User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 21

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

I was Dustin's Brother In Law.[edit]

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 (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 NelsonHolla! 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 (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 NelsonHolla! 01:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 05:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Adam stenavich article[edit]


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.


keystoneridin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keystoneridin (talkcontribs) 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 = | url = | accessdate = 4 July | accessyear = 2008 }} </ref>

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

Football infobox[edit]

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)


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

Yes, you have it nicely. The site has been pretty frustrating this year with a new look and site map. It used to be contracted out to 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 NelsonHolla! 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 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 and someone was good enough to post a portion of the CBA at DoubleBlue (Talk) 03:42, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Roster templates[edit]

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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 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[edit]

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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 01:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Stenavich article[edit]

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[edit]

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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 18:18, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


This bullshit with seperating the All-Pros is starting again and the user is also replacing all the 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[edit]

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.[edit]

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)


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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 02:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


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 NelsonHolla! 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)


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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 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 NelsonHolla! 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[edit]

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:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 00:43, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

That discussion was about Template:Infobox NFLretired.►Chris NelsonHolla! 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[edit]

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:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 05:42, 31 October 2008 (UTC)