now, if there is an ubnbiased admin who can give the chapter and verse of Mos vs. IAR, then fine. I lost in the way I wanted the inforboxes to look. There was a compromise and we all lived with it.

SO, we know how Bender feels . . . he says MoS is the most imporant issue. I say the 4 pillars are more important, one of those WP:IAR and the NFL project and it's editors can decide on our own how the infoboxes look.

What I am not comfortable with is Bender seeing the responses then uncivilly saying "there are not legitamate reasons". He is making a judgment there, that is not a fact, I have shown reasons and it is uncivil to dismiss them out of hand. Were he to even acknowledge IAR that would go a long way in estabishing his civility. He just ignores thigs, comes back, gives a deadline, then even though there was a response to his post, he ignored it. I would ay IAR does NOT allow him to ignore all posts. I find it uncivil to dismiss opposing poitns of views as "unreasonable" and saying IAR does not apply without giving specifics. I think it applies as I read it.

So, I see, more or less a deadlock. There is no consensus for change. So, until there is thigns should remain the way the last consensus had it. I welcome more reasonable discussion. I will vigoursly oppose change and I will defend WP:IAR in this case, until I can be shown a rule that says one thing outwights another, and after research I see none.

I call for a vote. I think there should be notifications of interested parties . . . and vote. WP is all about WP:CONSENSUS not one man-rule ando ne-man interpretation of one rule to the dismissall of another.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:14, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

This is an all-out edit war[edit]

I mentioned this page at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents. — Timneu22 · talk 19:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

It does raise a question[edit]

The discussion above was a long time ago. Bender was part of it, which I didn't notice. Why the change now? Why is MoS being used now when it was in force then? Had it been raised then, I would have raised IAR then because I sincerely think that the templates improve and especially maintain wiki. There were several boxes out there and no template . . . this improved wiki by being usefull of space, not taking up half a page's width. With the proposed change the infoboxes could disourage the used of the boxes, and make them dominate the article and someone else could come along and say the information in the box consists of a list and needs to be put into text. With all the possibilites of the MoS that can be used as a weapon, or a club to kind of take over. No?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:57, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

No it is not[edit]

Please dont escalate it. It's a discussion and it can we worked outBigmaninthebox (talk) 19:26, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

However, I would welcome some fairness. I feel like my point of view wasn't even being listened to. I was clear that there were issues of size, and I am surprised your so neutral. You are the one who insistend on ' and " rather than the more common - and things. I also did point out there were inconsisencies that could be addressed. However, I was outvoted and have lived with the consensus. I have no problem with Bender other than he seems to want me to repeat th same things over and over. I know he understands, but he's seemingly locked into a mode where he is the only one who matters. I don't think it is right that one guy can come in a make a change, then have that be the status quo while to discussion goes one. The current way should stand until there is a new consensus. But, I made a clear case that says your template was a improvement and that the abbreviations kept your template from becoming too wide. Therefore, IAR is perfectly appropriate im my opinion. No one is going to die if the pre draft infor boxes are askew from the MoS. It's part of W:BOLD.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:46, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Look, this is an edit war. Every time one of you edits, the other reverts. That's an edit war. I'm tired of it. As I've stated before, BMITB, I agree with your preferred style, but I do not agree with your methods. You can't say "WP:B and WP:IAR means that I can do whatever the fuck I want." But that's just about what you're saying. — Timneu22 · talk 20:21, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Nice. My methods were fine. was the one rolled over here. I was the one who tried to back up your efforts. I never used that language didn't say anything like that. All I said was let's have a new consensus before there is a change. All I said was in this case an exception to MoS was warrented and I cited the reasons and I cited WP:IAR is proof that the wiki rules are not iron clad. I was not the one who said people don't have the "right" to violate MoS. As if that had anything to do with it. I wasn't the one who repeatedly dismissed bender. He has a legitmate point, one that deserved discussion. But he way it went down was bender made a change against an existing consensus, then gave and untimatim, a deadline of 2 weeks until he "heard" something "he" decised was valid. My methods where 100% within the rules. Benders were not. Snotty's are not. They mae changes without consensus building, which is a PILLAR of wiki. Not just a guideine. IAR is a PILLAR not a guidleine. the point is simple" Sometimes exceptions are okay. Now, why don't you use foul language on me again. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:30, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

A reminder[edit]

If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:28, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

As the IAR states, it is clear that if the templates, as they are were done in good faith to improve wiki, then they are fine. There were some who didn't want the boxes at all. But, when they were rduced in size, then it was fine with those who objeced. then there was a template desigend there was a discussion about there very things. '" or - or whatever. BUt in the spirit of Wikipedia:Be bold I think the infoboxes help the articles.

What we don't want is Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy where one editor can come in and make changes and really, ignore other points of view. Bender, in my view, is not even listening, he's simply dictating. And there was a consensus, and he came in and gave a deadline. It is my opinion that the current box is the will of the previous consensus. Now, there is a stalemate, neither for nor against Bender.

Consensus building is what is needed. That's all. As long as one persons is not the sole judge and jury, a consensus can be had.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:33, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

Explain how there's a rule that makes Wikipedia worse here. — Timneu22 · talk 20:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
I said it a million times: The boxes get too big when the MoS abbreviations are used. It hurts the look of the articles. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:31, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Pre-draft measureables
Ht Wt 40-yd dash 10-yd split 20-yd split 20-ss 3-cone Vert Broad BP Wonderlic
6′ 3⅜″ 200 lb. 4.76 s 1.51 s 2.66 s 4.56 s 7.22 s 30 in. 9′ 3″ 22 rep 33
Pre-draft measureables
Ht Wt 40-yd dash 10-yd split 20-yd split 20-ss 3-cone Vert Broad BP Wonderlic
6 ft 3⅜ in 200 lb 4.76 s 1.51 s 2.66 s 4.56 s 7.22 s 30 in 9 ft 3 in 22 rep 33
Are you really trying to tell us that the latter version "hurts the look of articles"? This is just crazy. —bender235 (talk) 21:26, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes. When you do that to all the categories, Yes.
And again, way to continue your uncivil behavior. Invectives like "crazy" show a lot. Sometimes things can be subtle, can be shades of gray. You are contending that the MoS trumps all concerns anyway. You made your change. You, rather than showed respect, gave a deadline and attacked and mocked my concerns. Now, after you've bullied your way to what you want you are trying to debate the specifics, but even then you have to call me crazy. Really concerned with being civil aren't you? It's like you KNOW nothing will happen to you for being uncivil. This process, led by you is a joke. No attempt to be civil were made by you. No attempt to have a discussion was made by you. Yet, you get your way. Amazing. Facts don't amtter when you can get your way without fear of sanction.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:34, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
And look at it with the ⅜ in there. It looks bad, it is unreadable and does hurt the look. But, you never considered that. You made the change, you've won, without even making these examples first. Even you can see if someone is 6-3⅜ it is better the way the NFL Combine does is than the way the MoS does it. That 6 ft 3⅜ in does look rediculous. Case closed. My point is valid and the IAR trumps MoS. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
It looks bad, it is unreadable and does hurt the look.
Uhm, no, it does not. It looks almost exactly the same, including the width. And thus far everyone but you agreed. —bender235 (talk) 13:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I notice no one has a smart answer or an f-bomb now that anyone can see how silly the 6 ft 3⅜ in in an infobox. My way is bettr and imrpoves wiki and IAR trumps MoS in this case Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:06, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Um, it really makes no difference... Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:14, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Not sure what you mean. If you mean it makes no difference in your opinion, that's fine, But facutally, it does make a difference and if you cannot see that 6 ft 3⅜ in in an infobox looks silly, they you're just ignoring what is plain to see. There is no need for the extra symbols in an infobox. The MoS is a guideline, not a rule, and they way the infox was before was more clear and concise, neater and cleaner looking, ESPECIALLY when fractions of inches are used. If you won't admit it, fine, but it is clear. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:52, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
I meant that the 3/8 looks the same in both versions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:02, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


I suggest that a vote take place. I suggest, since this is an obsucre thing and many NFL editors have not even found theri way here, that it be for the next couple of months. Obviously comments can me made as well. That way, no one gets blindsided and if the vote is for a change, then so be it. That would be the new consenssus. I think there are at least a dozen or more editors who would be interested in it.

Place vote below[edit]

  • Support change to "ft." and "in." per WP:MOSNUM. The Manual of Style exists for a reason. I don't see anything particularly special about this infobox which would necessitate making an exception to the established conventions. I also don't see how this change prevents anyone from improving the encyclopedia, and therefore I don't think WP:IAR is relevant here. FYI - I found out about this discussion at WP:ANI. SnottyWong speak 21:36, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I see you declared a consensus and reverted it to the new way. How did you come to the conclusion there is a consensus? While I was away for a few hours there was a new consensus because you showed up? WOuldn't it have been better to allow those in the NFL project to fine their way here? Do you think a few hours was enough? Maybe even a day might have been better, no? Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • I think you should invite other members of WP:NFL to join in this discussion via their talk pages, because I doubt any of them will just stumble to find this discussion by accident. While I still don't agree with your arguments, I think it would be fair for others to weigh in as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I dunno. Maybe. I was rolled over here. I don't mind you or anyone disagreeing, in the end consensus might have ruled in favor of bender and snotty. But, it would have been nice to have had more involved. I was going to do that . . . that's why I suggested that there be a vote over the next two months. But, whatever. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:16, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
No one ended the discussion. Just because I changed the template to conform to the MOS (and current consensus) doesn't mean that the discussion can't continue. I only did that because the general opinion of just about everyone (indeed, everyone but you) is that the infobox should conform to the MOS. It seems consensus is clearly swinging in one direction quite rapidly. If, after later discussion, it appears I gauged consensus too early or incorrectly, then I have no problem self-reverting. SnottyWong yak 13:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
You did, but changing the template. You don't know the issues, you came here from AN/I. If there are others who come here, you won't be around to self revert, you'll be editiong things you find interesing. You actions were done is haste and you simply did not have time to comprehend what was going on. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Support change. BMITB, you need to read the policies you spit out more carefully. WP:IAR does not apply to everything that has ever been disputed. WP:MOS is a style guide, not necessarily a rule, that should be followed most of the time (which includes right now). WP:BOLD does not apply in this case, either, since someone decided to be bold and change the template to reflect the style guide, when you just reverted those edits. WP:BURO as well does not apply, because one user is not controlling this template. He is making the changes based on MOS, and others, including me, have agreed with the changes. Also, was there really a point in repeating your argument over and over again under different headings? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • It is necessary to repeat because right below yeat another bender post where he is claiming that he's heard "no valid reason", which is his dismissing a valid point because WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It is one thing to disagree, that is always valid. It is another to dismiss valid points and repeat "I've heard nothing". He's been disrespectful to my point of view from jump street. It is not uncivil to disagree. It is uncivil to dismiss as though the other persons POV is not valid. You've make your vote, no need to pile on.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 00:53, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Futher, I understand IAR do not apply to "everything that has ever been disputed". Never said it did. I say it applies here. All of your other arguments are really just flipping who did what. The bold was those of us invloved in making iwki better. Bender came in and gave a deadline "controlling" and refuses to even acknowledge a difference in opinion "uncivil" and invoked "no on here has the RIGHT". Rights? What rights was he talking about? How does that help? Rights? Like the ones man gets from God or the rights man gets from governemnt? This is wiki, it has rules and guidelines. I made a legitmate point about why the MoS is not 100% necessary in all cases and said IAR backs me up. Since this is football and certain weights and measurements have been used, a excepion is warrented. Not only that Bender has repeated his point over and over and has yet to address the width, the length and size of the inforboxes. One person has been a WP:BURO by citing MoS over and over. Yet does not even acknowledge (as you have) that it is guidleines and not law. He, and no one has addressed the specifics of the size of he template due to the proposed changes. So, when you are throwing stones at me because I may not be the most articualte person in the world (I am not) remember what really happened and I hope this post serves as a reminder. When you find substance for a change and not just a beaurcratic need to follow MoS, then let me know.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:02, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Obviously support to make this template meet WP:MOSNUM. I've heard no valid reason why this move would harm the appearance of the template. —bender235 (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
  • Sir, you have heard them, you refuse to talk about the specifics, I ask why not? You have not refuted one single intance of why dogmatic adherance to MoS supercedes the width and look of the template. If you win, the template will take up even more room and will harm the look of the articles and give too much emphasis to a table. Also, there is already an inforbox that had the height and weight that adhere to the MoS to the upper right. This template is differnece because it is to report the results of players at the NFL combine and/or NFl Pro day. As such, heights are measured more specifically, 6'1¼" for example. The MoS will make these wider and wider. All of these are valid reasons. Though you may disagree, it would be nice if you said you disagreed rather than dismiss my concerns as "not valid" Who is the judge of what is or is not valid? You? You alone?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Do NOT support change. I do not like the words being traded here, but the fractions do not work in the template. The previous way is betterRamsfansince1969 (talk) 20:58, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
If you look at the comparison between the templates, you will see that the fractions are the same in both. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:05, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
Fractions were never part of the argument. SnottyWong converse 22:01, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
I prefer to stay out of the fracus. But I think previous iteration is better. I have looked at the things I like to edit and the infobox should't be too wide. I've looked and read all of the posts and I don't want to be part back and forth between parties. But, I don't support any change and my vote stays the same as my September 27, 2010 post. Thank you. Ramsfansince1969 (talk) 21:32, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
I vote against the change I like the old wayRussFrancisTE81 (talk) 02:07, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
Per WP:IDONTLIKEIT, this is not a valid argument. Is there a specific reason why you don't like it? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:11, 30 September 2010 (UTC)
rude response by you.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 21:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
How? Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:29, 1 October 2010 (UTC)


User Snotty wrong changed it to the way bender wants it anyway and cites a "consensus". I called for a vote and before I could even enter a vote the template is changed anyway.

It is clear to me this is not an excecise in fairness. There may be many people who would want to vote over the nexgt while, I suggested a couple of months since this is a small topic, but one guy can come here from the WP:ANI and makes a change.

Great. This is not a fair process. There has not been on refutation of the points I made about the look and size of the template. there has been legitmate debate as to wether WP:IAR applies, I disagree with those points and was awaiting further points, but this is a set up. This is nothing more than me be attacked for having a point of view that happens to think MoS can have exceptions. I have contributed to the NFl prject and have helped some things, but if one can be run over like this, then there is no point to even contributing. If I make good-faith efforts to explain how NFl measurements have been done based on decades of experience, they are dismissed as not valid.

I say the if any adminitrator looks at this they will see the unfairness and comment on that. A vote was called fro an within a few hours it is majority rules, not a consensus built. Congrats. You are very powerful.

How is there a consensus? Who says so? Snotty? This process is a joke. If Wiki is people saying rules, MoS are more important that improving Wiki with a small, concise template then you can have it. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Every comment of yours doesn't require a new subsection[edit]

If other editors comment here and take your side of the argument in the coming months, then we can reevaluate the consensus and change the template if necessary. However, it's becoming increasingly obvious that you're the only one that holds your opinion. Just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it's not "fair", or that people are running roughshod over the process. Just calm down, we're talking about the difference between a total of about 4 characters here. I think the entire table got about 15 pixels wider. Time to move on and find something more important to deal with. SnottyWong communicate 04:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

I think you are just covering your tracks. You ran roughshod over the process and I pointed that out. Exactly, 4 characters and in the past we worked through a lot of things without you. You came here as a result of seeing a post on AN/I so you interest in this process was dubious. I've never seen you edit an NFL article. Besides. You say "15 pixels wider". That is after you already made the change. If you think this was a fair process then why are you now making a valid point? Had you made that point before you came here and acted as the new sheriff in town I might trust your view, but this process was a joke. I suggested that there be a month long or two month long vote . . . sicne this is about NFL draft boxes and the draft is next May . . . that it didn't have to happen this second. But, bullies often have to have things their way right now. Congrats. You got your way. You're quite a hero.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
I probably never have edited an NFL article before, but how is that relevant? How does that make me ineligible or incapable of determining how to apply crystal clear MOS guidelines to an infobox? I think it's more than obvious that the disagreement you're having here is over an extremely minor issue, and I didn't think I needed to actually point that out. It's unlikely that you're going to be able to find many more people who are willing to spend their time reading the history of this page and providing their opinion on such a trivial issue. Therefore, there is no reason to drag this out for months. Several seasoned editors have given their opinons above, and it appears to be pretty unanimous. Again, the discussion doesn't have to be (and truly never is) over. If consensus changes in the coming months, then the template should be changed. If you lobby to modify the MOS so that 6'1" is the standard over 6 ft 1 in, then the template should be changed. Anyway, that's all I have to say about this, so if you like, you may have the last word. SnottyWong communicate 13:17, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
It is relevant because you didn't come here out of interest, you came here to fight. I understand this is a small issue, which is among the reason, in this case, IAR trumps crystal clear MoS. The principle here is a big issue, that of following proper consensus building, civility, and the pillars of wiki, which you violated by declaring things for which you didn't have authority. There was no "new" consenssus" and you acted anyone. There was not a fair, reasonable amount of time when you hijacked this issue by taking sides and making the change you did. You actions were those of a bully and not of a seasoned editor. And this process here mocked my legitimate conerns and changes were made without following the pillars. Be proud of coming here are laying down the law, because that's all you did. Walked into a situationm made a SNAP decesion, wihtout any proper NFL knowledge and therefore not a understandoing of what the issue is. You came here to hurt me and to back up those who have elevated MoS over a wiki Pillar of IAR, which ALWAYS applies. It is cute, though, offering me that last word. When you beat someone down and break their jaw, do you do the same? You made the change you wanted, it is stands. You, sir, GOT the last word.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
At this point, it isn't an NFL discussion, and you can't tell someone that their opinion is wrong because they aren't a part of the project. Everyone is allowed to voice their opinion, especially when the discussion is not about a specific topic. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
There is an NFL aspect, because we are dealing with NFLcombine. So, while anyone can comment, those who know the NFL would be able to understand the specific weights and measures associated with the NFL. Snotty came here to fight and lay down the law aand acted so fast asd to suggest that it was not done in good faith. That is known as wikistalking.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:29, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Honestly, I don't want to continue this, but I'm getting a little tired of the baseless accusations. I didn't "come here to fight" nor did I "lay down the law" nor did I act as the "new sheriff in town" or any of the other assumptions of bad faith you're making. You're aware that I'm not an administrator, right? As you continue your argument here, be sure to keep in mind that no one has agreed with you yet, Bigman, and this discussion started on September 10th (over 2 weeks ago). That's an important detail that you're in denial of. You can suggest a month-long discussion all you want. If four or five people disagree with you and no one agrees with you, then there is no point in dragging a discussion out for weeks, especially over such a trivial detail. And you clearly have no idea what wikistalking is. Try reading WP:STALK. To my knowledge, I have never edited an article that you have been involved with. Now, let's wipe off the tears, wrap up the temper tantrum, and get on with our lives. SnottyWong gossip 03:03, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Yes you came here to fight and are continuing to do so. You can get on with your life by all means, no one is forcing you to reply. You made a change, declared a consensus all in your first minutes here. That's what you did. You don't care about football and have never posted about football until you looked an AN/I and came here. Had there not been that, you'd have never been here. So, why are you still here? Move on with your life. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:50, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
The way heights and weight are listed is not specifically decided by WP:NFL editors, which is what this discussion is about. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Not really, this discussion was supposed to be about the infobox, only there was never a discussion, there was action taken by bender and then backed up by snotty. Only after they got their way was there a small amount of disucssion. Tha process was a joke in terms o what wiki is supposed to be about and what occured was a few people worship the MoS at the expense of IAR and a concise infobox with as few words and symbols as possible. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 04:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
Let's not continue to go around in circles. IAR is not a catch-all excuse to do whatever you want (and this was already explained to you by other editors on this very page). In order to use IAR as a justification, you need to show how following the established MoS rules prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia. You have not done that to anyone's satisfaction. Your claim that it makes the infobox too wide has been refuted and rejected by multiple editors. So, once again I suggest that we drop the argument and end the temper tantrum. SnottyWong talk 06:43, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Can't follow this page[edit]

The one-section-per-comment idea was a bad one; I have no idea what the status is on the arguments being presented. Here's a summary, as I see it:

  • The argument that "ft" or "in" makes the box too wide isn't accepted by anyone.
  • There seems to be no other valid argument for making the change.

Is the discussion over yet? — Timneu22 · talk 00:51, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

I have evidence to suggest that User:Bigmaninthebox, User:RussFrancisTE81 and User:Ramsfansince1969 are all the same person, trying to mimic support for no change at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bigmaninthebox. The discussion is over, consensus is that the current version stays, since Bigmaninthebox was the only one to oppose it. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:09, 1 October 2010 (UTC)
Interesting development. So the three persons arguing against MOS conformity are actually one guy. Weird. —bender235 (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
And they've been feigning consensus for over a year now. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 8#retired numbers and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 8#Updated nav boxes. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:20, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent changes[edit]

Agree with recent revert. Can someone explain why the change was made? — Timneu22 · talk 20:24, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

No idea. At first I thought it was to remove the columns of unused measurements, but it didn't work. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:29, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


The template has a misspelling of the word "measurable." See the following sources on the correct spelling: [1], [2], and [3]. Cbl62 (talk) 06:47, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

  1. ^ "Steelers 2010 Draft Picks Combine Pro Day Numbers Stats". Steelers Depot (blog). April 26, 2010. Retrieved 28 April 2010.