Jump to content

Template talk:Infobox NFLactive/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Comments

Okay so I see you made the sandbox page. Now the thing is, I don't know how to edit these templates at all without screwing them up, so can I just tell you exactly how I envision this thing and you edit it accordingly?►Chris Nelson 06:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, so here is what I'd like to see. We can fix anything else once we get the basics down. I'm gonna start at the top of the MLB infobox going down, telling you the changes I see:
  • The name, picture, caption, team/number and position sections are fine as they are.
  • I'd like to see the Bats: and Throws: become Height: and Weight:, also make sure to add the wikilinks for feet, inches, pounds, like in the NFL template.
  • Below that, but still in the same section (NO color bar above this) I'd like to see everything from the NFL template from Date of Birth to AFL Draft. Obviously this excludes height, weight and position as these have already been covered.
  • Next section of the infobox, I'd like to see it called Career highlights and awards, and have all the stuff from the NFL infobox (CFL All-Star through Records)
  • Next section, called Selected career statistics. The options to add or remove stat categories and values. Basically, make this identical to the MLB infobox, where we can change each entry's stat and add more if we want.
  • Finally, the Teams section. I prefer the NFL Infobox method (years THEN teams) in that regard, so I'd keep it the way it is.
That's it for now. Once this is done and I get a visual we can make tweaks as needed. Thanks for all your help! ►Chris Nelson 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
It's cool. Definitely no hurry. Thanks for your help on this one. ►Chris Nelson 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No problemo, I made databasefootball optional on [[tl|NFLretired}} so that if don't use pfr you can use dbf

I'm going to start working on this now. We'll see what we can come up with. Jmfangio| ►Chat  00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool, I can't wait to see what it looks like. I appreciate your help.►Chris Nelson 00:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
What do you mean?►Chris Nelson 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • The time sensitive nature of statistics in sports is not ideal for infoboxes. List of leaders and things of that nature is one thing, but it is impractical to rely on wiki for reliable statistic information. With the proliferation of stats, and the various wiki guidelines that speak to using "current event" information, we're best off just providing a link to a stats site. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah I guess we can just have the links. Leave out DatabaseFootball though, they haven't updated since like 2004.

It's looking great man. A couple of things I've noticed:

  • We need a thing for birthplace, prefer right with or below the birth date.
  • Past teams should just be teams. Yes, the current team is prominently listed near the top, but it doesn't say how long they've been with that team, and in this regard we need to go with the MLB Infobox approach, just having it as Teams.
Also, how can I paste this somewhere, like my sandbox, so I can fill one out and see how it looks?►Chris Nelson 04:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Cool, it's looking good. We still need the links for feet, inches and pounds in the height and weight, although I know you aren't done, and I think for the birthplace we could just put Born: February 12, 1974 in Atlanta, Georgia on that one like or something.►Chris Nelson 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Ht & Wt. are on my todo list. Ft. & Lbs. are not widely used so there will be a translation piece. As for birth location, i think it's superfulous information that doesn't add a lot to the box. Most infoboxes leave that out see: Mikhail Gorbachev for example. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things I did:

  • Removed the link from the current team near top, at least for me the my active link color conflicted with the infobox color. The team doesn't need to be linked there anyway.
  • Made the position bar plain white rather than the primary color the the same reason above.
We also need to add the player name to the top of the infobox.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjnelson (talk • contribs)
The players name will autofill, because the template is on my subpages, that is the "name" being used. It's the same technique. The positionbar and what not also use templated colors. If you change the colors, it changes the text. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:44, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, it doesn't help to have the two of us editing this at once. Your changes are confusing me because changes I intend to make are done out of order. If you want to do the rest of this, that's a-okay, but let's not both edit it. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh okay, sorry. That was about the extent of my template-editing capabilities.►Chris Nelson 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Looks like Tom Brady has been updated with new infobox. Things I've noticed so far (haven't read the discussion above yet):
  • The debut should probably be removed
  • Pro Bowls/Awards should probably be listed by year like before. Just remember that this format: 2006 - as the 2007 Pro Bowl was played for the 2006 season. Pats1 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Why would you remove the debut? Many players have not appeared the first year after they were eligible. Willis McGahee is a good example, as is Tom Harmon. What is the benefit of listing out each year a player made the Pro Bowl? I can understand it if the player makes one or two pro bowls, but in the case of someone like Anthony Munoz or Peyton Manning, the list can get really long. Jmfangio| ►Chat  21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
The data isn't as easily accessible as it is in the MLB. There's also active and inactive players on gamedays. Do we give their debut for when the player is on the 53-man roster? When the player is on the roster for a game? When the player is active for a game? When a player plays in a game? This information is very difficult to find for NFL players - it often takes snooping around NFL gamebooks and such. It's just too much of a hassle. Now, as far as just using the year goes, the same argument can probably apply. What if a player is on the 53-man roster for an entire season but isn't active for any of the 16 games? What if a player is active for all 16 games but never actually sees the field in any of them? How do we deal with the 3rd QB rule? And as far as Pro Bowls go, that's where linebreaks come in (see: Junior Seau). But I think listing all the years is more specific and gives better information that usually isn't found in the article. Pats1 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Think we're over copmlicating the issue a bit. That being said, I think this is something we can discuss. I think you treat this like they do in the MLB. When a player appears in a game, he has debuted in the nfl. I'll go ahead and make this an optional field to cover players who have not debuted yet. The job of an infobox is to standardize information and summarize the content of the article. If the article fails to address the pro bowl, then the article needs to be enhanced. I don't think we want to get in the habbit of listing every year for every award as that will get to be tedious AND make the infoboxes excessively long. Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Again, that information isn't as easily accessible as it is in the MLB. There's websites like Baseball Reference and Baseball Alamanc that give that information, but Football Reference or JTSW doesn't. It simply is a pain in the ass to find, especially for lesser players who are inactive every other game. It's way too much of a hassle to deal with when adding this template to 1,500+ articles. Pats1 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaving out debut dates is the best strategy. This isn't baseball where there are levels of minor leagues to get through, if you're drafted you'll probably play fairly soon if you make the team. The years located in the Teams section are sufficient, and if people want specifics they can: a) read the article; or b) visit a stats link likely to be found in the article.►Chris Nelson 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, we really don't need the two sets of colors. Every title of each section should just be the same scheme, not reverse or otherwise.►Chris Nelson 04:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't agree with you at all about the debut dates. Again, I have pointed to two athletes who did not debut until well after they were drafted. Both of them are fairly notable and Harmon in fact, was out of football for 5 years before he suited up. There are more NFL players where this applies. McGahee should be listed as a member of the bills from 2003-2006, but he did not debut until 2004. I don't think it's a problem to make it optional, but I'm not inclined to remove it at this time. I welcome more input on this, but I don't see how the minor league argument applies here. Also, as for color schemes, I'm actually inclined to remove colors all together right now. I think that will eliminate any NPOV arguments that could popup and would be more inline with most other infoboxes on wiki. You can view Ronaldinho or David Beckham for football/soccer, Kevin Garnett for basketball, John F. Kennedy for world figures. Jmfangio| ►Chat  07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I think you're still missing the point. What if McGahee was inactive for all 16 games in 2004? Would you list his debut date/year as 2004? What if he was active for 1 game but was a DNP for it? Would you list his debut date/year as 2004? Here's another question: What year/date did, say, Stephen Neal debut? This information isn't easily accessible - I only know it because I'm a PatsFan. Imagine the amount of research that would have to go into getting debut years/dates for 1,600 or so players in the NFL. Pats1 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you. If McGahee didn't play in a game, then he would not debut that year. A player debuts when he appears in a game. As for Neal, I was able to do a google search for him and the first result i got was this. It's pretty clear his debut was in 2002. Jmfangio| ►Chat  13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
And how is there any guarantee that you're going to find that information for half of the NFL players, nevermind all of them? Digging through 1,500+ player biographies, especially for lesser players which may not have one is something I can guarantee Chris isn't up to doing. Just leave it out - it's something much, much easier to do for the MLB than it is for the NFL. Again, we're only copying template style here, not every little detail of the MLB template. Pats1 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1. There is no debate over color schemes since they are current players.
2. Debut year is not needed because the info should be in the article anyway.
I gotta say I really wasn't expecting for any debates about this, I just needed someone to help me create the infobox I envisioned.►Chris Nelson 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm not exactly sure why you would open a discussion on things and then ignore other's comments. Pats1 has an opinion about the colors and it should be heard. It would appear that all three of us had different opinions. By an extension of your latest argument, no infobox is needed because the that info should be in the article. Many players are drafted in the nfl but don't see action until a later year. Many players are signed to NFL contracts, but don't get into games until much later. Stephen Neal, mentioned previously, is just one example. Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that Pats1 and I are in agreement on this.►Chris Nelson 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned that only one color scheme be used throughout. Please move this template to one of your user pages and you are welcome to do what you want with it. To assist you, here is the link to the last version you seem to like. You might want to look at addressing the article titles with a full on discussion, not subversively through the infobox. Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
You lost me. I think Pats and I are in agreement on all things from what I can tell. But what are you talking about?►Chris Nelson 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
For the record, I mentioned at WP:NFL (or someone's talk page - I forget) that I thought there should be a rather neutral color scheme, like there was before with LightSteelBlue with black text.

Name

Dude, please stop undoing my edit. My edit is the ONLY way it can be. Taking the name from the title is simply not logical. If we do that, some articles won't just have the name in the title of the infobox. Some will be Jason Taylor (American football player) or Steve Smith (Carolina Panthers). You know as well as I do this is not the way it should be. Having a field for the name corrects this, and it is why the current NFL and MLB infoboxes do this. There should no debate about this.►Chris Nelson 22:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I didn't see it on the thing you copy and paste, so I was unaware. A few other things:
  • When I go through and update all the infoboxes once the season begins, I plan on listing pro bowl years and things like that.
  • We REALLY need to stop the alternating colors things. Some color schemes won't work reversed or with secondary colors, so there is no point in doing it for some and not others. When I go through them, I will keep the colors the same. So I'm just saying it's pointless to keep it this way now.
  • Please write present rather than current when listing the current team in the section. Think of the years in parentheses as a time line, in which case present is more appropriate. Whether we italicize it or not is another issue, but present fits better.
►Chris Nelson 23:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Undrafted free agents

The current infobox does not really accommodate a place for undrafted free agents. Is there any way we can have an optional field where it replaces the NFL draft thing and instead says something like Undrafted free agent (2002) or whatever? Simply leaving out the draft thing for UDFAs is not very clear, and someone not familiar with the infobox might not know what its absence signifies. Plenty of UDFAs contribute to NFL teams and have careers of decent lengths, so there needs to be something in the infobox showing this info.►Chris Nelson 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Good thought. The third situation I can think of would be for like the Todd Lowber's of the world, who never entered into the NFL draft but caught on with teams as tryouts. Pats1 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Present vs. current

I'm not trying to hurl accusations, but it seems you're fighting me on everything even if there's no consensus yet. So let's take this one issue at a time. Present vs. current when it comes to listing a player's NFL teams in the infobox.

Why it should be present: The years in parentheses represent a timeline. So-and-so was on the Dolphins from 2001-2002, the Patriots from 2003-2004 and now the Cowboys from 2005 to now. Just an example. The word current, in this form, is an adjective. There is no noun form of current, at least not relating to time. Present, meanwhile, is a noun. It is a time. It is now. Years are also nouns, 2002 is a thing, a noun. This is why the infobox should say 2002-present because technically it does not make sense to use current. This might be confusing, but logically this is the way it should be so please don't fight me on this one.►Chris Nelson 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm not the one jumping around on issues. The present vs current thing is actually a non-issue. I just forgot to leave that in during the edit (but not here). Please don't hand out english lessons on here. Editors are not likely to respond well to that and may take offense to that. Jmfangio| ►Chat  23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay fine. settled. Please use present from now on, since it is more grammatically correct.►Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Next issue...

Listing out highlights/awards

I am in favor if listing out Pro Bowl and things of that sort rather than just putting (x3) or whatever. You obviously are not. I feel even the most accomplished of players won't have an infobox unnecessarily long just by listing these out, and I for one prefer this info near the top when I visit an article. So what do you we do since this is split? Take a poll somewhere?►Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Please review WP:STRAW for how polls can be run. It is not merely an issue of pro bowls, it is an issue of all awards. Specifically regarding pro bowls, there is a general problem with how they are displayed. Whether you agree with [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]] or the [[2007 Pro Bowl|2007]], you might see how this issue will continue to cause problems. The easiest way to satisfy both sides is to compromise by simply listing the quantity. Order of awards listed is really like splitting hairs. There is just no way to satisfy everyone. As a good practice, focus on making sure the content that is important is included. Focusing more on that and less on specifics will allow everyone to get along a lot better. Jmfangio| ►Chat  00:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no debate over how to present Pro Bowls and their years. If a guy makes the Pro Bowl for his performance in 2006, everyone, the national media, the team itself, refers to it as a Pro Bowl selection in 2006. It doesn't matter if it's in 2007. Putting 2006</nowiki> is actually not confusing at all, because it gives one the impression that a guy was voted to the Pro Bowl for his performance in 2006 (which is correct) and clicking on the wikilink takes them to the appropriate game. There should be no issue here.►Chris Nelson 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It is very confusing. You have to understand that not everyone has the familiarity you and i have with the topic. You might want to view WP:NOT as a way to see how others might view the topic. Let's assume that a player was an MVP of the Pro Bowl that was held in 2007. Should we say 2006 in the infobox? I would find that a) incorrect and b) confusing. If a player made the pro bowl in "2006", but was mvp in 2007 - most people are going to be very confused by that. This argument can also extend to how bowl games are dealt with. That will cause the same kind of problems. Jmfangio| ►Chat  00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No one ever complained about the current infobox. Isn't that enough to keep things the way they have been for the most part? I mean really, if it was THAT bad a policy, to list Pro Bowl years out, don't you think you'd see tons of complaints on the WP:NFL or infobox talk pages? I almost just want to scrap this whole idea. I appreciate your effort, but I think I should have gotten someone with no real interest in football, because all I was looking for was someone to help me create the template I was envisioning. This has become much more problematic than I expected.►Chris Nelson 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It isn't necessary to cite WP pages - both Chris and I have been around here long enough to understand the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. But more importantly, I disagree with you here. First of all, what do bowl games have to do with the NFL? That's entirely college football, something that isn't going to be discussed here. There hasn't been any problem with listing Super Bowl championships - by their roman numeral, as seen in Category:National Football League team templates - so there's no need to fix it if it isn't broken. Secondly, what do you mean by "Pro Bowl in 2006, MVP in 2007?" The NFL MVP for 2007 won't be announced for another 6 or so months. Honestly, I haven't and I still don't see any problem with [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]]. This is clearly demonstrative on the front-end that a player made the Pro Bowl for his achievements during the 2006 NFL season (note: it's not called the 2006-07 NFL season). Jmfangio - there's really no need to reinvent the wheel with this new template. The last one was fine in many aspects, but needed a bit of an organizational boost from the MLB template. That doesn't mean we have to follow any guidelines whatsoever set forth by the MLB project team. Pats1 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I honestly don't see any problem with using the format from before. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 95% of the players in the NFL don't have any awards to speak of, nevermind Pro Bowl appearances. And why use (x3) when you can be more specific without adding anything unneeded to the page? Pro Bowls are a significant mark of achievement for a player. For example, listing [[Pro Bowl 2001|2000]], [[Pro Bowl 2007|2006]] (guess what player that comes from...) is much more informative than Pro Bowl (x2). In this case, Adalius Thomas (whoops, gave it away), went to two Pro Bowls over the course of 6 seasons. "x2" would only tell a reader that Thomas went to 2 Pro Bowls in his 7-year career. But did he go to both of those back in 2000 and 2001 and is washed up now? Or did he go both of these in 2005 and 2006 and is a rising star? In Thomas' case it's neither - further proving my point. Pro Bowls (and other awards) can tell a great deal about a player's career and his times of successes. Pats1 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Pats1 I said Pro Bowl MVP. While you say it isn't necessary to review various wiki guidelines and policies, these are crucial aspects of constructive discourse. What you take away from an infobox is not going to be the same as what others take away from an infobox. Awards do tell a great deal about a player. But there is no way to universally communicate what that is in an infobox. Chris' I am sorry you find this process frustrating to you. If you would like to create your own template, please do so.
  • I am not sure why you guys are as so frustrated by this. If you like how the current infobox is, then why discuss a new one? Additionally, {{tl:Infobox NFL player}} was created back in late 2005 ([1]). Things have changed since its' inception and I think the template is "broken". The best way to be able to create a template that exists as you want it to is to do it yourself. I hope that if you do so, you consider outside input from people who are fresh to the topic. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So you change the format to [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]] (MVP). What's so hard about that? Pats1 01:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, there are some problems with the infobox. DatabaseFootball links, no jersey numbers, lack of accommodation for undrafted guys. But you aren't fixing the things that were broken. You're fixing things that weren't. The Pro Bowl representation wasn't broken and was widely accepted and unchallenged. But you're changing it. I was looking for someone to help me create the template I envisioned so that I may propose it to the NFL project. I was not looking to completely change everything. You'll notice both of my requests for this template were just things carried over from the old one. These are things that don't need changing.►Chris Nelson 01:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Per my suggestion, perhaps you should create your own template. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

And what purpose does that serve? I'm not creating it for me, I'm trying to make one that can be used on all NFL pages. I don't want to make different versions to compete against on another in different articles, and I'm not very good at making templates anyway.►Chris Nelson 01:18, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As Chris said, that serves absolutely no purpose, and you know it, Jmfangio. Just because there's disagreement doesn't mean there has to be competition. That's pointless. Pats1 01:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Why are you attacking me? I disagree with you guys and am looking at this from a non-biased perspective. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We're not attacking you. But you're taking this thing too far and making changes that don't need to be made. There was a lot good about the old template, more good than bad in fact. Why did you even agree to get into this project with me? I wasn't looking to totally re-do the template, I just wanted to add some things and clean things up. Some of your changes are unnecessary.►Chris Nelson 01:48, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
First off there is confussion with the Pro Bowl. For an example when I put down for someone that went to the 2007 Pro Bowl I would name the link as 2006, then many times afterwards people change it to 2007, I then decide for the 2007 Pro Bowl I would call it 2007 but people still change it to 2006.
The new template is much better, it looks better, its more easy to read off of, and its more organized, whats the big deal in using this one? --Phbasketball6 01:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The talk page discusses plenty of those issues.►Chris Nelson 01:52, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
But here's the thing: it wasn't like this before, and no one seemed to mind. Sure every now and then, someone that didn't know would make an incorrect edit and change a Pro Bowl year. That's why we fix things. But it was not a common enough problem to change this thing. Look at Junior Seau. It's organized, it's accurate, it's great. Jmfangio, can't you please just help us make the old NFL template modeled around the MLB one? There weren't that many problems with the NFL one, we don't need to go nuts. Please, just stop making unnecessary changes.►Chris Nelson 01:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

But there are many articles of NFL players that went to Pro Bowls that have the (Example) 2007 Pro Bowl article link as either 2007 or 2006. If the person wants to see the years that they went to the Pro Bowl they can just click the link pro-football-refernce. --Phbasketball6 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pro Bowls are NOT confusing! If you see them incorrectly, then fix them. If someone makes a mistake, fix it. the end. There is nothing controversial about presenting the Pro Bowl years this way. The years are accurate, and they take you to the right Pro Bowl article. This needs to be just left alone? I swear, not that anyone cares but I'm about two seconds from leaving wikipedia all together. I asked Jmfangio for help in making this template to add stuff like the jersey number, get rid of the databasefootball link, things like that. Nothing major. And now it's this whole big thing and everyone wants to change things that everyone was fine with for years. It's just really frustrating. I've had my share of run-ins here, but I truly did not expect this much controversy over this thing.►Chris Nelson 02:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
It wasn't confusing before and I don't see how it is now. The 2007 Pro Bowl is for the 2006 season. I don't think that has changed in the past 5 minutes. It's really not difficult to comprehend. And for readers of the article, they see the season, just as they would for teams played and other awards. Pats1 02:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


Beleive me I put more infoboxes for NFL players the anyone on Wikipedia, and the Pro Bowl thing is confussing, its been since I first came here. And your right Pats 1 but there are many articles out there that are different.

To Chris Nelson Yes they are and we're not going to fix every single person, and if someone who doesn't edit wikipedia but looks up information and sees 2006 for the 2006 Pro Bowl he'll think its for the 2006 season and not the 2005 season which it really is and if finding out its not true they'll hate wikipedia.

The new template is short and only shows whats only neede to be shown, the old one can take up the whole page from top to bottom one the right side, and the new one only has one link (pro-football-refernce), not eight possibilites. --Phbasketball6 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

You're missing the point. It's CORRECT to list Pro Bowls this way. What are we supposed to do, never link Pro Bowls? Some people may be confused, but most won't. Most people viewing these pages know about the NFL, and know the Pro Bowl takes place the year after the majority of the season. The fact that it's hypothetically confusing to some isn't a good enough reason to change how we've done it. As for the length factor, listing Pro Bowls hardly does anything. Please see what I've done here. Can this PLEASE satisfy our dispute about Pro Bowls? I want them there, others do also and we believe they add to the article. But we also have the 12x thing, for easy access.►Chris Nelson 02:24, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I know its the correct way but different people did that to me though. I wasn't asking what if this would happen to me, I was telling you. and yea I know change it back, but I don't remember every single player that has the Pro Bowl linked incorrectly. --Phbasketball6 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)--Phbasketball6 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The Pro Bowl thing isn't the only reason why I like the new template better, and the old template takes up a lot of room like when Johnny Unitas had the old one. --Phbasketball6 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Wait Chris Nelson, you like this template here. ?--Phbasketball6 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes I do. I just don't see the harm in listing it the correct way, and fixing the occasional time an inexperienced user makes a wrong edit. If someone does change it incorrectly, and it won't happen TOO often we can message them and explain it so they know better next time. I like being able to go to Junior Seau's article see what years he made the Pro Bowl without having to skim the article. Most of the time, a list of Pro Bowl years will NOT be found all together elsewhere in an article. This is why we need it here. Why should many of us be denied something that enhances an article because of the occasional uninformed user?►Chris Nelson 02:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

So it was only the Pro Bowl thing that you were arguing about, are we going to still use the new template, cause the Pro Bowl thing I like your way. --Phbasketball6 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That was one thing, I just want them listed. I also don't want alternating colors for sub-headings. Some team color schemes are not conducive to this, so we need to just keep it consistent (as it one color always the background, one color always the font). Also, please use present rather than current when listing a current team. Ex. Miami Dolphins (1999-present).

There's also a debate over whether the NFL debut section is necessary. Pats1 and myself don't really feel it is.►Chris Nelson 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I now agree with the way of listing the Pro Bowl. I agree with only one color and putting down present then current. --Phbasketball6 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I also feel that its not necessary for the NFL debut section, the whole time I was worried about the old template would stay and we wouldn't be able to use the new one. --Phbasketball6 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio feels it is needed because some player, a la Willis McGahee do not debut in their draft year for one reason or another. However, Pats1 and I feel the teams and years list is sufficient and that anything about him not debuting (a torn ACL from college, for example) will be in the article. I just feel like that is more for the MLB infobox, because players often go through years of minor leagues after being drafted. The NFL is not like thing, and 99% of the time an NFL player plays for his drafting team fairly soon.

I agree. --Phbasketball6 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well maybe there is hope. But Jmfangio still disagrees, and this specific template is stuck is that's the case.►Chris Nelson 02:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you please notify me when I'm able to use the new template. Thanks--Phbasketball6 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The pro bowl issue is one of the worst examples of listing out years i can see. Guys, this template is to communicate information to people learning about the players and the sport. It is not for people who already "know" everything. There is no way for either side to win here. Both sides (display year of the game vs. display year of the nfl season) have legitimate points. The best compromise is to simply list out the number of times the person has played in the game.
  • NFL Debut makes more sense on this template than it does in the baseball template. By in large, you are not on a major league roster unless you are able to play in the games. No minor league player is going to be called up to be put on the dl or any other strange circumstance. If you were on the Major League roster, you are are almost certain to get into a game. This is far from the case with the NFL. There are practice squads and all sorts of other reasons. Although I have not studied this extensively, but many NFL players who are drafted do not appear in a game their first year. I can provide a plethera of examples but let's just take a few: D. J. Shockley (drafted 2k6 - yet to play) and Khary Campbell was with Dallas on the practice squad before he ever made a debut. Personally, i would leave colors out. That being said, there is an option right now for people to display the colors they feel are appropriate. Basically, you can do what you want with that. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Poll

Should a player's awards be listed out by year for clarity or just by number for brevity? Or both?

Please add your vote with four tildes and mark your support.

  • Both - Best compromise between the two sides. A number after the award (x3) is an easy way to identify the number of times a player was awarded. Each year of the award listed (which only becomes lengthy in extreme cases) gives links to the specific award years, something that is present nowhere else on the article or would require lengthy research. Keep in mind Pro Bowl is the only award category (that I know of) that essentially has separate articles for each year. Using a format of [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]] is the best option. This format clearly demonstrates that the player won the award during the 2006 NFL season, while at the same time wikilinking to the article. The player "won" the award during the 2006 season for his play during the 2006 season. However, he did not actually "receive" (play in) the award until the year 2007, which is technically still part of the 2006 NFL season in the NFL's eyes. Keep in mind at no time has the 2006 NFL season been known as the 2006-7 NFL season. Pats1 17:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • FAULTY POLL - This is the issue:
  • Side 1 - Display pro bowl year with a link to the year in which the game was played
  • Side 2 - Display the year with respect to the NFL season it followed.
  • Compromise - Display neither and simply list the times the feat was accomplished. Jmfangio| ►Chat  18:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
As I understood it, the issue was over there should be a (x3) for Pro Bowls (your case) or the Pro Bowls listed out (Chris' and my case). But if you'd like me to vote...
Side 2 - This format clearly demonstrates that the player won the award during the 2006 NFL season, while at the same time wikilinking to the article. The player "won" the award during the 2006 season for his play during the 2006 season. However, he did not actually "receive" (play in) the award until the year 2007, which is technically still part of the 2006 NFL season in the NFL's eyes. Keep in mind at no time has the 2006 NFL season been known as the 2006-7 NFL season. Pats1 18:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Side 2 - This is the most accurate formate, and while it may be a bit confusing to the occasional user, we can always undo their revision and help educate them on why things are the way they are. There's no need to avoid enhancing the article because it will create the occasional incorrect edit. I for one would be committed to undoing these edits and educating the editors as to why we do it this way.►Chris Nelson 18:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
That is not the compromise and you know it. Your so-called compromise is the way you'd prefer. Very manipulative on your part though, good job.►Chris Nelson 18:27, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • No, the way I would want it personally is to list the pro bowl by the year that it took place - as is the standard with college football bowl games and as supported by NFL.com. It's not about what I want - it's about the content and how that impacts the end user - in this case - the reader. Both sides fail NPOV, both sides fail ambiguity issues, BOTH SIDES result in a revert. I'm beating a dead horse here. You have already asserted WP:OWN over this issue. You have already insulted me long before I said anything resembling an attack towards you. You have engaged me in an edit war...not the other way around. Either provide wiki documentation to support your "feelings" or move on. Jmfangio| ►Chat  18:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

The college bowl game issue, at least what I think you mean, does not compare. Yes, a 2007 Sugar Bowl would be called that, and rightly so. But that doesn't go against what I'm saying, because the 2007 Pro Bowl SHOULD be called that very thing. It's only the year in a player's article that must be changed, because it applies to the player's season performance. The 2007 Pro Bowl is a reward for a player's 2006 performance and their selection is required. The 2007 Sugar Bowl is not a selected reward for an individual performance. It's like the Super Bowl, it's just a championship game. The issues are not comparable.

Fortunately for you I doubt I'll ever go through the infoboxes, I've pretty much lost all motivation. But you seriously need to reexamine your life - what there is of it, anyway. You're arguing against fact, against accuracy, and you're as delusional as anyone I've ever seen. It was an epic mistake to ask your assistance on this template. All you've done is cause unnecessary problems. You make Wikipedia a worse place by your presence and actions.►Chris Nelson 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Is there a reason why the new NFL infobox uses a players pro-football-reference.com profile as opposed to their official nfl.com page? I know both are usually equally reliable, but nfl.com has better features (ex game logs, situational stats) and is, well, "official". However, P-F-R.com ranks players and and the ability to make a URL based on their one a player's name. I do not want to start other techmobowl incident, so, I would like to hear what you guys think. Thanks --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree because for someone like Tom Ashworth the pro-football-reference doesn't have stats on him because he's an offensive lineman who was never gone to the Pro Bowl. --Phbasketball6 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe there will be more stats down there at the bottom. The downside to NFL.com is that stats can disappear if a guy isn't on a team for a while. I'm sure we'll find a way to put more stats, no worries.►Chris Nelson 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

All right thanks. One more thing - I hate to go off topic, would it be possible to get rid of the table like divisions? I know the article was based of the MLB Player, but would it be possible to get ride of the little grey dividers, to make it more like the Nolan Ryan infobox? I'm not very familiar with Wikipedia's coding, so I used Microsoft Paint to make an example using Rex Grossman's infobox :-p. In my opinion it looks kinda better than the current infobox ;). --ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know anything about that either. I'd probably prefer to keep them, but I don't really feel strongly either way. Guess we'll see what others think.►Chris Nelson 03:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I would rather have the way the template is for Rex Grossman than the Nolan Ryan one because the Rex Grossman looks more official and professional. --Phbasketball6 03:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • NFL.com Stats It's an option, you can choose whichever stats site you want. NFL is powered by CBS sportsline, so i just used cbs instead of both. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Grid like - This was requested by Chrisnelson, so I left it in there. I would peronally like uniformity, but this needs to be a gathering of the whole. It's not an issue that i can see either supported or rejected by policy or guideline, so we can do this however you guys want to do it. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What are your thoughts on the Pro Bowl situation like I did with the Seau example on my subpage?►Chris Nelson 04:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[2]►Chris Nelson 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • That is counter productive. You are clearly on the side of where you identify the pro bowl by the year of the season in which it followed. That is an understandable point of view. Others favor listing the pro bowl "selection" by the year in which the game was held. Both sides have legitimate claims. While I would adhere to the later on a personal level. I cannot substantively argue the other side. The compromise is to simply identify the number of times a person was a pro bowl player. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
You have got to be fucking kidding me! There are not legitimate claims to both sides. One is right, one is wrong. Why the fuck is this a debate, and why does everything here have to be so god damn difficult? It is 100% inaccurate to say a player that played in the 2007 Pro Bowl was a "2007 Pro Bowler" because that is NOT how things are said in the media and by the teams themselves. It's like you're just trying to be difficult.►Chris Nelson 04:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
No. The 2007 Pro Bowl does exist, it happened in February. But it was for players selected to the Pro Bowl for their 2006 performance, and in the future people will say they made the Pro Bowl in 2006 referring to the 2007 Pro Bowl, because that is how it is done. That is why a link such as [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]] is perfect. The infobox correctly tells you what season they made the Pro Bowl for, and the link takes you to the corresponding Pro Bowl they took part in. There is no good argument for listing 2007 in a player's infobox in relation to the 2007 Pro Bowl, it is incorrect and misleading.~~~~ :* Please explain how someone reading an encyclopedia is required to have any such knowledge of this? CBSsportsline even calls it the 2006-2007 Pro Bowl Rosters [http://www.sportsline.com/nfl/story/9880727 here]. If things are so clear, then why do they do that? We need to come to some mutual agreement. That is why using the Pro Bowl (xTIMES) format clarifies any problems with ambiguity. ~~~~ ::You have ruined Wikipedia for me. Thanks a-fucking-lot. I just wanted your help on a template, and instead I get all this shit. So thanks. I'm done with this shit. Thankfully there's a real world out there.~~~~ :*I'm sorry you are troubled by this. I'm simply trying to help communicate information to people as effecitvely as possible. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:50, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Well you're doing the opposite, you're fucking ruining this place. Just like in the college football thing, you're making things so much more complicated than they are. You're causing problems that shouldn't even exist. You think you're helping, you're not. And don't give me that bullshit about it being my opinion and all that shit, it's not my opinion. That's the way it is, and in your head you've got it twisted. This is my last reply. Thanks for all your help on the infobox, what a fucking retarded adventure that was. I suppose it's my fault. I trusted you could help me, but I didn't know better and I didn't know you're totally fuck up everything.►Chris Nelson 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm sorry you feel so negatively. But even someone very close to your fan base (Trent Green) suffers from some of the issues I've raised here. He didn't debut in the NFL until 1997. Now i'm not going to touch that infobox right now so as to avoid further confrontation, but just because someone a) disagrees with you and b) feels that it needs to be discussed - does not make them or their actions "retarded" or "fucking retarded" and it certainly does not mean that they are "fucking up everything". Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:01, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The mistake you're making is that things aren't fucking retarded because I believe them to be. They are fucking retarded because they are.►Chris Nelson 05:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Let's not get into an intellectual debate and perhaps your choice of language could be better. I don't mind if you snap at people who harras you, follow you around, or insult you (although many on here would have a problem if you did snap), but in this case - your attitude is pretty aggressive. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:11, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Meh. Actually, I've thought it through, and I'm gonna stick around. But I'm also going to add Pro Bowls the way I previously stated, because that is the correct way.►Chris Nelson 15:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
This is incorrect. If you want to spend your live undoing trivial, incorrect edits on Wikipedia, that's your deal. But I know this is the best and only way to do this, and I know you are wrong on this. I've tried to help you understand, but can't get through to you. So as I update NFL player infoboxes, I'm going to do things the correct and best way. I have already proven why my way is correct, and if you can't get it then that's on you.►Chris Nelson 15:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You ignore the policies and guidelines that others use to improve the articles. You insult me, curse at me, and now you have the audacity to say that your "opinion" is a proven fact. That doesn't lend itself to an encyclopedia which everyone can edit. You are a big fan of the miami dolphins - so let me ask you this - why is Trent Green given the debut date of 2003 for the san diego chargers when he didn't step on to the field until 2007 for the redskins? Are you so brazen as to say that the commonly accepted definition of "debut" somehow doesn't apply here? Jmfangio| ►Chat  15:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I'm not talking about debuts. I can put up with that section if we keep it, even though I'm personally against it.►Chris Nelson 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I was, but I figured screw it. Look, I've made some concessions here, but on this Pro Bowl issue you're just going to have to come over to this side of the fence. You need to examine it logically and see that I am right, that's the only way to settle this.►Chris Nelson 15:57, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Concessions don't need to come with fuck and shit and crap and whatever other expletive you want to throw out there. I told you before, unlike others, I don't have a problem with biting people who bite you first. In this case, nobody has done anything to provoke you in the way you have reacted. You're one of the most obnoxious people I've met. Now you are telling me that your "logic" (which is yours and nobody elses) is the only way to settle this matter. You are seriously mistaken if you think that someone with your inability to rationally discuss things is going to make me "agree" by simply spitting your opinions. I brought up how bowl Games are dealt with - you discounted that; I brought up wiki documentation - you discounted that; others raised the same issue. You are the one that doesn't get it. If you want to discuss things using precedent and documentation - i'm all ears. But short of that, I don't know how you expect me to agree with you on any of these issues. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I know. I was pissed. I got frustrated, and I apologize. I do know how to argue calmly and logically, and I tried, but it just go to be so much. But here's an example:

Green was voted to the Pro Bowl in those seasons, 2003 and 2005, and that is how the Dolphins present it. But obviously the Pro Bowls took place in 2004 and 2006, respectively. So when listing them on an article, it'd be accurate to say he was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2003 and 2005, but link them to the appropriate Pro Bowls. If you're going to make me put a source right in the infobox, so be it. But I'm hoping you understand than by doing it my way, as seen in Green's case, it is all accurate. I'll source it if I have to, and if I do it will 100% back up my edit, but I'd rather not put sources in infoboxes and just come to an understanding.►Chris Nelson 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about with sources? That's how the dolphins do it, but not how every site does it. Pro-football-reference does it that way - but Sportsline.com (WHICH POWERS NFL.COM) - doesn't do it that way. here] is his profile. So while "my way is the only right way", the NFL would disagree with you. Get that crap out of the infobox. Your just going to get someone coming back in and fighting over how to display years! Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
CBS Sportsline only has one Pro Bowl listed for him at all, when he has two. Considering the source is incomplete while the Dolphins' one is not, I'd say the former should not be used in this case. There are three people, including myself, that like the Pro Bowls displayed the way I have it. Then there's you. But I'm willing to bet if you polled the NFL-editing community, the majority would land on my side. But right now, it's 3-to-1, as childish as it sounds, so I'm going to list them the right way and if you want it changed them take a poll. I don't want to be so confrontational with you, but you just can't seem to "get it".►Chris Nelson 16:21, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, it was voted on a while back to NOT link the years in the teams section. So please respect that.►Chris Nelson 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
A) Where? B) Consensus can change, so don't go around barking orders. If you want to discuss things - then i'm happy to. But i'm running out of patience with this "my way or the highway" attitude. As for your Sportsline statement - please focus on the content. The argument was not "what site" is the best site for looking up pro bowls. Your point was that your way is the only way to do it. However, the NFL relies on a site that classifies the information in another manner. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:29, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Probably on the old infobox talk page. Yes the consensus can change, but this was not that long ago and until you have proven the consensus has changed, you should respect the old poll.
2. Barking orders? I said "Please respect that." Perhaps I flew off the handle yesterday, but I've tried to be more civil today.

►Chris Nelson 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

  • So now "a while back" is not that long ago? Go provide me the link and then we'll talk. Maybe you are "trying to be more civil", but you're doing a pretty piss poor job. And after a day plus of it, i'm loosing my patience. Jmfangio| ►Chat  16:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't know where the discussion is, maybe User:Pats1 remembers. But I would think even you'd agree that one should not do the total opposite of a recent consensus until a new one (if any) is found. For now, the standing consensus is to not link those years. If you want to re-open it, then by all means go ahead. But doing the exact opposite without a new poll is counterproductive.►Chris Nelson 16:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/archive5#Links in infoboxes. Pats1 17:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Debut section optional

We need to make this section optional so there isn't ugly code for players that haven't debuted yet..►Chris Nelson 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

For clarification, I meant conditional, as in the section only appears of a year/team is added to the appropriate field's in a player article. See Ted Ginn, Jr. for what I mean, it's pretty obvious and shouldn't really need any debate. I just don't know how to implement this change.►Chris Nelson 05:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I would like to bring this issue to everyone's attention. User:RyguyMN made edits to fix this problem, although it resulted in an edit war between someone and myself for reasons I will not get into. I think it should be obvious to everyone that these changes are necessary and not at all controversial. Surely, none of you think that the debut section for rookies should contain [[ NFL season|]] for the [[]] rather than nothing, which is how the template originally did it if nothing was entered into the debut parameters.
While I can't imagine anyone having problems with solving this, I am bring it to everyone's attention again (despite no replies the first time) so that you all know I will add RyguyMN's edits fixing this back to the current version when the template is unprotected on August 2. If anyone has any objections, issues or possible better alternatives, please voice them here within the next few days. Otherwise, I will go ahead and re-implement them so as to advance the template. Thanks.►Chris Nelson 23:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:3O request

Could the request link to the relevant talk page section for clarity? Morgan Wick 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Should we maybe summarize our arguments considering this thing is so massive?►Chris Nelson 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
I had a look over the discussion, and I don't see any policy or guidelines mentioned, except maybe WP:CCC. Morgan Wick 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Oh whoops, I pointed to the wrong section - eeck - sorry for wasting your time - it's actually the Listing out highlights/awards section. I too have gotten lost with all the different topics started in such a short period of time. Jmfangio| ►Chat  19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
    (glares, mutters about splitting discussion in two places) I think the input from other parties is substantial enough to disqualify the dispute from WP:3O but I do wonder what problem Chris Nelson has with Jmfangio's "only list the number" idea. Other than that I recuse myself. Morgan Wick 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
My problem is that it is more accurate to put it the way I do, it's correct and enhances the argument. Jmfangio has to date been unable to understand that my edit is 100% accurate. I'll source every infobox I do that way if I have to, and it wouldn't be difficult at all because all media outlets and teams do it the way I do.►Chris Nelson 01:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
1. Jmfangio has already pointed you in the direction of at least one counterexample, Sportsline and NFL.com. 2. Wouldn't listing just the number and omitting the year be just as "accurate"? Morgan Wick 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

CBS Sportsline has proven to be incomplete, while other sources I can provide, ones just as reputable, are not. MiamiDolphins.com has Trent Green as a 2003 and 2005 Pro Bowler, as in he earned his selection in the 2003 and 2006 regular seasons, which is the standard way of saying things. However, those games were played in 2004 and 2006, respectively, because of where the Pro Bowl falls on the calendar. Nevertheless, it is most common to refer to a player by the regular season in which they earned the Pro Bowl. If I must, I will add the official Dolphins website as a source in Green's infobox, and from what I can tell that'd be incontestable.

You wouldn't say Jason Taylor was a 2007 Pro Bowler, because the 2007 season has not happened yet and he has not done anything in 2007 to earn a spot in the Pro Bowl for that season. It's just not how things are said in the media and by the teams themselves, and therefore not something we should do here.

Obviously, simply saying "3x Pro Bowl" is still accurate. I'm not arguing that. But listing out things like Pro Bowl years and linking them as I suggest has been common practice here since the last infobox, and went largely unchallenged. It can be proven to be both a) accurate; and b) an enhancement of the article, since I would wager the majority of articles do not have a solid list, but rather has accomplishments scattered throughout the article.

This has been common practice here for years, and for good reason. I asked for Jmfangio's help on creating an infobox, and obviously that was a huge mistake on my part as it proved to be so much more trouble than it was worth. I was not looking to overhaul the infobox and neither was anyone else. For the most part I am trying to keep intact the previous infobox, with a few minor additions (jersey numbers, etc.). Most of the old infobox was perfectly fine, and that includes linking Pro Bowl years. There is absolutely no need to change a common practice based on what is, so far, one person's preference. Until he can show the majority prefers this newer method, things should remain as they have been.►Chris Nelson 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Some food for thought:
  • I have Michael Vick's article listing Pro Bowl selections in 2002, 2004, 2005 with each linking to the appropriate Pro Bowl.
  • I have Trent Green's article listing Pro Bowl selections in 2003 and 2005 with each linking to the appropriate Pro Bowl.
  • I have Junior Seau's article listing Pro Bowl selections from 1991-2002, with each linking to the appropriate Pro Bowl.

If you head to AtlantaFalcons.com, MiamiDolphins.com and New England Patriots.com, you will see that each of these websites provides the Pro Bowl years in the EXACT same fashion as I do. Now keep in mind, Jmfangio said here that he believes Pro Bowls should be listed with the year matching the Pro Bowl year, like this: [[2004 Pro Bowl|2004]]. Under this format in Trent Green's case, the years would read 2004 and 2006 instead. Are you seriously saying we should go by what one guy on Wikipedia says over the official websites of these professional football teams that pay these players millions of dollars? Call me crazy, but I'll take the Miami Dolphins' or Kansas City Chiefs' word on Trent Green's career over Jmfangio any day.►Chris Nelson 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment:Template creation and implementation

There is a dispute about what content belongs in this infobox, how to go about making adjustments to it, and with regards to various wiki guidelines and policies. As a note, this template is currently in use at {{Infobox NFLactive}}. It was created here. 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Position

Please note that not all positions simply have an article named just that position. The position Center, for example, is located at Center (American football) for obvious reasons. If we have the link already embedded in the template, we will be unable to link that article while renaming it Center for purposes of the infobox. Therefore it is necessary to link positions ourselves. Thank you.►Chris Nelson 08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Finding this solution seems a hell of a lot more complicated than doing it ourselves. It's not really a pan for m to put a couple brackets around the word Quarterback.►Chris Nelson 08:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • There's a bigger problem with this, but I'm not fixing it until your behavior changes drastically. You know there are ongoing disputes, so it would be advisable to halt development of this until we can iron those out. Jmfangio| ►Chat  08:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris J Nelson's behavior is not the only one that needs to be changed drastically. --Phbasketball6 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Further reverts on this template today by either of you will result in blocking for violations of the three-revert rule. Pastordavid 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit Warring

  • Ok, User:NawlinWiki has temporarily protected the page. So hash it out here, what do you want changed, and why. Pastordavid 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Protected for one hour, and reverted to Jmfangio's version only because when I compared the two, that one didn't appear messed-up and Chrisjnelson's did appear messed up. I strongly suggest that the two of you use test pages (copy and paste to your userspace) and *discuss* the proposed changes before anyone makes any more changes after the protection expires. NawlinWiki 16:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And just to be clear - when the protection expires, reverting the template without consensus will get you blocked. Pastordavid 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
As I am uneducated, can someone explain to me how my edit messed things up? I edited plenty of userboxes under my edit and they all looked perfect.►Chris Nelson 17:01, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
How about we not worry about which version NawlinWiki restored, and instead talk about what you would like to change. Pastordavid 17:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Thank you PastorD, I am not trying to edit war. If this were a regular page I would have stopped, but it was a template and this was vandalism. For your information, there is a long discussion on this at User talk:Jmfangio/Template:NFLactive. I have already requested that this page was protected last night and nothing had happened. I have also started an RFC per the request from a 30. I'm not trying to fight, I'm simply trying to get the guy to slow down. Hopefully, a third party can step in and get some good discussion out of this. Jmfangio| ►Chat  17:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Can't say I appreciate my edits being called vandalism, they were obviously made with good intentions. Plus from what I could tell my edits only helped the infobox and it was never explained to me how they "messed it up." I would like Place of Birth in a fashion similar to how I had it (and Born should be changed to Date of Birth for consistency). The old template, Template: Infobox NFL player, had the Place of Birth, and until we discuss it I think it should be the same.►Chris Nelson 17:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Assuming there's consensus for the new parameter for Place of Birth, you'll be wanting to make it discretionary in order to stop it from showing up as {{{birthplace}}} on any transclusion where the param isn't specified (which will be all of them, because it's a new param.). The following ought to work (although I haven't tested it):
 {{ #if: {{{birthplace}}} |
 {{!}}- 
 {{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" {{!}} '''Place of Birth:''' {{{birthplace}}}
 }}
— mholland (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If the issue is including "Date of Birth" and "Place of Birth", this seems like a decent solution -- that is, POB will only show up on the relevent articles. Pastordavid 17:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay, so we're cool on that?►Chris Nelson 17:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

As a drive-by editor on CVU duty, I noticed this page. It seems to me that what started out as a fairly amicable collaboration has resulted in a more and more vitriolic relationship and it spans beyond just this date of birth stuff. You need to sort it out and do so civilly. (and each pointing out the other fella is the culprit is not constructive IMO) Jddphd 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the RFC be assigned to this template and not the one in your userspace? (I don't know the answer - I'm just asking) Jddphd 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The other edit I was trying to make was this one. You'll see that Jmfangio originally had whatever you put in the currentposition field link to the article of that name. Quarterback links to Quarterback, and so on. But some positions Center (American football), for example, don't work the way that template is now. Jmfangio said he had a way to fix this, but as far as I know he has been unable to. Check out Rex Hadnot. Under the way the template is now, I HAVE to put the (American football) part of the position in order to get it to link to the right place. If I just put guard, it'll go to Guard. So I thought it would be best to keep it the way I had it in order to not make current infoboxes look mess up (like Hadnot's) and that Jmfangio could figure out the solution on the template on his user page.►Chris Nelson 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I never doubted you could fix it, but I must say I didn't understand why you wouldn't just work it out on your user page's template rather than the live one.►Chris Nelson 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Come on now - let's not start. Possible solution: What about moving ALL the position names so they ALL have (American football) after them? This way you will ensure consistency. Jddphd 17:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I think that isn't the worst idea I ever heard - it provides consistency in the related article titles, and makes the template a little easier too. Pastordavid 17:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That seems pretty massive. Why not just link them ourselves? I mean we link other things ourselves in the infobox, is it really that difficult to write [[Quarterback]] as opposed to just quarterback? That was we can write [[Guard (American football)|Guard]] ourselves and not have to worry about "fixing" the template.►Chris Nelson 17:29, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Wouldn't the pipe trick be the solution to the position issue? Insert a vertical pipe (|) before the closing brackets in the template and anytime a parenthetical is in the position article name it will not be displayed; e.g.
[[Center (American football)|]] displays as Center
Hope this helps. AUTiger » talk 18:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Didn't know about that one, guess I leanred something new today. Thanks for the solution, that sounds like a good one. Pastordavid 18:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't that only apply if you're linking it yourself in an infobox? Jmfangio is trying to get it to link to the right place automatically when you just write the position in.18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Very cool, good job with that. Can we now implement that into the live template? Also, what about the location of the flag like I mentioned before? A lot of infoboxes seem to have it to the left of the City/State.►Chris Nelson 19:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest going ahead and switching out the test version with the active one. And thank you both for working this out through consensus rather than just continuing to revert. Happy editing to all! Pastordavid 19:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another issue

There is another issue with linking positions in the infobox, and it is one that I feel lends itself to the notion that we should just link the positions ourselves. Many websites list plays at two positions, for example "Center/Guard" or "Cornerback/Safety". Under our current template, it is impossible to express these positions and have them link to any correct article, at least to my knowledge. I can't say I see the harm in allowing us to put the brackets around the positions ourselves.►Chris Nelson 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This is something I have a solution for, but I'm not inclined to implement anything else until we can get through one issue. This article does not need thirty different subtopics at once. Let's get through the pro bowl issue and go from there. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
As I said before, I'm done with that issue and will not discuss it further. I have argued my point to exhaustion, and I will not let one misguided opinion prevent the enhancement of articles here. So if you don't want to help with that issue, that's fine. I'll find it elsewhere. After all, you don't WP:OWN this template. (But why do I still expect you to revert any edit made to it?)►Chris Nelson 03:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps the simplest option here would be to create a field called {{{currentposition2}}}. If someone is only a quarterback, and currentposition2 is empty, then it would just say Quarterback. But if someone is a Center/Guard you could put currentposition=Center, currentposition2=Guard and it could display Center/Guard with links to both! Does that make sense? --JayHenry 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I've got that ready to go, but there are some questions about the use of it. But I'm waiting until we get past the "pro bowl" before going any farther with those type of edits. The only reason I even opened the "color" changes door was because it was resulting in a user reverting perfectly acceptable edits. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

This is a hideously bad solution

You don't create unencyclopedic titles soley for the convenience of a single template. Quarterback, long snapper, etc, exist only within the context of American football. Having parenthetically named articles where there is nothing to disambiguate is awful. This change certainly should have been discussed outside of one template discussion page (like one of the three football Wikiproject pages) before being implemented. There are other solutions that involve only changing the template ... parser functions for example. Use #switch to see if the value is "center", "fullback", etc, then change it to Center (American football), etc. Automatically adding "(American football)" and bracketing breaks team-specific position names ... for example, we call our weakside linebacker a whip. I would like to be able to link to linebacker but display the text "whip". It is still possible to combine both worlds, though ... add a {{{currentpositionplain}}} parameter than can be used for the team-specific positions and use parser functions to correctly auto-bracket generic positions. --B 00:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Or we summon the strength to type those four brackets and link things ourselves! *GASP* 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
LOL - that's crazy talk! In all seriousness, there is an advantage to auto-linking ... it ever the article is moved, we don't have to go fix 10000 pages. But having bad names for 30 articles when only 2 of them need disambiguation is just an all-around bad idea. --B 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
That's a good point that I must admit I never thought of. Although it seems unlikely many of any positions will have their names changed. But either way, if we do auto-link it what can we do about guys listed on official website rosters as Center/Guard or Cornerback/Safety?►Chris Nelson 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
We can make {{{currentpositionplain}}} override {{{currentposition}}}. If you don't want your text decorated, use currentpositionplain=[[Guard]]/[[Center]]/[[Tuba]] player and that will display instead of currentposition. --B 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Sounds simply enough.... I think. Just out of curiosity are you going to move the articles back? I can't say I believe a discussion is needed to do so, considering they moved for a horrible reason.►Chris Nelson 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Done. They are moved back to the proper titles. --B 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • It wasn't done for the sake of this template. Looking at the article structure there was a great deal of inconsistency. This made them uniformed and was made because a) two impartial editors suggested it. b) it was supported by WP:D and WP:NC. The current solution (to have the overiding field) is ideal. I have reverted back the articles because of the existing alternative. The old positions still "work" as they are redirects. Your solution allows for both sides to "get something out of this". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

You can't disambiguate nothing.►Chris Nelson 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • This is ridiculous, you were fine with the solution the other day? I'm sorry that you have personal issues with me, but you need to get past them. I'm not going anywhere and you are not going anywhere. We both know that. If you don't want to listen to other people's opinions, I don't know what to tell you. I am going to continue the dispute resolution process with you and will make not of it on your talk page. Revert wars do not help get through these issues. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

From WP:D: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.

That says it all right there. Quarterback, and almost all football positions, are words or phrases with only one meaning - a football position. To add disambiguation characteristics, i.e. (American football) to an article whose subject has just one meaning is flat-out wrong.►Chris Nelson 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Seekeing clarity

Here is what is in the infobox right now: 

{{Infobox NFLactive
|primarycolor=
|secondarycolor=
|primarytext=
|secondarytext=
|image=
|width=
|caption=
|currentteam=
|currentnumber=
|currentposition=
|birthdate=
|height=
|weight=
|debutyear=
|debutteam=
|highlights=
|college=
|draftyear=
|draftround=
|draftpick=
|pastteams=
|pfr=
|cbs=
|espn=
|si=
}}

So the logical question is - what do you want taken out, added, or changed? Pastordavid 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much cool with the parameters. All I want is the Place of Birth thing.►Chris Nelson 17:22, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
That looks fine. Can we move the flag to the left of the city/state, seeing as how the old NFL infoboxes as well as the NBA infoboxes (and I'm sure many more) do it this way? Other than that it looks good. (And I can live with it this way, it's just a preference.)►Chris Nelson 17:33, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Also, are you sure we shouldn't just add the flag icon thing ourselves? (See the infobox code for Trent Green.) If we're going to have the flag thing in the template, we need a thing where we can edit the country.►Chris Nelson 17:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, so for when we edit someone like Mat McBriar. --Phbasketball6 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • The fields copy were just from the temporary functional version. You can now use the country field for the flag code. If you are unfamiliar with the template you can view it at {{flagicon}}. Similar to this, if we can get these other issues hashed out, we can actually use a similar technique to autofill the team colors for the box. Jmfangio| ►Chat  19:52, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Another edit to the template

We need to implement something that hides the NFL debut year and team sections if no values are filled in, so there isn't ugly code in it for rookies. (See Ted Ginn, Jr.)►Chris Nelson 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Please slow down. As I mentioned, there are a number of things that need to be hashed out before you go adding these to more players. I mentioned before that I will turn this into an optional field. As you are disputing the fact that it even belongs in the first place, we need to wait until someone takes over the RFC. Jmfangio| ►Chat  19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually I'm all for it. I think it looks good and adds to the articles.►Chris Nelson 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Resolution to Pro Bowl years

There appears to be a major unresolved issue above, namely that of Pro Bowl year reporting.

There are two aspects to this:

1. The specification of each year which a player was selected, not just how many times the player was selected.

I believe there is no disagreement on this, but please note your opposition below if there is.

2. How the year is referenced - whether it is the year in which the game is actually played, or the beginning year of the season. Is it:

A: The beginning year of the season - thus for the upcoming 2007-2008 season, the year 2007 would be used.
B: The year in which the match is played - thus for the upcoming 2007-2008 season, since the Pro Bowl would be played in 2008, the year 2008 would be used.

Chris and JMF - do you agree that this is the nature of the dispute?

If so, let's get some comments on it.

For my part, I have to agree w/ Chris. I would go by the standard that is reported on the official NFL team sites. This seems to be their convention and as such it seems reasonable to stick with this.

--Jddphd 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh crap - I've had a look around and as I see JMF has pointed out on his talk page, the official NFL site has something contrary!

http://www.nfl.com/probowl

I would have sworn that Chris' perspective on this was correct.

Now what?

Jddphd 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

NFL.com even calls them the 2006 rosters for the 2007 Pro Bowl. As I've said before, basically any team website or media outlet will refer to them as I do. this really shouldn't even be up for debate. As you can see on the pages of Michael Vick, Junior Seau and Trent Green I have provided reputable sources for each list.►Chris Nelson 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

But there are other sites that do it differently. NFL.com relies on sportsline.com for its stats. here is Michael Vick's profile page there. it is direct opposition to your claim. You can provide a source all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that this could be argued both ways. You're not wrong, but neither are the people that want it to list the years the games were played. This is the exact same situation as Bowl Games. The seasons take place in one calender year. Most of the important bowl games take place the following year. They are all listed by the year the game was played. To restate something from earlier: "First off there is confussion with the Pro Bowl. For an example when I put down for someone that went to the 2007 Pro Bowl I would name the link as 2006, then many times afterwards people change it to 2007, I then decide for the 2007 Pro Bowl I would call it 2007 but people still change it to 2006. " That was from another user. Even if we decide we like it your way, this still creates problems! Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

1. Saying a player was a 2007 Pro Bowler when he played in the 2007 Pro Bowl is VERY uncommon.
2. It is NOT similar to college bowl games. First of all, I'm not disputing the naming of the Pro Bowl articles. The Pro Bowl that happened in February 2007 should be 2007 Pro Bowl. Just like the 2007 Sugar Bowl, or anything else. But when listing a player's Pro Bowl year, it is most common to list the year they made it for. The year the regular season took place and the voting took place. Trent Green was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2005, for the 2005 season, the vote happened that fall. Whether or not the game happened in February 2006 is irrelevant. Pretty much everyone calls him a 2005 Pro Bowl selection, including kcchiefs.com, miamidolphins.com and millions of other sources if you want me to provide them. You just do not seem to understand that this is basically fact.
3. Yeah, occasionally someone will mistakenly edit the infobox and change the years to be wrong. But we'll fix that as it happens. There's no reason to avoid enhancing the article for most because of the occasional confusion of a passerby.
I am pretty much done with this topic. I have proven myself right time and time again, and I am not here to please you but rather to add accuracy and depth to Wikipedia. You can talk about wikipedia policies that don't apply all you want, but the FACTS are that I'm adding accurate info to articles that enhances them and can be sourced with the most reputable of sources. As I've said before, I'll source every freaking infobox if I have to. But the incorrect belief of one should not totally change a correct common practice.►Chris Nelson 01:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Chris, I don't think you are 100% correct here. And the fact that it's different on the NFL site itself seems to provide reasonable evidence that it's not 100% similar.

According to my research, the Elias Sports Bureau is the official provider of statistics to the NFL. Can anyone find any info from them on how they handle the reporting? Seems to me this might be a source. Jddphd 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Please show me how it's different on the NFL website. Because if you're referring to any instance of it saying 2007 Pro Bowl, that does NOT conflict with what I'm saying. Only instances of referring to PLAYER selections are relevant here. And as you can see from the Pro Bowl website, the 2007 Pro Bowl's rosters are called the 2006 rosters. Why? Because those are the players being rewarded for their performances in the 2006 NFL season.►Chris Nelson 01:35, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Chris - There is a problem with that logic. For example: The NFL MVP is named after the season is over. By your rational, the 2006 MVP would be the 2007 MVP. This is the problem with putting years with this information. If you hesitate to believe me, here is a story from January 06, 2006. It is the 2005 NFL MVP award, but the award is handed out in 2007 2006. So saying we should base this on when the award is handed out isn't consisten accross awards. Removing the years is the only way to satisfy both sides. It's a compromise. The NFL pro bowl roster sites ([3]) states one thing with regard to dates: that the game is played in 2007! Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Um... you just proved yourself wrong. The 2005 season MVP was announced in January 2006. It was Shaun Alexander and he was the 2005 MVP. By YOUR logic, Shaun Alexander should say 2006 AP MVP. But it doesn't, because that's not how things are done. Awards and honors use years for the regular season in which the accomplishments were made! That is exactly what I'm saying. It is absolutely insane we're "debating" about this. You're arguing that the sky is green.►Chris Nelson 01:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Typo fixed Chris. That doesn't prove me wrong. I'm not arguing anything, I'm not even saying you are wrong. I'm saying that there are different perspectives and the way to satisfy both sides is to avoid years. Brett Favre is going to get super cluttered if we start listing out the years. The infobox is just as summary. I'm not talking about the content of the article where context can be provided. I'm talking about the info box. Another user has already shared his experience with you on people changing things back in forth. Just get it out of there. It doesn't "harm" the article. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • And no, by my logic I'm saying it should just be left out. I'm not saying you are wrong. I'm saying that both sides have legitimate issues and this is a compromise so that the issue is done away with. Jmfangio| ►Chat  01:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's the thing. There are NOT legitimate arguments for both sides. You just believe there are, but you are mistaken. You are arguing against fact and a widespread NFL practice by the media, teams, players, fans. Whether or not it makes the infobox cluttered is a different argument, but considering Junior Seau's page, who will always have more accolades than 99% of the players in the NFL, looks perfectly fine to me.
I have tried to explain things to you as best I can, but you have been unable to comprehend these facts. Therefore I am 100% done with this argument, and will do what I feel enhances Wikipedia and its articles - with sources if necessary.
Thanks for your help on the template, you did a good job.►Chris Nelson 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • You are trying to communicate something that has been problematic in the past. Whether to list a pro bowl by year of the game or by year preceeding is not a "right" vs "wrong". It is, legitimate opinion and legitimate opinion. Therefor, we have to find an alternative to satisfy both sides. Since it's not practical to list dual years, as what might already be a long list - an alternative is to provide a summary. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:16, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris, you are citing internal links in Wikipedia to demonstrate your cause, and could just as easily have cited 2007 Pro Bowl. Meanwhile, you JMF are now saying that the listing of all the years is a problem, and I didn't see you object to it in my characterization above (though listing simply of the number of selections could be a possible way of achieving consensus here). Having said this, see below. Jddphd 05:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry if I miscommunicated. I don't mean that all years should be left out for every award. However, am I correct in assuming that's how you read it? That actually might work. I think that a standard for all awards of displaying the quantity could be good. We could easily template in a section where the person identifies the award and quantity in the template and it is autofiled on the recpective page.
  • My main problem right now is that people are looking for absolute right or wrong when there is none. Regardless of how many sites say one thing or the other: the pro bowl issue clearly creates a great deal of edit warring (see the previously quoted observation). I am not personally inclined to side with one or the other - although if I were to make a choice - it would be toward the "year of the game" side of the issue. I certainly appreciate the efforts to discuss this with the NFL, but I don't think that's going to change. Clearly there are people who agree with "year of the game". Clearly there are people that agree with "year of the season". So that's why I'm for a "third option" that is impartial. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's my take: how you name the Pro Bowl (either by year it actually occurred or the season with which it is associated) is kind of like which side of the road you drive on--one's not necessarily better than the other, but it is important that you settle on a convention. It'd be nice if there were some external convention used consistently by the media, because then the obvious choice would be to adopt it so we would be consistent with the rest of the world. But that doesn't appear to be the case, so we need to settle on our own convention. So how about a simple poll, and everyone agrees to accept it as binding?

Yeah, yeah, I know this is Wikipedia, "voting is bad", we rely on consensus and not sheer numbers--but really, that's only relevant when there is a substantial difference between the possible options. When it doesn't really matter which one we use, but involved parties can't reach a consensus themselves, perhaps a simple poll would be the best way to finally reach a decision. Kurt Weber 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

There's no need for resolution. I've proven the way I do it is better.►Chris Nelson 16:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you haven't, and that attitude is why this is still a contentious issue between you two. You can say "case closed" until the cows come home, but that doesn't make it so. The fact of the matter is, there is no generally-accepted convention for naming Pro Bowls in use in the media--all you have presented are isolated anecdotes. Please try to understand that it is not productive to enter a discussion with the assumption that you are already right. Kurt Weber 16:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
99% of the time, it is referred to in the manner I've spoken of. Occasionally, people make mistakes because they don't think it through. But almost always, it is done ONE way and that's the way I'm doing it. You guys do what you want. I'm gonna do what is correct.►Chris Nelson 16:28, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
See, what some of you don't seem to understand is that when placed in the infobox as "2x Pro Bowl selection (2005, 2006)" that is essentially a sentence saying "So-and-so was a Pro Bowl selection in 2005 and 2006." This is 100% fact and cannot be argued any other way, because the selection process DID occur during the regular seasons and it was those regular seasons that caused the selections. To say Peyton Manning was a Pro Bowl selection in 2007 is flat out wrong, because he has never been selected to the Pro Bowl in the 2007 calendar year. He was selected in 2006 and played the game in 2007, hence the way the link is set up. You have to think about how it is remembered in the future. When thinking about a past player's Pro Bowl selections, you think about the NFL seasons in which they had their Pro Bowl performances. This is why team websites do it and why basically everyone else does it with the exception of accidents. Because it is the regular season that is tied to the Pro Bowl; it is THAT season that the Pro Bowl is a reward for. I don't know how many times I can go over this, but it should not even be a debate. It's not the best way because it's MY way, it's the best way because it is.►Chris Nelson 16:34, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Sent a letter to the NFL

To attempt to find an authoritative source to address this dispute, I have asked the NFL. I sent an email from their website. Below is the text 

Hello - 
I am hoping you can help. I am collaborating on an article on the Wikipedia site related to the NFL players. There is a dispute over how to label the year a player was selected to the Pro Bowl.

One person believes the year should be noted as the year in which the game was actually played. Hence for this person a reference Peyton Manning would note that he was selected for the 2007 Pro Bowl. Let's call this the "year" convention.

Another person believes that the year should correspond to the seasons. Thus for this person the reference to Peyton Manning would note that he played in the 2006 Pro Bowl, since it was the 2006-2007 season. Let's call this the "season" convention.

We are at an impasse because people have seen it both ways on officially licensed sites. On several of the team sites they use the season convention, while on your own site you use the year convention.

If you are interested, the text of the dispute is here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive

We ask for your help - your official help. We need an authoritative word if there is one, and we are hoping you can lend some clarity to this.
Please feel free to comment directly on that page, or email me back if you'd like. 
Thanks in advance.

((my name))
(on behalf of several editors at Wikipedia)

Jddphd 05:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

  • Just read this, and I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure that the "official" take on it will resolve the issue. People fall on both sides of the issue. As I said, I could go either way. But that isn't the point. The point is that this information is contentious and will continue to be so. Removing the actual years and placing a quantity qualifier is both impartial and accurate. The same cannot be said for the other methods. I welcome an alternative solution, but I don't see how saying "this year" over "that year" will help. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
How is that a compromise? That's what you've been asking for since the beginning. It's only a third side to the issue, not a compromise. Pats1 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Well I'll give them points for speed, but not for usefulness. The site itself is entirely run by Sportsline and I was told to contact the League office directly. We're therefore getting Sportsline's interpretation, which I (like Chris, I think) don't consider authorative. I went back on my own to a number of the NFL sites and I am now leaning toward their seemingly consistent practice of using the "season" convention (e.g., Peyton Manning played in the 2006 Pro Bowl, despite that game actually occuring in 2007). It meets my gut-level feeling as well. I think if I had to pick a standard I'd lean toward that one. What do you think JMF? Can you live with it? I mean, if the individual team sites are doing it (which in my limited audit suggests they are), I think it's reasonable. Jddphd 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Jddphd, I appreciate the effort, but the way you phrased it in the letter was not correct. When referring to the game itself (Manning played in the XXXX Pro Bowl) it's usually the year of the game itself. What I have been talking about is player selection, i.e. saying "Trent Green was a Pro Bowl selection in 2003 and 2005." Now when you speak like THIS, it is appropriate to say the year of the regular season because a) he was selected for his performance in THAT regular season; and b) that's when the voting and actual selection took place. It is factually inaccurate to say Trent Green was a Pro Bowl selection in 2004 and 2006, because he was never selected or voted for in those calendar years at all.►Chris Nelson 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Jddphd Real quickly - if you are taking over the RFC, you might want to make note of that. It is not a question of what "i can live with", this isn't about me - never has been and never will be. The problem is that the content is very easily misinterpreted. The infobox exists as a template for easily repeatable information. The information must be able to stand on it's own in the absence of supplemental context. People who "drive by" these articles end up arguing over how to display the years. How do we move past this? We could suggest that the standard format for these are: * Pro Bowls nominated for:xxxx-xxxx. How about: * Pro Bowls played in: xxxx-xxxx. I don't think those clear the air one bit? We need to find a solution, not show which side of the issue is "more right". Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
JMF - If you think there will be people who misunderstand it regardless, then you need to keep up on it. I don't necessarily agree with this position, as I would think that given the proper instruction on the template page that someone would be rather likely to figure it out more often than not, but who knows. Jddphd 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
What you don't understand is that there's no need for a solution because there is no problem. There's what you believe, and then there's the truth.►Chris Nelson 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I've already come too close to discussing "it" again so I'll do better at just staying away from "it" entirely. "It" is a non-issue. As for warning me... ha.►Chris Nelson 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm really not sure what you expect to happen here. If you would like me to point out the numerous times where you have gotten hostile with me, or if you would like me to point to comments that assert article ownership, I can do that. At this time, you know that there are issues outstanding, so while others are welcome to edit the template (as at least two other's have done), it is very misleading for you to go around and ask people to make changes that I have already expressed some concerns with. You know that there is going to be discussion about them. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I only asked someone else because you said you refuse to discuss other issues. If you want to discuss the positions issue I raised (which I believe is where you said you wouldn't discuss it) then go ahead. But if you're not going to and are going to continue to focus on a dead issue, I have no choice but to seek someone else's assistance. Just be clear, I'm only asking someone else because you've previously said you won't help me with them.►Chris Nelson 05:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I don't refuse to talk about anything. I have however, said that until you and I can figure out some way to co-exist, you shouldn't be canvasing wiki for other people to do work you know there are outstanding issues with. I think this aspect of the conversation needs to be focused at your talk page. Personal behavior and things like that are going to be better suited for that. The purpose of this page is to discuss the template at hand. If you have personal issues with me, please raise them on your talk page and i will continue to respond, unless avoidance is the only way to have some rest on this. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
You're comments at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#Another issue seem to indicate otherwise. If you have any solutions for the issues I've raised, then please implement them. If you do not have solutions or refuse to implement them for personal reasons, you are forcing me to seek assistance from others when it comes to the template. As for "canvasing", I messaged one person. That recently added good stuff to the template. So basically, that is the exact opposite of canvasing. This appears to be yet another Wikipedia policy you've misunderstood.►Chris Nelson 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If you want to strike your comments regarding the pro bowl issue (thus relinquishing any input on them) i will also move on. But i'm not going to move on to several other issues, again, take the personal issues to your talk page. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys, have a look here please -- WP:TROUT. Now stop it both of you!! You are good Wikipedians! You both care about the NFL! You both care about this template!! You guys should be really close allies, but both of you, in every single comment, escalate the tensions. Please stop fighting. You don't need to always have the last word. Just let things slide a little. If you feel insulted, just turn the other cheek. You'll be amazed how rapidly we can calm things down if we all just ignore the next comment that makes us annoyed, and focus on something productive (maybe even a different article for a couple of days) instead. --JayHenry 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I've decided to stop talking to him permanently. Would you mind getting involved in the discussions regarding position links and making the NFL debut section included only if there are values entered?►Chris Nelson 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm happy to help with the template. But even more than fixing this template, I'd like to help fix your working relationship. There's no reason for you guys to have this animosity. You could be really valuable allies on the Wiki. --JayHenry 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
  • If we could simply just leave personal attacks out and just focus on content that would be great. I would love to have as many people as possible help. But I'm not sure how to deal with this current proposition. I have some thoughts about it, but we have been unable to get through one issue. What do we do? Other's come in and offer external thoughts, they seem to agree with finding a neutral solution, and yet that leaves us back at square one. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Autofill for team colors

I just created a template that automatically fills in team colors. I believe it should be working without a hitch. It makes use of two #SWITCH templates, which you can see {{NFLPrimaryColor}} and {{NFLSecondaryColor}} which I just created. You can take a look at the code there to get an idea of how it works. Please let me know if there are any problems, but I believe it's working correctly. --JayHenry 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah the switch templates!! that was trick! Thanks man, that's a huge help! I'll unwatch your talk page! You need a barnstar! Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it just me or did the template all of a sudden screw up on its own?►Chris Nelson 03:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Contracts

Ehh...someone has to be the first to use it. And, though contracts are complicated, it's only intended to provide a basic overview of the contract (i.e. the other day Dwight Freeney signed a six-year, $72 million contract, so that's all that'd be there). Kurt Weber 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone? Anything? Kurt Weber 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Can't say I'm really for it. Too often details are incomplete or undisclosed completely. But that's just me.►Chris Nelson 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
When details are undisclosed, the field can be just left blank--when I put it in initially, I wrote it so that if there's nothing given for that parameter it won't show up. For "incomplete" details, well, you don't need them--what I was thinking of was more along the lines of "X signed a 7-year, $20 million contract", and that's what would show in the box. Kurt Weber 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm just not for the idea. But I can live with it if you get a majority.►Chris Nelson 15:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FAILED RFC - further efforts doomed unless someone concedes

Guys - I'm out of this. The two of you have dug your heels in and resisted good faith efforts to help. If I had to choose I'd agree with the season convention, but I don't expect this is going to swing the balance.

I believe that further RFC's or related efforts to mediate will be doomed to fail unless one or the other of you is willing to let it go. There is only one solution that escapes this problem, and that's to remove the year entirely.

Bottom line - I don't see any way out of this and I don't wish to invest more of my time in this.

Good luck to both of you. I will investigate more binding mechanisms to get around this, but you've heard the last from me as a WP:3O on this page.

Jddphd 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Position redirects

I'm not sure if this has been talked about already, but I see that the positions have been hardcoded with a disambig of (American football). In fact, there are only maybe 2 or 3 positions that actually use this format. So it doesn't make much sense. Pats1 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Haha, this was EXACTLY what was being talked about buddy! (We actually are buddies, I'm not being a dick to him!) User:B already fixed it.►Chris Nelson 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Me pay attention lots. :D Pats1 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
It's not your fault man. If only Wikipedia had some sort of system where past edits were archived and organized for easy access... If only.►Chris Nelson 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposal: You two should take a break

The fact that you two (Chrisjnelson (talk · contribs) and Jmfangio (talk · contribs)) are going at it on my talk page perfectly encapsulates the problem. The ad hominem nature of your comments illustrates that the two of you have lost the plot. If you want my true opinion on this you BOTH should take a self-imposed break from this template. Whatever "good" you believe you are doing for Wikipedia on this template is occuring via mechanisms that are now distinctly nonWikipedian and both of you are guilty of this despite your protestations to the contrary. On this page alone is evidence of WP:OWN, a highly evolved absence of good faith with what results in an absence of civility, and - just for good measure - a smattering of personal attacks.

Seriously. Take a break. Work on something else for a while.

Jddphd 12:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

  • You don't even want to know what i've just had to put up with this guy. I left this alone, you'll even see above where i said: I'm not going to say anything until others have a chance to voice their opinions. I'm not the problem here. Go look at what this nut job (yes i just called him a nut job) did to the Michael Vick article while i was editing it. I put the damn info IN THE MAIN BODY (which is much more important than an infobox), and he still couldn't accept it. I'm sick of him. I've asked for RFC, RFM, 30 and nobody has gotten this jerk off my back. He's a jerk... and no i'm not taking it back...GET HIM TO LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!! Two weeks of this and I'm still putting up with it. I just wanted polite discussion and not this "I want this done my way" or "i'm right because you are wrong" bullshit. Fix this problem, ban us both, i don't give a shit, just get this guy off my back!!! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  12:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


Seriously. Take a break. Work on something else for a while. ,I think that is pretty good advice. If the point is to improve content and it is at this time nothing good is happening and some hard feelings are being created. Take a break and then after a couple of weeks perhaps you folks will find a compromise. RMANCIL 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC) It could be a good policy to allow each other some space try and work on different projects and don't edit the others work.RMANCIL 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

All I've done is enhance articles are work on improving the template. His business is his business. If he thinks something is personal, that's on him. I'm just doing what is best for the articles. So I'm not taking a break.►Chris Nelson 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I am not going to be editing articles until this dispute can be resolved. I will however, be available for discussion and such. The template is locked, so that solves "part" of the problem. I will be happy to request an unblock if we can hammer out some of these issues. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I will be editing as normal.►Chris Nelson 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

This template breaks Commons images

FYI, this new template doesn't work with WikiCommons images. Compare [4] with the current Cadillac Williams where the template was changed. And yes, the Commons image does still exist (obviously since it displays still in the older rev). AUTiger » talk 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something ... but the image had been removed from that page ... I added it back ... I don't think the template caused a problem. --B 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
I had tried adding it back (copying and pasting the name) in the image parameter of the new template but it red-linked in preview. Don't know why it works now and my preview didn't. AUTiger » talk 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I was using the blank image = line that was in the previous edit and copied the image name from an earlier rev. I only previewed and didn't save so would be hard to capture exactly what it was. As it is working now, I wouldn't worry about it. AUTiger » talk 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

"ft to m" vs "ft in to m"

Why does this template use {{ft to m}} vs {{ft in to m}}? If someone is 6 ft 1 inch tall, you have to put in 6.1 or 6.083 or some other approximation. Unless someone can come up with a really good reason for it, it really ought to be changed posthaste as every article using it is screwed up right now.--B 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} - please change the {{ft to m}} to {{ft in to m}}. When that is done, we can update the doc section. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Here's the change I made:
height = undecorated height (for backward compatibility)
heightft = height in feet passed to {{ft in to m}}
heightin = height in inches passed to {{ft in to m}}
Obviously, you would only use height or heightft/heightin. Any thoughts/objections/other ideas? (I don't really care one way or another as long as it doesn't break articles.) --B 16:34, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Do you think you could do the change mentioned here? Also, I think the bar that says National Football League debut should be conditional on having values entered for debutyear and debutteam, if possible. There's not really a need for any part of that section unless as debut is entered, because for rookies it looks bad.►Chris Nelson 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Please stop asking people to make changes that need to be discussed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:01, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I have made three posts about this at the link I provided in my last message here. No one has replied back and the first one was from over a week ago. I even posted about this yesterday to attempt to get a discussion going if anyone feels one is necessary. You yourself have yet to post on the issue. If you care about it, discuss it. If you don't care to discuss it now, that's not our problem and changes will be implemented to fix the template. It's hardly a controversial edit. But you can't say I need to wait for discussion when I've been trying to give people the chance to discuss it for over a week and not one person has. If User:B can do it now, that'd be great. If not, I'll do it myself when the template gets unprotected. In the meantime, discuss any issues if you have them. If you don't, you can't whine about there not being any discussion.►Chris Nelson 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I am not going to engage you in any more content related disputes until the situation is mediated. I'm sorry that you feel the way that you do, but you have to start respecting other's opinions. This template was locked so that the issues can be hashed out. The only reason for changes now are to fix problems. I will wait until someone steps in to address your "areas of concern". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:09, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
You said it yourself: The only reason for changes now are to fix problems. The NFL debut section creates a problem for rookies. There is an easy to fix to this and no one in their right mind would object to making the section's presence in an infobox conditional on values so that it does not appear for rookies who have yet to debut.
Do you realize what's happening here? I'm trying to fix a minor problem with the template. You're saying I must wait until a discussion is held. I try to get people to discuss it. You say you refuse to discuss it. Where does it end? You can't force me to discuss another issue, such as the Pro Bowl links issue which I feel is no issue at all, before you'll engage in discussion on another topic. If you don't want to discuss it, fine. But WHEN I re-implement changes on the issue I'm talking about, do not undo them because you have failed to engage in any discussion about it.►Chris Nelson 17:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • I will say just this: the "rookies" that you are talking about for the most part should not have had templates added. Ted Ginn Jr. did not sign until after this dispute broke out, yet he was given an infobox well before. The debut section should not be optioned. Rather, the content should display a message that the player has not yet appeared. This will keep the boxes consistent. Please stop asking for any changes to be made. I am not going to comment again until that happens unless it is to inform people that the requests you are making are disputed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:16, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • A message saying that the player has not yet appeared is probably a bad thing for twi reasons. (1) Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Even for someone who is all but certain to be a first round draft pick ... they could sustain a career ending injury tomorrow. (2) Wikipedia content is replicated to other websites and that statement could survive long after it is no longer true. --B 18:15, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Well let's be real here. You're only disputing it and avoiding helping the problem because I'm the one who raised the issue. It's personal, and maybe that's understandable. And maybe my propose solution, the one similar to RyguyMN's edits, is not the absolute best one. It is, however, better than the current state, and I know you know that. I'd be all for a message that says something like Has not debuted" or whatever as you proposed. It'd be nice if we could do that so it automatically shows up if now year/team has been entered. But I do not know how to do that, and you refuse to implement it or even discuss it to much of a degree. Therefore until you can get over your personal problem with me and help make the solution even better, the satisfactory solution from before will be re-implemented. If you ever feel like discussing it further or adding a solution as the one you discussed, that'd be great. But if you aren't going to, we have no choice but to solve the current problem without you.►Chris Nelson 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

You're telling me that if it wasn't my idea, you wouldn't be reverting the changes, protecting the template from further changes in addition to REFUSING to discuss the issue? I'm gonna have to call bullshit on that one. If you refuse to discuss the issue you should not be reverting the template and having it protected. You keep saying the template should be protected and remain unchanged until issues are worked out. But you refuse to discuss them! It's like you're trying to lock the template forever and ruin the whole project. Either discuss the issue at hand or stop preventing related changes.►Chris Nelson 17:28, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
All of this is too much for me to follow. Are you just asking for debutyear and debutteam to not show up if they are missing? I don't see that as unreasonable. Can you point to an instance where it is currently messing up? --B 18:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes that is what I'm talking about. See Ted Ginn, Jr. or any other rookie with the new infobox. I'm just trying to get rid of that [[ NFL season|]] for the [[]] thing in some way. I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree it needs to be fixed in some way. But in addition to it being clearly uncontroversial, Jmfangio is behaving as if he will not allow it to change, even when he refuses to discuss it. So I don't know what he wants.►Chris Nelson 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Ok ... I tried, but I'm having trouble with the wikicode ... see the source code for User:B/sandbox2. If I take out the span tag, it works fine ... which makes no sense. --B 18:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Never mind ... I think I got it ... --B 18:56, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, now the header doesn't show it up ... see User talk:B/sandbox2. If anyone wants to mess with it and can get it right, I'll make the change. --B 19:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I don't understand this either. If the template needs fixing in this way and Jmfangio refuses to discuss it, what are we supposed to do, leave it broken forever?►Chris Nelson 19:24, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I've got it working now on my sandbox. Unless someone can give me a reason why this change is controversial or otherwise fails the Wikipedia:Protection policy, I'll make it in short order. --B 19:27, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
  • Chrisjnelson You can simply use text replacements so that it is not "ugly". Ted Ginn Jr. should not have had this box placed on his page. I am not going to discuss things with you until you relinquish your WP:OWN issues, and until you stop with the personal attacks, there is no way for this discussion to move forward. That is why the template is locked. 'B - As you are a part of the dispute (whether you want to admit it or not), you should not be editing this page. Even with the changes you did, someone else should be the one to do it. Please leave this be until someone steps in to act as an impartial party. If I'm going to be attacked when I withhold my opinion, how can I expect any different reaction when i express my opinion? For one last time, stop requesting changes to this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:31, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
    • You still haven't given a reason that the change should not be made. The template as it is right now is breaking an article. The problem can be fixed by simply making the section not show up if the parameter is not filled in. Please explain what the problem with that is. --B 19:41, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

I think this is the right section for this. Is there any way to change the template so that the metric conversions go to 2 significant figures after the decimal? 10 cm is a long distance to be vague with and most sports sites which use the metric system use that many figures. Just want to be fair to those not familiar with the US Standard system. Eeks2284 17:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

:* Certainly nothing wrong with putting this here. To make sure I understand you, you want to convert into cm? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Supplemental drafted players

Here's a question - what should we do with players taken in the supplemental draft? (Ex. Manuel Wright, Tony Hollings, Paul Oliver, Jared Gaither.) There's really no way to put this in the draft section the way it is now, but we need to figure out a way to show this info so they don't look like undrafted free agents. Any ideas?►Chris Nelson 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Bugs

I've identified two areas that need to be reviewed and potentially fixed:

  1. The debut year function doesn't really work for rookies. The infobox should be programmed to omit the debut section from the infobox is nothing is entered into the field.
  2. Career highlights should be able to be toggled on/off similar to debut year. It doesn't make sense to have the infobox show a blank cell for highlights if nothing is entered into that field.

Just some thoughts...let me know what you all think. I can attempt to make changes once protection is removed. I do like this layout over the previous NFL player infobox - it has a lot less clutter and is more informative. RyguyMN 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Do you think it's best to have the debut section disappear, or to have it say something like "No NFL debut" or something else like that? I don't really have a preference, but obviously it needs to be fixed from how it currently is.►Chris Nelson 04:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The debut problem is fixed. (If someone wants to add text to be displayed for players who have not made a debut once the protection is removed, that's fine - but it's outside the scope of a critical bug fix.) RyguyMN, can you point to an article that the career highlight problem is breaking? If so, we can fix it. If a critical bug needs to be fixed, just add {{editprotected}} to the page - I had no notion that the protection on this page was extended ... I'm kinda annoyed at it, but there's no reason that bug fixes should have to wait until unrelated personality conflicts can be resolved. --B 05:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that, B.►Chris Nelson 05:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • On the debut section - should we have it toggle off or should we insert a "player has yet to appear in a game" (or something to that effect)? For consistency sake, i think explaining why there is no debut would be helpful. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree that perhaps there should just be a little phrase of explanation there instead of making it disappear. I say this because to someone not fully familiar with the infobox, if they go to a rookie's page and the debut section is not there they won't know to add it. But if they see something that says "No NFL debut" or something, they might be inclined to edit the article and add a year/team if he has in fact debuted at that point. So is there a way to make it say something like that if the debutteam/debutyear sections are left blank?►Chris Nelson 15:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

NFL debut & jersey #

{{editprotected}}

  1. Please adjust the jersey #(s) to link to Squad number#American football instead of Jersey number#American football. This will fix a double redirect.
  2. Please make the debut section "mandatory" but set the null value to "No [[Season (sport)#regular season|regular season]] appearances".Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  16:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I feel like it should be appearance, since only one appearance is needed for a debut. Other than that I'm cool with it.►Chris Nelson 16:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Juan, Chris - I can't find in the template where there is a link to Jersey number#American football. If I search for "jersey", I don't see anything and {{{currentnumber}}} isn't wikilinked. Can you point out exactly what you would like changed? As for the debut thing, can you two come up with exactly what wikicode you would like to have in there? If you can agree on it, I'll make the change.--B 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

He can do the debut thing, I really don't have a preference. It seems we're all in agreement that it just needs to be fixed somehow, I don't really care how it's done.►Chris Nelson 17:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... take a look at this code ... I think this should be right:
{{#if:{{{debutyear|}}}|[[{{{debutyear}}} NFL season{{!}}{{{debutyear}}}]] for the [[{{{debutteam}}}]]|No [[Season (sport)#regular season|regular season]] appearances}}

If there is no debut year, it generates this: No regular season appearances

If there is a debut year, it generates this: [[{{{debutyear}}} NFL season|{{{debutyear}}}]] for the [[{{{debutteam}}}]]

If there are no objections, I'll add it to the template. --B 17:48, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant change the No. to [[Squad number#American football|<span style="color:{{NFLSecondaryColor}}">No.</span>]]. You may have to double check that.Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:50, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... it's done. --B 18:07, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

B, I think we should do away with linking the jersey number. I'm not sure it's THAT relevant to the infoboxes, and since that bar is a team color it often looks bad. I, like a lot of people I'd imagine, have active links blue. As a result, it creates a horrible contrast with some colors. If you have your browser set up like me (which is default), see Ted Ginn, Jr. for an example. I really don't think we need to link the jersey number.►Chris Nelson 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion and undid it ... the problem is that {{NFLSecondaryColor}} doesn't work like you think it would. For it to work, we need a template that just gives the color, rather than the CSS color: code. I don't have time to mess with it right now, but the current {{NFLSecondaryColor}} template could probably be changed to take a {{{nocss}}} parameter or something along those lines. --B 18:20, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Good job linking the No. thing, Jmfangio. Looks like it works perfectly.►Chris Nelson 19:05, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Also, I changed the dash before "No." from a minus sign (-) to (—). Very subtle, hopefully not one has a problem with this.►Chris Nelson 19:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Protection

Since the mediation is over with, does protection serve any purpose any more? If the pro bowl thing is the only point of contention and you guys would be willing to agree to leave it as is unless/until there is WikiProject consensus to change it, I see no reason not to have the template unprotected. --B 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it needs protection because I won't be editing the template at all (since I suck at it). I don't really have any changes in mind that are needed right now, and if I do think of any I'll just bring them here. So yeah, I don't see the need for protection.►Chris Nelson 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • When this expires, I don't see a need to extend it. Chris said previously that he wasn't going to edit the template, and then he did. That is what led to the request for page block. I am very concerned that the issues at hand (WP:NPA and WP:OWN) will come up again as they have on a few other pages. I would proceed with caution. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
All I edited on the template was replacing RyguyMN's edits that changed the debut problem. Now that we're fixing this, there is no reason to assume I'll edit it again. I'll say it right now - User:B, if I edit the template without discussing my edits here first, give me a temporary ban.►Chris Nelson 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Ok ... I've removed the protection ... please play nice and don't make controversial changes without talking them over first. --B 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Survey

There is a dispute over how content should be displayed for a Pro Bowl nomination/appearance. As as all other methods of WP:DR (sans arbitration) have been exhausted, please take the time to respond to the following poll. Per WP:STRAW and WP:DR, this is simply a test and not binding in anyway shape or form. Previous discussion on this page has addressed this, please familiarize yourself with the issue before voting. Votes should come in the form of '''Support Option _''' with ~~~~ to follow.

The issue

Certain parties want to display pro bowl awards by year of the nomination ([[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]]). Other's want to display year the game was played ([[2006 Pro Bowl|2006]]. Clarification of the information helps to support what the listing means. It does not seem to address the fact that the alternative proposal is also valid. An neutral solution of listing the number of appearances quantitatively has been proposed.

The Survey

Option 1: Continue to agree that no standardization is needed. As in, a person is free to list the information by year of the game or by year of the nomination.
Option 2: Support that Pro Bowl nominations should be standardized and that displaying the number of nominations/appearances is sufficent.
Option 3: Support that Pro Bowl years should be standardized this way ([[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]]) with the regular season year being shown and linked to the appropriate Pro Bowl article. (See here for an explanation.)

Votes

Support Option 2 Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Option 3 Despite the fact that it's crossed out, it's the way the NFL does it. The 2006 Pro Bowl is at the end of the 2005 season, that's just how it works. Bjewiki 22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Option 2 For the Pro Bowl, assigning a year doesn't seem to have much meaning. When a player's credentials are talked about, specific years are rarely mentioned when talking about Pro Bowls. Number of appearances should have more weight, thus be displayed. RyguyMN 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Option 3 Why is it crossed out? This option is best as it relates to the years of other awards won by players. For example, if Peyton Manning is listed as being on the Colts in 2003 (in the teams box), then his awards should also be listed to reflect this. He won the MVP award in 2003, so the award should be listed as the 2003 NFL (co-)MVP. And he also went to the Pro Bowl for his performance in 2003, so he should have a format of [[2004 Pro Bowl|2003]] listed for his Pro Bowl appearances. Pats1 01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Option3 Sure it doesn't exist, but I vote for this option anyway. It is informative and 100% accurate.►Chris Nelson 01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't really care - but option 1 is a horrendously bad idea. Whatever option is selected, it needs to either be option 2 or it needs to allow the template so set the formatting. For example, have fields {{{probowlgame1}}}, {{{probowlgame2}}}, etc that would accept a year as their parameter. The template would generate something like [[{{#eval:1+{{{probowlgame1}}}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]] (using #3 as an example) or [[{{{probowlgame1}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]]{{#if:{{{probowlgame2|}}}|, [[{{{probowlgame2}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame2}}}]]|}} Pro Bowls (another possible implementation). That way, everything will be consistently displayed. There's one big disadvandage of #2 that is worth considering - when we go through to update everything for 2007/8, if Joe Schmoe has had 5 pro bowls, we have no idea if this pro bowl is his sixth or if someone has already updated him and it is his fifth. It also makes fact vandalism potentially less obvious. (By the way, why is option 3 struck?)--B 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Support Option 2. The number of Pro Bowl appearances is most important, the years of those appearances is secondary. IMO, the purpose of the infobox is to hit the highlights. The authors/editors of each player's article can then use more concise language when listing the years in the body of the article. (Example: "Yepremian was selected to the Pro Bowl following the 1973 and 1979 seasons.") —xanderer 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Comments

This poll is not set up correctly. I feel my way is the only correct way to do things, and therefore I propose that should be the standard rather than having everyone just do what they like best.►Chris Nelson 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Please show me how this invalidates the poll. The information can't be standardized if two sides don't agree on the standardization itself. For example, as user Phbasketball6 aserted earlier, there are people who display the information both ways. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
But people that display it one way are incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion. One way is factually right, one way is factually wrong. Hence, the right way is a perfect candidate for standardization.►Chris Nelson 21:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Please tell me what is factually incorrect about this - A player plays in the 2007 and 2006 pro bowl. Thus - we list - "Pro Bowls Appearances (2006, 2007)". Don't argue that your way is better, simply answer one question: Is it factually incorrect to say that the player appeared in the 2006 and 2007 games? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Nope, that is all fine. Your statement is perfectly accurate. Pro Bowl appearances in 2007 are entirely possible. But Pro Bowl selections are not, because selection for the Pro Bowl in the 2007 calendar year will take place this fall. Hence, no selection has taken place in 2007 for anyone yet. My edits say "2x Pro Bowl selection", and the selections take place in the regular season and are rewards for regular season performances. Therefore it is factually inaccurate to say use the years of the actual Pro Bowls when referring to selections.►Chris Nelson 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Stop adjusting the content of the poll. Nobody is saying your way is factually incorrect, but if someone were to go by the Michael Vick article, they would have every right to change it to accurately reflect Pro Bowl appearances. This would not solve the problem. Clarification is not the problem, showing preference to one or the other is the problem. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they could change it to appearances and then change the year. But why do that? Why not just decide that SELECTIONS be the standard, and then you cannot factually question the years?►Chris Nelson 22:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Because both sides of the issue are factually correct. One can argue all day as to which is more important -> the year of the nomination or the year of the game. There is no way to impartially support one over the other. I know you will cite numerous examples from the media, but numerous examples for the "other side" exist. This is the exact reason why I supported an neutral displaying of the information. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Will you kindly tell me why you support it saying "Appearances" and listing the year of the Pro Bowls themselves, rather than the way I do it? I just want to know your opinion.►Chris Nelson 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Then why do you care? No one here has actually spoken out against my method. I do not see the harm in us all agreeing my method be the standard since no one here disagrees with the logic.►Chris Nelson 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
I think voting is a bad idea ... but how does the NFL list it on their site? Usually, when there is a question, we go with whatever the organization in question self-identifies. --B 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Voting is generally a bad idea, but again - i'm trying to avoid Arb. getting involved in this. CBSsportsline, which powers the NFL, supports listing it by year of the game. The official NFL site has both instances and a third alternative. The 2007 pro bowl game is often referenced as the 2006-2007 Pro Bowl. It's a mess and both "sides" can support either. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

The only thing we need to decide on is out to refer to it in the infobox. If we say "Pro Bowl appearances" and list years, it'd be factually accurate to list years of the Pro Bowls themselves. But my edit says "Pro Bowl selections" and it is a proven fact that the selections take place during the regular season. Can we not agree that the regular season should be the focus, since it was during the regard season they excelled (presumably) and earned the selection (which also took place during the regular season)? I do not just see why we cannot all decide that the standard is "Pro Bowl selections" and then there is no debate over how to list the years because one way is wrong and the other is right.►Chris Nelson 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • (EC)This case is outside of the area that usually interests ArbCom - they don't really mess with simple content disputes. If the NFL doesn't even know what to call it, then I think whatever year is used, it definitely needs to say "2007 Pro Bowl" or "2006 Season". (In other words, make it clear to the user what the number means.) Since we're talking about the pro-bowl, using the year of the pro-bowl makes slightly more sense to me ... but I can see the other side too - it doesn't make much sense to say he set a record in the 2006 season and went to the 2007 pro bowl as a result. --B 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Please see your talk page and read the link I posted. Also, while it may make sense to use the year of the Pro Bowl, trust me when I say that 99% of NFL fans as well as the media do not say it this way. The Pro Bowl is a reward for the regular season, so when you say "A guy was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2006" any NFL fan will naturally assume it was for his work in the 2006 season, and would be correct in doing so. Also, the "mess" regarding NFL.com is greatly exaggerated and is really not even true. CBS Sportsline does provide stats ot the NFL, but their awards are incomplete and therefore should not be taken into account. As for NFL.com, there's really no mess at all. Everything is as it should be, and everything they do matches my edits.►Chris Nelson 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Pats1 makes an excellent point; perhaps the best. Look at all the awards. Look at the NFL MVP Award, the NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award, NFL Rookie of the Year Award, etc. Look at all those articles. Notice that, although each award is announced in January of the new year, they are referred to by the year of the regular season. Jason Taylor won the 2006 Defensive Player of the Year Award, this is how it is ALWAYS expressed. But it was announced in January 2007 because that's how the season is. The Pro Bowl should be no different. All these awards/honors are for the regular season. Therefore those are the years to remember. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with just writing "Pro Bowl (x8)". It's correct, and informative. But my point has always been that my method has always been done here, it's even more informative and it's factually accurate. There's simply no logical reason to even contest this.►Chris Nelson 01:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • B - The dispute resolution process has now been exhausted. We can't even get a survey without a bunch of arguments. This is exactly why the ArbCom needs to step in. The other user continues to personally attack other editors and state an inability to discuss the issue. This never has been about which way is more correct. Both sides are correct. Both sides have legitimate points, and neither can say "communicating this information is more important than communicating that information". This is about an infobox, where context is relative. That is the problem. Chris - You an pats (the two major supporters of year of the nomination), have never recognized that others have a legitimate point. THis is an infobox, not the article as a whole. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I haven't made any personal attacks lately. Unless you count "dude" but that's totally not my problem. Jmfangio, Pats1 and I fully understand the dispute. Both of us have watched football our whole lives and know all about the NFL and how things work; probably more so than 99% of common fans. You can say the other side has legitimate points, but there is no evidence to support that because it's simply not true. Anyone that follows football knows that this is the way things are done, and that is that. It's like you're saying "Well you have legitimate points that the sky is blue, while others have legitimate points the sky is green." It's simply not true. One is correct, and one is not. It's unfortunate you've yet to grasp that, but it doesn't make it untrue.►Chris Nelson 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Why wouldn't this work

What's wrong with something like this: 

[[{{{probowlgame1}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]]{{#if:{{{probowlgame2|}}}|, [[{{{probowlgame2}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame2}}}]]|}} Pro Bowls

This would generate something like this

2003, 2006 Pro Bowls

That way, it's obvious that the year refers to the game itself. Or replace "pro bowl" with "season":

2003, 2005 Seasons

What would be wrong with one of those? If it's spelled out, it's obvious to anyone what it is talking about and consistency is enforced by having {{{probowlseason1}}}, {{{probowlseason2}}}, etc parameters to the template. Juan, do you consider the problem with listing each season to be philosophical (too much information), practical (we don't know that 2002 means), or technical (no good way to consistently display it)?--B 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Absolutely nothing is wrong with either of those methods. This is why there is a problem. If you scroll up a good bit, you will see how a number of users (Phbasketball6 comes to mind), mention that no matter what way they list it, someone always seems to come along and change it to the other format. Both are legitimate and recognized throughout the sportsworld. CBSsportsline (the official stats provider of NFL.com), lists the pro bowls by year of the game. The NFL's pro bowl site itself even has a page that descirbes the 2007 game as the 2006-07 game. It is not a winnable argument. It isn't that the information is incorrect, it's that it is ripe for argument. I am all ears for finding a common ground solution, but saying that we should simply adopt a convention because a few users prefer it, is not what wikipedia is about. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
But Jmfangio, it's only being argued because of you. You're the only one here that is totally against my edits, the kind of edits that have been happening here for years. If it wasn't for you, no one would even be debating this. There'd be peace. Everyone would be content. You're the only reason this is a debate.►Chris Nelson 02:16, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris ... let's try to keep it peaceful and not accusatory. --B 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
    • (Edit conflict) Well ... we could make it part of the template, so there is no changing it. The template parameters would look like this:
...
|probowlseason1=2000
|probowlseason2=2002
|probowlseason3=2003
|probowlseason4=2006
|probowlseason5=
|probowlseason6=
...
    • The template would wikify that as:
    • So the word "seasons" and the linking would be coded into the template itself. You couldn't change an individual player's data without creating an unquestionably factually incorrect article (ie vandalism). Would that answer everyone's objections? --B 02:19, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see it in use to form an opinion on it. Anywhere you could put it, like the sandbox, so we could have an idea how it'd look?►Chris Nelson 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

  • That again doesn't solve a problem. What's to stop someone from coming in and saying that the template should represent the year the game was played. Think of college bowl games. The "major" games all take place in the calender year following the season just completed. Take a look at Rose_Bowl_Game#Game_results. You don't see them identifying anything other than the game played. If a person sees that the game is 2007 but that the link says 2006, it can easily confuse them. Remember, we're not talking about the context of the article, we're talking about an infobox. Simplifying the information avoids confusion and prevents one sides POV from being asserted over the other. I am not the only one making this argument, I'm just the only one with the patience to discuss it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:26, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are we making decisions based on hypotheticals? This kind of edit is completely satisfactory. It's even overkill since 99% of football fans would assume the years meant regular seasons anyway). But because hypothetically someone might be confused we should ditch it? PLEASE answer this. Tell me, why aren't you arguing about all the NFL awards too? Why aren't you arguing that Jason Taylor should be considered as the 2007 Defensive Player of the Year? I mean you have to believe that makes perfect sense, given your stance on this issue. So why aren't you on the talk pages of all these articles as the only one who wants change, like you've done here?►Chris Nelson 02:29, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
The code is in User:B/sandbox2 and the demo is in User talk:B/sandbox2. In the demo, all you provide is the season year. If you enter the wrong thing (the year of the pro bowl), you will get bad results and will quickly realize the error of your ways. Flipping around the display (so that it shows "1998, 2001, 2003 Seasons" instead of "1999, 2002, 2004 Pro Bowls") is a simple coding change in the template and would maintain consistency throughout all of the pages. --B 02:36, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
How about we poll 100 random people (not football fans, anyone) and ask them if they see an infobox with Pro Bowls and years, do they think those years are for the regular seasons or years of Pro Bowls. I'm willing to bet at least 90% of people would say the regular season. If we could prove that it is rarely confusing to people, then there should be no harm in making this method standard.►Chris Nelson 02:44, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to throw my two-cents in here. I've always been under the impression that, since the Pro Bowl comes after the season, which ends the year after anyway, that it should be denoted with the year it was played in. Like the Playoffs. It's not "2006 Playoffs" for the playoffs for the 2006 season, it's the 2007 playoffs. Same with the Pro Bowl. The 2006 season's Pro Bowl is the 2007 Pro Bowl.........so. I don't know why everyone's arguing about this. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 08:05, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Because as I said before, we're not referring to the game. We're referring to the selection. The selection takes places during the regular season and is a reward for that regular season. Therefore when one remembers a player's Pro Bowl selection, the regular season year is the one that is relevant - it's the year he played at that Pro Bowl level and earned the selection. I believe everyone that "disagrees" with me simply misunderstands the debate. My edits contain the phrase "Pro Bowl selection" followed by the years of selection. It is only correct to use regular season years in this case. You wouldn't call Jason Taylor the "2007 Defensive Player of the Year" would you? I'd ask that you read this.
Jmfangio, I have a totally serious question for you do you believe that the regular season awards, given out in January of the following year, should use the new years as well? As in, do you believe that Jason Taylor should be the "2007 Defensive Player of the Year"?►Chris Nelson 15:45, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't misunderstand your argument. I understand your argument completely. What I'm not understanding is why you're not just going with the Pro Bowl itself, and instead insisting on using the year the player was actually selected to the Pro Bowl. I don't know about you, but I've got dozens of football-crazed friends (okay, dozens might be pushing it), but none of them refer to the selection, they refer to the game... specifically, the year the game was played. It doesn't really matter to me how it's done because I'm sure someone's going to bust through here somewhere down the line and argue why everyone's wrong anyway, but I don't understand why you're insisting on going with the year of the selection rather than the year the Bowl was actually played, since that's how most people recognize the Pro Bowl anyway. To read on Jason Taylor's page "2006" would imply the Pro Bowl played after the 2005 season. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 19:21, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You are in a vast minority. Practically no one that follows football thinks that way. Then why don't you think the NFL awards are done this way, hmm?►Chris Nelson 19:26, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you had to word your response to mine so childishly and condescendingly, but I assure you I wasn't trying to do either of those things. I'm merely putting in my own two-cents and opinion here. When I watched ESPN prior to this year's Pro Bowl, which would have been the most recent Pro Bowl played in 2007 (the 2006 season's Pro Bowl), all of the reporters referred to it as the "2007 Pro Bowl." Awards are based on the season, which is why they're regarded the way you've already established (i.e. "2006 Defensive Player of the Year"). The Pro Bowl doesn't work the same way. Almost no one refers to the selections, but rather to the game itself. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 19:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
You just proved you misunderstood my argument, and I'm sorry but basically everything you said is false.►Chris Nelson 19:55, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
How did I prove I misunderstood your argument? I'm more than sure I made it clear that I understood that you're wanting to note that it's the selection that should be noted in the infobox and not the year the Pro Bowl was actually played in. However, as I just noted in my above response, I've never heard a single person ever refer to it by selection as opposed to the year. "Jason Taylor was selected to the 2007 Pro Bowl." This is a perfectly logical sentence, regardless of WHEN the selection was made. Are you going to tell me that alternates who made the team in 2007 because of injuries are going to be 2007 selections instead of 2006 selections? Because then that just nullifies your entire argument here. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

You've shown you misunderstood by arguing things I'm not saying. People do say those things. But people often say things like "Peyton Manning was a Pro Bowl selection in 2006" and that is the only correct way to present the year in that case. It baffles me how anyone could think the Pro Bowl's year is more relevant than the regular season year. There's very little logic behind it. And despite your instance that no one says it my way, I can assure you that you are in fact in the minority and that 99% of the media and fans say it my way. Don't believe me. Do a little research and I know what you'll find. Look on your favorite team's website, for instance. I guarantee you the Browns use regular season years when discussing Pro Bowls on player pages.►Chris Nelson 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, just checked the Browns' website. I was right.►Chris Nelson 20:09, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm really not trying to argue with you. I'm trying to present you with my view. Just because the "majority" does a certain something one way does not inherently or automatically make it correct. For example, the Browns' website lists players by the YEAR the Pro Bowl was played: [5]. Jamir Miller, the last selection, hasn't played a snap since the end of the 2001 season, when he was cut by the Browns. Thus, that "2002" next to his name is in reference to the 2002 Pro Bowl, played after the 2001 season, not his 2002 selection for the 2003 Pro Bowl, which he never saw. Therefore, not EVERYONE does EVERYTHING the way YOU think it should be done. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Since 99% of people do, I see no harm in making it the standard.►Chris Nelson 20:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I'd like for you to find 100 people and prove to me that 99 of them are going to side with you. I've noticed that, since I've started working on this project with you, you think you're right about everything you've attempted to set as a standard. Just because you think something should be done one way does not make you correct. IT DOES NOT MAKE ME CORRECT EITHER, HOWEVER. I figured I'd throw that out, too, because I don't want you thinking that I think I'M right when I don't know WHO'S right. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I only know I'm right on this issue. Everything else I do as standard and have discussed with you, I do not feel there is a "right" or "wrong" on. I simply want us all to do everything the same way, whether it be my ideas or yours. Everything I told you I did as standard, I am open to suggestion on.►Chris Nelson 20:39, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't know why I made that ridiculous claim (that you always think you're right). I guess I let the heat from this get the best of me. At any rate, no one's going to "win" this debate, because there's an equal number of people on both sides of the issue. May I suggest compiling both sides into one standard? For example, the 2006 season's Pro Bowl, which was played in 2007, would be regarded as the 2006-07 Pro Bowl. I know that's not "proper" or "correct," but I think it's a fair middle-ground, and appeases both sides. Like I've said before, I'm for a neutral solution, not one that's going to have one or both sides mad at the other side for not doing things they way the other side thinks it should or shouldn't be done. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Well I'm sure I'm gonna lose this thing eventually, even though I know I'm right. In which case we'll end up using Jmfangio's compromise, "Pro Bowl (x8)".►Chris Nelson 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there's going to be any "losing" so long as an agreement is reached on how they should be represented. I'm for noting them whichever way is consensus'd. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 20:54, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I think my "position" has been miscommunicated for those new to the discussion. Very simply: Some people feel it is more important to note the season that preceeded the game. Other's feel it is more important to note the year of the game istelf. I have proposed quantifying the games as a compromise. The 2006-07 compromise is a reasonable alternative as well. I don't care what the compromise is, just that consensus is not hindered. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:45, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm going to feel rather stupid for posting this now, especially after I'd put my two-cents in earlier... but, I read the arbitration and I'm thinking I understand Chris' point-of-view a lot better than I did before. Aside from all the bickering, I feel listing the Pro Bowl selection by the regular season is probably going to be the way to go. [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]] makes way more sense now. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Why do we not just take a poll at the NFL WikiProject's talk page?►Chris Nelson 07:53, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Height fixing

I removed the old height field and was updating all the templates when my edits were interrupted. I am leaving this alone so that i don't shot someone. Someone else will need to finish it up. I got about 150 or 200 articles in, you can use the what links here function on the left to fix it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Free agents

I was wondering what everyone thought of this - it looks a little odd writing Free Agent in the team section and having the No. spot blank when a guy is not on a team - at least in my opinion. So I was thinking, why don't we make that entire bar, the current team/jersey number bar, conditional on a team being entered in that field? I think the lack of infobox colors, as well as the list of teams below, will convey well enough that the guy is not currently affiliated with a team. I think it might look better for free agents if that bar just wasn't there at all. So does anyone else have an opinion or an idea?►Chris Nelson 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that could end up being a problem. I like the idea. I was going to propose a sort of monochrome color scheme for free agents, but then everyone will think players playing for the Raiders were free agents (which they might as well be). Could you point to an example of a free agent at the moment? Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Jamal Robertson.►Chris Nelson 07:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think "free agent" should be left in there. Not having anything there may cause someone to believe he's not in the league anymore... I think. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Yeah you may be right. I guess it's not that big a deal.►Chris Nelson 07:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I think if the team field is left blank, though, that the number thing should be hidden. Free agents don't have numbers. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm fine with the number saying N/A for free agents, but why would we link it. Just doesn't seem necessary to me, because the linked article has no direct relevance with the infobox. Kind of like how you aren't supposed to just wikilink dates all the time. There are so many other thing that are not linked that would make more sense to be linked than "N/A". Just my two cents.►Chris Nelson 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Just FYI - I made it so the template automatically adds anyone whose team is "Free agent" to the Category:National Football League free agents. It's case sensitive, if the template says "Free Agent" it won't work, but otherwise it should be good to go. --JayHenry 17:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Last comment on Pro Bowl naming

Whatever convention we use on this template should be the convention used across Wikipedia. Right now, 2007 Pro Bowl is about the Pro Bowl that took place on February 10, 2007, after the conclusion of the 2006 season. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Pro Bowl naming. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Kurt - I don't know that "waht's done on wiki now" is ultimately the way to decide this. Certain people would rather focus on the fact that the 2k7 game is filled with people who excelled during the 2k6 season. They are not incorrect in their logic there. Both sides are right. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Kurt, the issue has NEVER been how to name the Pro Bowl articles. Everyone agrees those should be the years they were actually played in.►Chris Nelson 17:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
You both miss the point; the point is that how Pro Bowls are referred to is a question that is relevant to the entire NFL WikiProject rather than just to this template, so I am suggesting that the discussion should take place on the WikiProject's talk page. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Kmweber I understood what you were saying. You'll see I already responded to that thread. This particular aspect is not simply about how to place the information in articles but rather, how to avoid edit wars over infobox content. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Undrafted free agents, Pt. 2

So I think we need to have something to say a guy was an undrafted free agent, rather than just having the draft section disappear. I don't know how exactly this would work, but how about something like, if no draft info is entered, it creates something that says "Undrafted free agent in 1996". Or, what if we just put a new field in the infobox, maybe like "Undrafted=Y" and then UndraftedYear=1996", so that it would create "Undrafted free agent in 1996" or something in a bar right below the college? I don't know what the best way to do it, but those are a few ideas. What do you guys think?►Chris Nelson 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Well despite my limited ability with templates, I think I may have implemented this myself. See Geoff Pope (American football) for a live example and let me know if you have any complaints or better solutions.►Chris Nelson 21:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Just for the record - Chrisjnelson's changes will be reverted until the RFC on his behavior has been completed. I have left alone his unwarranted changes to individual articles, but i have reverted the adjustments he has recently made to this template. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Our past shit aside, do you object to a change of this sort? Are you AGAINST any kind of indication about being an undrafted free agent in the infobox? Just answer me that.►Chris Nelson 21:31, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes I object. No i'm not against the concept, but the delivery of such information does need to be discussed. Let's just leave these type of changes alone, i don't want to have this thing locked again as it stymies growth. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:34, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Then discuss it. You can't just undo edits without reason, say "they need to be discussed" and then refuse to discuss them until some unknown later date that's up to you. You don't own the template.►Chris Nelson 21:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Chris - Stop this madness. You can't control everything. Slow down, we have some serious issues, I already tried to placate you with the number issue and that still turned into a complaint from you. Leave it be until the RFC is done. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Look - this edit is UNRELATED to any disputes regarding this infobox. As for your little thing complaining about me, that's your deal and I'm not getting involved. If something happens, if I'm reprimanded, fine. But that's your thing, not mine. Do you not realize that you're holding the infobox hostage by undoing edits without reason and refusing to discuss them?►Chris Nelson 21:39, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not holding anything hostage chris - that's why I implemented some changes on YOUR behalf. The colors, the numbers, all of this other stuff was done for you and without discussion. Just leave the template alone for now. Go and implement it as much as you want, go find new articles and put in the pro bowl format in whatever format you want, go do all of that. But please, let's get through one thing before piling on 30 other things. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

That's simply not your decision to make. I made a legitimate edit and you reverted it without a reason relating to the edit itself. That RFC thing, our past encounters, any unrelated, outstanding disputes regarding the infobox - all irrelevant. If you are against this edit, it is your obligation to explain why. It is not within your right to tell me to wait and go edit other things. So unless you want to discuss THIS issue and the edit I made, do not revert it. This is no unreasonable.►Chris Nelson 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio, before you react in any way towards my presence here, I only came here because I was e-mailed of this situation by Chrisjnelson. I don't want to read the entire discussion, and I'm not going to make any edits here, but I don't think it's fair to revert Chrisjnelson's edit because of an RfC. I don't think that RfC prohibits anybody from editing. If it helps the template, then there isn't any reason at all to revert it. I don't know about the RfC or if that prohibits anybody from editing, but I don't think it's fair to revert somebody for that specific reason. I'm not trying to defend anybody, nor do I know anything about the edits that were made; I don't even know if the edit helped improve the template at all or not, but just from what I've read in this discussion, I just want to say that I don't think it's fair to revert somebody because they have been taken to RfC. Ksy92003(talk) 21:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Guys - I'm happy to let you go edit the articles in the main space all you want. The fact that you have a pre-existing relationship with Chrisjnelson does not speak well to your ability to impartially navigate the situation. I reverted Chris' changes because they were not discussed and they have the potential to be very controversial. As there are so many already "outstanding" issues that Chris has here, and considering that he has made WP:OWN statements in the past, I'm simply asking that we slow down and take our time to get through one major issue before bringing in 30 others. The fact of the matter is, you have not read what has gone on (admittedly) and even though i said "revert - no discussion on this - let's get through the other controversial issues before adding new ones", I'm still having to address this. If Chris wants to recognize the fact that at least 5 other people agree with the need for an impartial explanation of the Pro Bowl issue, then we can move on. Until then, I don't know what to tell you. It is interesting enough that it seems a similar thing has happened at Template:Infobox NFL player, where chris upset many other users as well. Let's just slow down and take this one controversial issue at a time. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:04, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is not complicated. If you do not have a legitimate reason to revert an edit, you do not do it. It's not your place to tell anyone how or what to edit. Either discuss it, or don't revert. Simple as that. You don't own this template.►Chris Nelson 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I am impartial. If you must know, the first e-mail Chrisjnelson sent me "Look at this: [6]" He didn't say anything else, and I even said that I wasn't defending him or criticizing you. I'm trying to be helpful. I haven't even looked at the edit that Chrisjnelson made and that you reverted, so I don't have anything to say about that. The reason you gave, that "I reverted Chris' changes because they were not discussed and they have the potential to be very controversial," is perfectly reasonable. Because you said "Chrisjnelson's changes will be reverted until the RFC on his behavior has been completed," I just wanted to comment on the fact that I didn't know that RfC prohibits somebody from editing. I don't know all those specifics, and was only trying to clear it up with you and give my opinion. The fact that you reverted the edit because it could prove controversial is another matter, perfectly reasonable. I don't have a problem with that. To be honest, I think that you were right in the fact that you reverted an edit made to a widely-used template, and that it should be discussed before an edit is made. It's just that your initial comment made me believe there was a different primary reason to reverting Chrisjnelson. Sorry for the confusion, Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 22:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • No confusion at all. I'm happy to discuss all of these outstanding issues with any interested party, but you cannot expect other's to address a large number of controversial issues at once. Most edits at an infobox have widespread implications; I'm just asking for a slow down. As for now, I have requested edit protection. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:21, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Then discuss it or stop reverting. Whether or not any "slowing down" needs to take place is subjective and it's YOUR problem. You are being totally unreasonable here and you are just causing problems because of our past. Please behave more like an adult, and either discuss the matter or stop reverting the edit.►Chris Nelson 22:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I don't know about the edit that Chrisjnelson made, but of course NFL has more players than any other sport, so that's much more articles. Editing the NFL infobox makes many more changes than does the MLB or NBA infoboxes. If there are any controversial edits made to this template, then they should be removed until there is a clear discussion and it is widely agreed to implement that change. I don't know if the edit was controversial, but in your eyes you think it was. Now, I don't know if there was any added opinion due to the fact that Chrisjnelson, an editor you got into a revert war in the past with, had anything more to do with your reasoning behind reverting the edit, but you say it was controversial, and if one user who contributes greatly to football articles sees an edit that s/he thinks is controversial, then I think his/her opinion holds a lot of weight. This should be discussed before anything else takes place. Ksy92003(talk) 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss it. He refuses and will not discuss it until HE feels it is the right time, and that is flat-out wrong.►Chris Nelson 22:33, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Ksy920003 I 'm happy to discuss everything, but it is unreasonable to expect me (or any editor) to discuss many controversial edits at one time. Seeing as the other involved editor cannot seem to offer up any solution to the current situation other than "I'm right and everyone else is wrong", I don't know how to proceed. We haven't solved any of the past issues, we're basically just having them blown past by a very animated and enthusiastic editor.
Chrisjnelson Again, I'm not sure how to address you - if this was one article - i would simply move on (as I have done on many other articles where you've popped in). You can't accuse people of not discussing things when pervious attempts at discussion are shot down by you because "you are right and you've proved it". This needs to slow down. I am simply commenting here to keep things at status quo. I'm not here to say - you have no right to discuss matters. I'm here to say that until other controversial situations are dealt with, it is unreasonable to expect good, productive conversation on related edits (from me or anyone else). You and I have some serious issues and I'm sure our pressence here keeps others from chimming in). I've tried to leave, but you again, asserted your position. Until something peaceful comes out of this - you and i are going to be going back and forth for a long time. I can leave articles alone very easily - but I'm not going to let one over agressive editor bully others out of discussions and make changes to templates that have VAST implications. As Ksy just pointed out, the NFL has more players than any of the other professional leagues here in north america. We're talking about many many articles here. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:38, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

This is five minutes of my life I will never have back

Juan, it is completely unacceptable to declare that you will automatically revert any edit made by Chris. There's no reason for a dispute in one area of the template to impede progress in another area. --B 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • It is absolutely legitimate to say I will revert an edit made by a user who refuses to discuss things. He simply just bulldozes everyone. I'm not going to put up with it. This isn't my article, this isn't my webspace, this isn't my anything. This guy has already stated on here more times than i can count that things should be done the way HE wants them. How many steps in the DR process has he ignored? How many times have people said to him, wait a minute - let's talk. I'm not holding up discussions, but I'm not going to let one user railroad others until some outside editors get involved. Look at how many freaking topics are running on this page at one time - this is TOTALLY unproductive. The guy wants to blast over people on the pro bowl issue - okay; but I'm not going to let him take over the entire page. Either discuss things politely, give people the chance to discuss things and respect other's opinions or move on. Simple as that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    • Umm ... the fact that he posted his intentions on the talk page a half an hour before making the edit would seem to be pretty clear evidence that he was willing to discuss it. --B 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell at this point in time, Jmfangio is currently holding certain things hostage by disallowing Chrisjnelson from making changes to them, for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Not all edits need discussion, especially if a discussion will ultimately end up being "yeah, go ahead and do it." There's no reason for Jmfangio to be disallowing Chrisjnelson from making changes at this point in time. He's suddenly guilty of WP:OWN just as he's been claiming Chrisjnelson is. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

  • Chris making a few statements doesn't seem like discussion to me. I said SLOW DOWN. I said i will revert his (or any other for that matter) edits that involve controversial edits that haven't been discussed. I don't even agree with half the things i've done to this thing, but i've done it. Slow down - discuss - respect other's opinions. If that happens, I won't be reverting anyone - EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT'S BEEN DONE. That is so far removed from WP:OWN it's ridiculous. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • And one more thing, I do see where I made the statement about his edits being systematically reverted simply because there is an RFC, I had already made supplemental notations in my edit summaries, so I do understand where you guys go that portion of your argument from. Regardless, I don't think anyone can question my willingness to discuss - after all - a good bit of these topics have comments from me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As I've already stated: Not everything requires a discussion. That's why we assume good faith and make bold edits. You're the only one who feels his edits are controversial at this point. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I couldn't agree with you more on that. This isn't a good faith question with me. I know that chris is doing this because he believes it helps the content here on wikipedia. I am the staunchest supporter of WP:BOLD, I'm bold as hell. However, Chris knows that other's have expressed these same types of edits here before. I've asserted my points on this very issue somewhere up above and I know he's responded (he's responded to everything else). There is also Template talk:Infobox NFL player where the same thing happened because of chris. I didn't argue over numbers, I didn't even really argue over team colors - although that is a hottly disputed topic all over the various sports projects. But go look at how many issues this guy has raised at one time. Not to mention the fact that people consistently say: Okay - let's find a solution. He ignores it. I'm actually looking for the best wiki guideline to cite here - but what's happened is - discussions occured - chris (although not always) has often disagree with what's happened. While those conversations have gone on - multiple other discussions have been raised by him. How exactly does that allow for this thing to move along? I'm not arguing here - i'm not even saying he's wrong on everything - I'm saying - slow down - let's handle one issue at a time. That is certainly reasonable and certainly appropriate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand why you seem to feel only one discussion can go on at any given time. That's like saying two people aren't allowed to edit an article at the same time. (Granted if someone knows someone else is editing an article, it's usually in their best judgment to not edit the article, which is the cause of hundreds of reverts and edit wars.) It's perfectly acceptable to have more than one discussion ongoing, especially if it's going to help things get accomplished faster. The reason it seems as though we're moving so fast and stretching ourselves so thinly is because there's only a handful of editors working on the NFL articles. If this was another project with hundreds of members, you wouldn't even stop to think about telling anyone to slow down. There's no reason to tell anyone to slow down, especially if there's really no reason to do so. Let the discussions happen as they happen. I doubt any outsider is going to come in and say, "Oh, well, maybe I shouldn't ask this - they've already got two discussions going on." That's not how Wikipedia works. If I'm misunderstanding you, I'm sorry. But there's no reason to command us into slowing down, especially not if the multiple discussions are going to help things get done quicker. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
  • You know, I will say that this isn't helping anythign. We STILL talking about this and that - instead of just dealing with the issues at hand. Absolutely more than one discussion can go on at a time. But that doesn't mean a user should be opening up many many discussions at one time and not allowing other users to follow. I'll bet you that there aren't any other editors outside of me who can tell you all the different issues going on - why? Because there too dang many! You call my actions ridiculous (yeah i saw that) and then you come here and try and be a peace keeper. An admin titled this section - and it's a pretty uncivil statement, and yet - we're going on here. Talk about the content if you want - but keep it in one place and stop with this crap. This page is littered with crap.... stop it...just take one or two issues (or even three or four) - have some well founded discussions that don't accuse people of doing this or that - and we'll be fine. But for the love of all things - don't comment on things where you don't want to put the effort in to see what's already there. This talk page is how many kbs? How much of it is me saying "let's talk about the content"? How much is saying - okay stop attacking - and move on. Have i been perfect - NO - but I am trying to discuss these topics. Come on people - it's not hard - leave the peanut comments out. I will say that I think we can safely archive this entire talk page and i will be glad to chime in (or stay out when i don't have anything to add) to some content related discussions. Stop with this crap!. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Jmfangio, do you not see how unreasonable you are being? You know my edits are in good faith, and I'd like to implement them now or at least begin discussions on them. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But that does NOT give you the right to tell others not to discuss it (this "slow down" nonsense) and revert edits without reason. You can bring up other comments I've made, you can bring up my personal attacks on you, you can bring up the Pro Bowl dispute, you can bring up the RFC. But NONE of that is relevant here. It doesn't matter if I worship Satan and eat babies. Nothing else has ANYTHING to do with this edit to this template. If you refuse to discuss it, you have absolutely no right to revert it. How do you not see this?►Chris Nelson 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris - I know your edits are in good faith, but that ain't the whole ball of wax. I don't know if this is standard, but because of all the that's going on and the fact that this talk page probably shouldn't be archived until outstanding issues are addressed.... would any of you (chris, b, wmalt, anyone else) be okay with me starting a sub-page for new discussions. When everything else has taken place this page can easily be archived and we can move the subpage here. Not standard practice, but again, it will help give those who want to discuss content and not "behavior" an easy way to do that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

I want to discuss my edit. That's it. I don't care about any other issues right now and I don't care where you archive the talk page discussions. I want to discuss THIS issue with the infobox. You don't have to, and if you don't want to that's fine. But just realize that if you flat-out REFUSE to discuss it at present time, which you have done up until now, you have no right to revert my edits and cite "lack of discussion" as the reason. You are not allowed to prevent edits from being done in this way. So either discuss it, or don't revert. Nothing else matters here.►Chris Nelson 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Okay chris - let's give the other editors a few moments to respond (i'd say an hour or two if that's acceptable). If we can get some agreement on this - i'd recommend (at the top of page) - "The current page is being maintained due to outstanding disagreements. In the meantime, a new page has been started here to foster further content related discusions." Does that seem reasonable enough? It may seem a bit tedious but i'm pretty sure this is being done "outside the norm". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

This has got to be one of the most frustrating things I have ever been included in. There's absolutely no reason for any of this to be happening. Jmfangio: You consistently accuse people of personal attacks and other such nonsense when they're not even occuring! I would love to know what your definition of a personal attack is. You keep claiming everyone's going off topic and not discussing the issues at hand, BUT YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE DOING THAT. Every time a new discussion is opened, you jump in, throw your two-cents in, and then it ends up being a discussion about civility and other such nonsense that didn't even need to exist, simply because you started accusing people of personal attacks and incivility. You're driving everyone here insane. You keep claiming everyone else is the problem, BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING ONE BIT. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

  • How about "he's a lunatic" or "he's mentally unstable". Did you go look at the RFC. Come on now - stop talking about who did what to whom. Chris and I have a dispute - everyone and their mother's knows about it. Talk about the edits, not about the editor Are you okay with me setting up a new talk page so we can stop this back and forth. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm okay with DISCUSSING THE TOPIC THIS PAGE IS FOR AND THIS SECTION I CREATED IS FOR. Why are we even talking about this other crap? This is the talk page for content discussion, this is the section I created to talk about Undrafted free agents. Do whatever you want, no one cares about archiving right now. Either discuss my edit tonight if you object or I'm adding it back. You've yet to give reason to rever it.►Chris Nelson 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
(EC*4) How about instead we archive this entire page and start fresh with new topic headers for whatever the outstanding template-related discussions there are? Maybe we can keep all meta "he attacked me" or "he won't discuss" off of here and on the RFC. --B 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive/Archive_1&oldid=1118816128"