User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 12

Archives

---

1. October 2006 – November 2006
2. January 2007 – March 2007
3. April 2007
4. May 2007
5. June 2007
6. July 2007
7. August 2007
8. September 2007
9. October 2007
10. November 2007
11. December 2007
12. January 2008
13. February 2008
14. March 2008
15. April 2008
16. May 2008
17. June 2008
18. July 2008
19. August 2008
20. September 2008
21. October 2008
22. November 2008
23. December 2008

New Template

I saw the new Template:Current NFL GMs‎ you made and I was wondering if you were going to do the same for owners, because I have been thinking about making one for a while now but havnt had the time to, and I just wanted to know if you were going to make it or if I should if you didnt want to--Yankees10 (talk) 00:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I can make it or you can, doesn't matter to me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:02, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

ok, but is there any website I can go to find a complete listing of them or do I have to go to each website to find them--Yankees10 (talk) 00:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd just go to each team's Wikipedia article and look in the infobox. Can you do me a favor though? Can you make it at Template:Current NFL Owners and can you let me know when it's up, so I can add it to my watch list and just make sure it's all good?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

where do you want me to make it? because it says Can you make it at____.--Yankees10 (talk) 00:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

My bad, fixed.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:27, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah thats what I figured you were talking about but I just wanted to make sure--Yankees10 (talk) 00:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

what should I do with the Chiefs, Bears, Giants, Packers, Saints, 49ers and Rams, they all have more than 1 owner or a family owns it or something--Yankees10 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

How about we just make the template title bar say Owners/Chairmen?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

can you write the owners or chairmen for the teams I listed when you have the time--Yankees10 (talk) 02:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Your History

sure, I dont usually do it, sometimes I do when I leave some user a message to see if they responded on there talk pages and not mine--Yankees10 (talk) 02:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay cool. I know it's an unusual request and it's one you don't actually have to follow.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

NFL Infobox

Okay since you've add the GM slot would you happen to know where I could find a historical list of GMs or something? I just finished all of the Baltimore/Indianapolis Colts seasons and don't want to leave any small part left undone. Obviously I have 1998 to current for the Colts since it is Bill Polian. Help much appreciated! HoosierState 05:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know where you can find that. What we can do is make the field optional, so that if the GM is unknown it won't show up if left blank.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering about the optional thing because I see most infobox fields are usually left blank and don't show up (not the case with this one). So how do we go about doing that? HoosierState 06:12, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not the smartest guy when it comes to infobox, usually it's trial and error, but I'll figure it out.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not either, thats why I came to you. I just did a little research about info boxes and what I found was that the optional fields included " || optional || " after the field. HoosierState 06:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I think I got it, take a look!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes you did, great! Thanks. HoosierState 06:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Bill Belichick‎

I thaught I'd respond to your edit summary here since I have no other reason to edit Belichik right now, yeah I guess I agree with you about him winning the award, I still wish McCarthty won though, but only because Im a Packer fan, Belichik deserved it way more, I also thought I'd tell you I thaught it was hilarious about calling him a bag of douche, that was funny as hell--Yankees10 (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I mean, he's a total asshole, but he's the best at what he does. I wish he was my team's asshole.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

the only reason why I changed it is because the other infoboxes dont have < BR > anymore, yes I agree with you but it wouldnt be consistant with other infoboxes--Yankees10 (talk) 00:31, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Well line breaks don't really have anything to do with consistency, they are used if necessary. And there are probably a lot more infoboxes that could use them.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the Lavar Arrington would need it but I dont think Dan Marino or Walter Paytons or ones like that would need them--Yankees10 (talk) 00:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It should be a case-by-case basis.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

David Pollack

Hey, Chris. About the "future NFL" part of that article that I removed for WP:CBALL reasons, can you think of a better way to say that Greene is not in the NFL officially yet, but is on the practice squad, and you wouldn't have to change it every time he changes teams or his status changes? In other words, can you think of a better way than "future NFL" that doesn't sound so WP:CBALL-ish? Ksy92003(talk) 21:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Greene's been on an active roster before, it's not crytal-ballish. It's already happened.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

More specifically, Greene was on the Seattle Seahawks' active roster all of 2005 and 2006. He was also on the Chiefs' active roster Week 17 of 2007 and is on the roster right now, not the practice squad. So he's been on an active roster a lot more than he's been on a practice squad.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, alright. Personally, I think that there would still be a better wording for that part, but since it was your wording originally, I'm not gonna ask you to change it or change it myself. Ksy92003(talk) 23:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes he is

He is still on the roster, when he died they never took him off. He IS on the 53 man roster--70.134.111.159 (talk) 00:43, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If he is on the active roster, then who's not? If you look, there are already 53 players on the roster. -Street20 01:12, 06 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah it's just a tribute. No team leaves open spots on their roster because of a player's death - especially not months at a time.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't have a dead person on a roster. End of subject. Pats1 ^T/C 01:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

LB Matt Sinclair was signed by the Redskins on November 29, two days after Taylor died. Presumably, he was the roster replacement. --B (talk) 02:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the Redskins released one player Kevin Sampson and re-signed two Jimmy Farris and Sincliar. Thus, the extra opening was created by Taylor.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

MLB Infobox

For position, can you make it like the NFL infobox? With something like 'position' and 'positionplain', positionplain so you can put in two positions for the infobox. I can't seem to get it right. -Street20 01:57, 06 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Take a look at Nick Swisher, I think I've got it all working. The field is called "positionplain."►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:21, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

thank you for doing that, now we dont have to keep reverting Dshibshm edits, at least ones involving this--Yankees10 (talk) 04:13, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No problem man.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:14, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

2008 NFL Draft article

Chris: I am definitely aware of what happened with the picks. That said, in this case, I would ask that you stop undoing my changes. The first table shows the pre-movement draft order. This is the "master order", so to speak, that will be used to generate the order for every round. No trades are listed in that table. The second table lists the actual order for the first round, and includes all pick movement. Samer (talk) 05:24, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

No, the two charts are necessary, at least for the time being, because people don't read through the explanations, and the net result is extended edit wars (as happened with the 2007 article). Once all the playoff spots are set (after the Combine, at the latest), then the "master order" list becomes superfluous. Samer (talk) 05:35, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

That's to stop people from making unnecessary changes. It's also there because the second table acts as the template for the draft picks. In any case, if one table is going to be deleted, it's the second one (the one that says the Pats have the #7 pick) that's superfluous. Samer (talk) 05:39, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Donnie Avery

What is "a top 10 receiver prospect in this year's nfl draft"? I don't think this would mean anything to anyone not familiar with this sport. Is it like an international player, or a professional player, or what? Deb (talk) 22:06, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm guessing you actually want people to understand who he is an what he does, so I've added a bit to the introduction. But I'm still baffled as to what kind of standard we're talking about. The article says that he's a former college player. Does that mean that he's not good enough to be one any more, or does it mean he's so good he's now a professional? Deb (talk) 12:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The intro to biographical articles is supposed to say what the person is notable for. You would expect an article about a cricketer to begin by saying he's a cricketer. So what's wrong with stating up front that someone is a player of American football? Any British person reading "football" will always assume it means soccer unless told otherwise. So maybe you could think about changing your standard intro. Deb (talk) 17:28, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Most of the articles about American football players do mention American football in the introductory paragraph. I checked. Deb (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox

you know how Template:Infobox NFLretired alread has the color dcdcdc set, do you think you can do that to Template:Infobox MLB retired so that we dont have to go to every retired baseball player and changed it--Yankees10 (talk) 01:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait, what do you want me to do exactly? Make the colors neutral like the NFLretired infobox?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:35, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

yeah, there was a lot of edit warring about the colors on some players about a month ago and we discussed it and decided the colors should be neutral with the same colors as NFLretired infobox--Yankees10 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll figure it out tonight. It's funny that people as me for template help now, considering I really know jack about them, haha. But I usually can figure out how to do something eventually, even if it's by guess-and-check.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

thanks a lot--Yankees10 (talk) 02:00, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Hold up a second, please. Don't mean to butt in, but I was involved in one of the first discussions about this. Can I ask where the discussion is that says that we agreed that the colors should be neutral? I'd like to see this before anybody does anything, if they haven't already. Ksy92003(talk) 04:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay. But I think in all cases like this, neutrality is the best way to go. The arguments will never end for those guys that could have multiple team colors. Unless a guy is under contract with a team, he shouldn't have their colors.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

the discussion is here:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Neutral Colors in Infobox--Yankees10 (talk) 05:02, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

oh yeah and I also left you a message telling you about this here: User talk:Ksy92003/Archive-Dec2007#Your Opinion, which you must not have seen--Yankees10 (talk) 05:11, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No big deal, man.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I had missed that discussion because I wasn't on computer regularly at that time. Alright then. Ksy92003(talk) 05:49, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry about that, I should have left you another message, when I saw you didnt respond--Yankees10 (talk) 23:36, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

No worries. It's my fault; if I wasn't around for a discussion, then I can't do anything about the verdict... whether I agree with it or not. Ksy92003(talk) 00:37, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I know this really has nothing to do with infoboxes, but do you still track me and Chris' edits, because remember back in like April or March me and Chris had that whole disslike of each other thing, and you said you were going to track our edits, not that I care, you can track my edits if you'd like, I was just wondering, I've actually been meaning to ask you for a while but I kept forgetting--Yankees10 (talk) 01:44, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Apostrophes

thanks for telling me and fixing it, also thanks for changing it on my Userpage. Also did you see my message above--Yankees10 (talk) 23:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah just haven't gotten around to it yet, I will.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:37, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

take your time, I was just wondering if you saw it or not and was going to do it or not--Yankees10 (talk) 23:43, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox NFL season

I noticed you added a General Manager field to the NFL season infobox and thought I'd play around with it to see if I could get anywhere with it, aesthetically speaking.

Do you remember when we all had those problems with redlinked years when teams didn't even play in them? (For example, the 1946 Browns article would redlink to 1945 and there was no way around it.) Well, tinkering with the NFL infobox, I managed to figure out how to circumvent that.

Every time the new template is put onto a page, a new firstyear must be entered. I realize we're going to need to go through every single page to add this, but that's irrelevant right now since this new template isn't being used yet. Anyway, the template checks to see if the season is, in fact, the "first year" and, if it is, it WILL NOT list the year before it. I haven't tested it for teams that stopped playing THE NEXT YEAR, but that can come later, I think. Right now, this is all in testing and won't be implemented until it's perfect. And it even works when a team stops playing for a few years and comes back, like the Browns. Simply changing firstyear to 1999 WILL NOT link 1998.

The only problem, as I've said, is that firstyear must be added to every infobox for it to work correctly, as I couldn't find any other way to do it properly (and I'm not good at making complex templates anyway).

I've got the code and the example set up here.

Take your time and look over it and get back to me. I realize I've been gone for quite a while but I've been editing a bit more lately and I hope to get my fingers as dirty as I was getting them before. :] Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 07:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

• I personally would like to say that you did a good job with the infobox. Keep up the good work! --Pinkkeith (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Ryan Torain

A tag has been placed on Ryan Torain requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable, as well as our subject-specific notability guideline for biographies.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Pumpmeup 08:38, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Andrew Ogilvy

Hithere. Perhaps you could look at this article and tell me if it merits inclusion. I'm not certain about the addition of random college players in sports. Thanks! - CobaltBlueTony™ _talk 17:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Bowl Games

for the Bowl Games you add on the Template:Infobox CollegeFootballPlayer, are they the ones that they won or just that they played in.--Yankees10 (talk) 23:49, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

oh yeah can you also check Malcolm Jenkins infobox to see if I did it all right, and add the highlights, Im still new to the infobox and I dont know if I did it right, thanks--Yankees10 (talk) 00:04, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm listing all played in.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I looked over the Jenkins article. Check out this diff to see all the changes I've made - they all reflect the standard formula I've used for creating similar articles.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:47, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

ok thanks, I dont want to be a pain in the ass or anything but I was just wondering when you were going to do that thing with the baseball infobox--Yankees10 16:55, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I forgot. I'll work on it now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually the MLBretired infobox is protected.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

oh shit I forgot about that, do want me to get someone to unprotect it--Yankees10 18:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Louis Alberto Guel

Hey, I just want to like you know that User:Louis Alberto Guel is changing the infobox for people like Bill Belichick, Al Davis, Dennis Green and so on. Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 22:24, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

God that guy is a pain...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

He is reverting the infoboxes again, is there anyway to make him stop? Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I just sent him a message. Hopefully that would make things clear to him (I doubt it however, he is 12 after all) Thanks --Phbasketball6 (talk) 18:50, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

MLB Template

did the user unblock the template yet?--Yankees10 ^{Go Packers!} 23:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikilinking NFL Players

Thanks, I wasn't aware of that I will adjust my edits to exclude that from NFL players. Please let me know if you notice anything else.--Kumioko (talk) 17:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

José Capellán

I thought that we usually don't include middle initials since they don't go by that. Isn't it better to just do what I originally had? -Street20 22:51, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know where the exact guideline is, but I believe the middle initial is the next step in disambiguation if the profession won't work (in this case, baseball). That's how we do the Adrian Petersons.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

In the proposed naming conventions (User:Caknuck/Naming conventions (baseball players)), it does not state to use middle initials. I don't even think I've seen a baseball article that uses the middle initial.

On the side, the only problem with the naming conventions article is that the player in name (baseball player) is no longer used and the baseball in Ramón Martínez (baseball infielder) is no longer used. -Street20 23:27, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Well I believe if one is way more notable than the other, we can leave that one at the basic page. The one from the Braves/Brewers/Tigers is far more well-known than the other, so we could leave him at Jose Capellan and the other one at Jose M. Capellan.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with Chris, the Jose Capellan that played for the Brewers/Tigers/Braves is a lot more notable than the other one. We should just keep it as Jose M. Capellan Jake (talk) 01:19, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

MLB Template

did the user unblock the template yet?--Yankees10 ^{Go Packers!} 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Browns secondary color

Why was the Browns' secondary color changed to white? I thought I was going crazy. Haha. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 13:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Because I made an alternate color for every other bar, brown.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 13:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Was just curious. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 14:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

RE:Your edits to {{NFLSecondaryColor}}

Why are you changing the colors to the wrong colors?? These have been like this forever, and all the team templates use the same colors. I am going to revert your revert and ask you to not change them again. Look at {{Green Bay Packers}} and compare it now to the Green Bay Packers season infobox, they are different colors now. Are you going to change every template for every team? Please leave it be.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:32, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I have created an alternate set of colors - Template:NFLAltPrimaryColor and Template:NFLAltSecondaryColor. The infobox has also been updated to use this set rather than the other set with every other section of the infobox. One uses the original pair, then another uses the alternate pair, and so on. You are messing up the scheme by reverting me. If you see anything strange, like black-on-black as you claimed with the Panthers, I suggest clearing your cache.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:34, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

My first question is what was wrong with the original scheme? Don fix something that isnt broken. Second, look at 2007 Carolina Panthers season. I have cleared my cache and it is still the same color.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:36, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I'll probably just removed all the automatically-filling colors from there all together, since there's the issue of having current colors for a team's old season that didn't use them (1976 Bucs, for example). This is not an issue with player infoboxes though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:37, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Dude I have no clue what you are talking about when it comes to alternating colors. I look at all the Green Bay Packers seasons and the color is a green background with white font, when it should be gold font, for every single season. It looks really stupid. What do you mean it alternates. I have no clue what you are trying to do.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm talking about player infoboxes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, now I've done the same thing to the season infobox that I did to the player infobox. The team colors alternate for every section of the infobox. Now there are no more conflicts (black-on-black, etc.).►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:45, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec)You do know that {{NFLSecondaryColor}} and {{NFLPrimaryColor}} are used on the NFL season infobox right? And now look at any Packer's guy, Brett Favre for example. White on gold??? It looks stupid. You are doing massive changes and it seems like you havent looked at the ramifications of your changes. You are changing thousands of pages on Wikipedia for no reason. What was wrong with the infoboxes anyways that warrants this change. I would feel a lot better if you reverted your changes, because so far I have not seen any good come out of these changes.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats a little better but you still are getting white font on colors that dont show white font well, like the Packers. White on gold looks horrible. That definitely needs to be changed. I would very much hope that you go through all the other teams and make sure the colors looks better. And I would rather just have the Packers without white, the Packers are the Green and Gold, white isnt a main color whatsoever, so if you could make that change it would be a lot better, even if it means that the Packers dont alternate, because there was nothing wrong with the templates before. Also, in the future, can you please remember that it would be better to gain consensus on these types of massive changes to thousands of pages, and make sure all of your changes look good.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

While I don't really agree with your opinion on white and gold, I can make the Packers' colors the same for both sets.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:52, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wanted to make white font on green background and gold font on green background, I think that would be fine. But on some monitors and for people who cant see light colors real well (me) its hard to pick up the difference between the gold and white. Thanks for making the fixes though.
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 03:55, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Done.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:56, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, sorry if I sounded a little angry, I just didnt understand your edits and the Packers colors were hard for me to discern. Thanks for helping me out, have a good day/night!
Gonzo fan2007 ^{talk ♦ contribs} 04:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

It's cool. I think we misunderstood each other because I was talking about player infoboxes (I forgot they were on the team season infobox) and you were talking about the team infobox.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:08, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:NFLStartingQuarterbacks

Now that the season is over, I am not sure what to do with this template. Do you think we should clear it, remove it from pages, and re-assemble it in Week 1 of next season? That seems, to me at least, to be the most logical thing to do. It would be silly to keep the template up for eight months showing guys who most likely will not start next season or, worse, are no longer even on the teams they are listed as starting for. What do you think is the best course of action? Skudrafan1 (talk) 01:54, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I dunno, I think it'd be odd to completely blank each team. I think as long as it says "As of Week..." then it's okay, because it's still listing the most recent NFL starting quarterbacks regardless of how long ago it was.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:00, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

To throw in my two cents here, I'm still opposed to the whole idea of these templates in the first place, but I would say that you keep the template as is for now with the "As of Week..." as Chris said, but remove it from the pages. A player can't be the starting quarterback if the teams aren't playing any game, and for players like Brett Favre, you don't know if he's gonna play another game ever again any way. It'd be like saying that Mark Buehrle is the ace of the Chicago White Sox, but there isn't any depth chart yet, so anybody could be named the starter. Ksy92003(talk) 15:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's not implying he's still starting. It's merely a record of the 32 most recent starters in the NFL.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:39, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Either way, I think it'd be kinda meaningless. I mean in early-September, it's not really gonna be important who was the starter for Week 17 the previous season. Heck, right now, I could care less who was the Chicago Bears' starter for Week 17, or even the Tampa Bay Buccaneers' starter for the Wild Card round. Ksy92003(talk) 22:17, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

If you could care less, don't look at the template...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not just that. If this template is on the articles for all the players on the template (which, according to Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:NFLStartingQuarterbacks is actually 33, one more than there should be), then that's a lot of articles that the template is on. And it's not the only template; Template:CurrentNFLKickers, Template:CurrentNFLLongSnappers, and Template:CurrentNFLPunters are also on that list. That's about 128 different players for all four templates. For one thing, during the offseason, it doesn't make any sense for 128 different articles to say that the player is a starting QB/K/LS/P if they haven't played a game for several months (less than 128, maybe, as kickers and punters may be the same). Another thing is that it takes up unnecessary space on the articles for a template that has no importance during the offseason. Now, there's really no reason for the templates to be on the articles (aside from the space it's taking up) during the offseason because the season is over, they aren't playing, and it is kinda stupid to, in September, say that Ben Roethlisberger was the starting quarterback for the Pittsburgh Steelers back in January. Ksy92003(talk) 23:38, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

"it doesn't make any sense for 128 different articles to say that the player is a starting QB/K/LS/P if they haven't played a game for several months"

That's my point. It's not saying they are current starters. Nowhere is it implying that these guys are starters for these teamsd right now, that they'd be the starters if they had a game the next day. All it's saying is that these are the 32 most recent starters of the NFL franchises, which is always useful info no matter what time of year. It is not misleading because it says on the template when it's current through. It does no harm, plain and simple.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Even then, what is the importance of a team's most recent starting QB/K/LS/P if that team's most recent game was more than seven months ago? Ksy92003(talk) 23:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It's useful information. Like I said, if you don't care then don't look at the template.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Well if I look at the articles for any of the players on the list (such as Tom Brady, Peyton Manning, Tony Romo, et cetera) then I'm gonna see the template. And I don't see how the information is still useful seven months after their most recent game. Ksy92003(talk) 23:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh well?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

How do you think that information is "useful" seven months after their most recent game? Ksy92003(talk) 23:58, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Already explained it, man. If you can't see it, then oh well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see where you explained it. All I see is "it's not implying he's still starting," "these are the 32 most recent starters of the NFL franchises, which is always useful info no matter what time of year," and "It is not misleading because it says on the template when it's current through." I don't see where you've explained the importance; I only see where you've stated that it is. That doesn't explain much to me. Ksy92003(talk) 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Already explained it. I'm done with the discussion, I can't be your personal tutor.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not asking you to be my personal tutor. I know we've already had conflicts in the past, and I don't want to start another one. But if you're so sure that you've already explained it, then you shouldn't have any reason not to explain it once more, right? Ksy92003(talk) 00:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would I repeat what I just said? It's all right about this. It's a template for starters of the most recent games played. Nothing more. It's relevant, accurate info and it's on the right pages. Whether or not you care about the info doesn't matter - it's good info to some and it's all accurate. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure you understand what I'm talking about. I'm not debating the information being on the template. I'm talking about the importance of the templates on the articles. I understand what the templates are for. But I still don't understand how it's gonna be important well after the season is over. If the templates are to show the most recent starters at certain positions for a team... well, seven months is hardly "recent". Ksy92003(talk) 00:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

But it is most recent. The end.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:24, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I cant believe this

I had to tell you this, do you believe that Dshibshm is actually requesting for adminship, is he serious--Yankees10 00:38, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Hahahaha. That's amazing. That's like Britney Spears running for president.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:39, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I know, seriously, I should tell Street20, I've seen hes been reverting this guys edits too--Yankees10 00:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd definitely tell him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Boselli

I am not going to revert your edits on the All-Pro and Pro Bowl, stuff but the flags are currently being taken off all the infoboxes by some users, like I have seen Phbasketball6 taking some off of the football infoboxes and other users are taking them off of actors and singers and shit like that--Yankees10 01:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Infobox templates

Is there somewhere that there is a master list of NFL infobox templates? What one(s) should be used for new articles? I have created a page at User:B/NCAA data that has everyone with either of the two college football templates and you can use related changes to check it for vandalism without actually having to add everyone to your watchlist. I'd like to do the same thing for pro football articles. In an ideal world, I also want to eventually eyeball each of these because they are all heavy vandalism targets and in a lot of cases, I've found old vandalism that goes unnoticed for a long time or articles about the third string scout team punter that their friend made and shows frat party pictures.--B (talk) 04:50, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what you mean. Wouldn't the WikiProject NFL page have any templates and infoboxes being used? Also, most of us feel that Template:Infobox NFLactive is the one to be used for current NFL players, while Template:Infobox NFL player has been pretty much phased out of current player articles.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

User:RC-0722

Okay, let's put an end to this whole getting-the-last-word-in contest. This whole civility discussion has become even more ridiculous than the original NFL project discussion and is much ado about nothing. Everyone to your separate corners please. Thank you. (CC: other talk pages) —Wknight94 (talk) 16:43, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

the smiths

HI. According to WP:NAMEPEOPLE the most important element of names for people is: "The name that is most generally recognisable." None of them are reffered to as Steven Smith or Steve L. Smith. Best, --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:34, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but with the article names containing the teams they have to be moved if they change teams, or when they retire.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:42, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a problem, but that doesn't outweigh the current problem - that the name doesn't refer to them by the name that they are known as. How about we assume for now that they will stay with their respective teams for the rest of their careers. That being the case, when they retire they will also be referred to by that name, i.e. the team that they played for.--brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

But it's very unlikely they don't change teams at some point.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:48, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

We can take care of that when that problem arises. It doesn't make sense to me not to follow the current guidelines because of future problem (even likly problem), if the future problem can be taken care of in the future just like it can be taken care of now. --brewcrewer (yada, yada) 22:54, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

This isn't merely an academic problem, though. Wikipedia content is mirrored constantly and is redistributed in other forms. Having an article named in a way that we know for a fact is going to be invalid doesn't make sense. If naming them by initials doesn't make sense, then maybe a birth year could be used (although I think a middle initial is the better option). Team names just doesn't make sense unless they are retired and only played for one team. --B (talk) 03:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So what exactly would you recommend?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. If one is a defensive end and one is a quarterback, you could use their position. If they are both the same position, I think middle initial is the best option. There is one case that irks me, but there isn't a great solution. There are two college basketball coaches named Bill Foster - Bill Foster (basketball coach) and Bill Foster (college basketball coach). Both coached at a number of different teams so you can't use team name. The solution isn't great, but I guess it works. But for the football players, if they have two different positions, I would use position. If they don't, I would use initial. --B (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that only the Panthers' Steve Smith has a known initial. That's why I used Steven Smith for the Giants' Smith, and Steve L. Smith for the Panthers' Smith. But what about, as the above user mentioned, naming articles based on the most common name?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, yes, that's true, but when there are two articles with the same most common name, something has to give. There isn't one right answer ... using a team name, though, is definitely the wrong answer. Steve Smith (American football receiver, born 1985) and Steve Smith (American football receiver, born 1979) are probably reasonable. Middle initials are reasonable. But it's not a case where there's only one answer. --B (talk) 03:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hypothetically, in cases like this, would colleges be a possibility too? There are two NFL players, both wideouts, named Chris Davis. Neither has known middle initials, so right now they are at Chris Davis (New York Jets) and Chris Davis (Tennessee Titans). What if we put them at Chris Davis (Wake Forest) and Chris Davis (Florida State)? Since it's in the past, this stuff won't change.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, as a college football guy, that works for me ;) but with rare exception, nobody remembers where they went to college 10 years down the line so it's not really a useful distinction - it would be like calling them Chris Davis #1 and Chris Davis #2. --B (talk) 04:12, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Do we even know that the full name of the Steve Smith on the Giants is even Steven? I just don't think it's right to call him Steven if that may not even be his full name. But since his middle name cannot be found, his birth date should be included in the title of the page because no one knows him as Steven Smith. Like what B said, it should be the name that is most generally recognizable. --Street20 (talk) 04:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So... what have we come up with?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to distinguish the Chris Davis' by their teams, then what's wrong with doing that for the Smith's? But I'm actually more in favor of distinguishing them by their birth years. --Street20 (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well the only reason I did that with the Chris Davises is because I didn't know what else to do.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

But what if there are situations where the two players were born a year apart (1978, 1979, ie)? Then that wouldn't be a great method of disambiguating the players because not many people recognize a player as the guy who was born in 1978. Ksy92003(talk) 04:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Tangent here, why the hell do people write "Edit conflict" rather than just pasting their comment on the newest version of the page after the conflict? 99% of the time the fact there was a conflict is irrelevant.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:43, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I just do it for convenience, pretty much. In long discussions, where many people are posting their opinions, whether or not the comments are relevant or not at the time of the conflict, it's just a bit easier to know who said what when. It's just for convenience. Ksy92003(talk) 05:19, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I like putting team names in parentheses. Burner0718 (talk) 04:47, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. After reading deeper, bad idea. How about disabig? Burner0718 (talk) 04:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Wait ... something is missing here. There should be a disambiguation page regardless of what the articles are named. Steve Smith is a disambiguation page that links to the large number of people with that name. The question here is what to name the article. --B (talk) 05:00, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Well Giants.com has other players full names listed but they don't have Steve Smith's. --Street20 (talk) 04:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I strongly support team names in cases like this. Steve Smith (born 1978) means absolutely nothing to me. It's no better than the Steve Smith #1 mentioned above. Even I know who Steve Smith (Carolina Panthers) is referring to and I'm more of a baseball aficionado. Mirror sites and titles which may change years down the line shouldn't be a factor in this decision. What is easier for readers right now should be. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:04, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

But that's just creating work. What happens when he gets traded and that name is no longer valid? --B (talk) 05:07, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

In three years? We'll move the article like I just did. I even fixed the double redirects and it took all of five minutes. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:13, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

What happens if Steve Smith plays for eight teams before retiring? Then what do you call it?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

We'll deal with that if it happens. For now, it's at a nice easy-to-find place with a title that makes sense. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:16, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Even still, if you don't have an idea of what you'd do in that situation, this probably isn't the best route to take now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Why? We could do that all day. What if two guys named John A. Smith, both born in Chicago at the exact same time eventually play cornerback for the for the exact same teams during the exact same years, etc., etc.? Why do we have to answer that now? The Move button will still be around when they retire so we'll decide then. We can't cover all bases, and more importantly, we don't need to right now. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:26, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Because if you can't even come up with a possible course of action in an event similar to the one I described, that means the current course of action will eventually be thrown out, in which case there's no reason not to think of a better, permanent way now.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:30, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's just deal with it when the situation comes up. I don't think we should be arguing right now about a possible situation in the future. --Street20 (talk) 05:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I disagree, considering it's a very likely situation in the future. Players rarely stay with the same team their entire careers these days (I'm willing to bet the numbers are very tiny) in which case this almost certainly going to be an issue at some point. Given that, avoiding a solution now just seems like pure procrastination.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:36, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

(Here's why we denote "edit conflict" - I'm not re-typing this because there's an intermediate message) If someone can think of a better way, have at it. I haven't heard one here. Absent that, I'd plan on leaving them as whatever team they played on most if possible. If not possible, just please don't use birth dates (and only use middle intials if they are commonly used like John L. Williams). Joe Montana was a god to me but I have no idea when he was born. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:37, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

LOL. In the case of John Williams, since there are multiple ones who played in the NFL, they should be listed with their position. I see another John Williams who is listed as John Williams (American football). Guess I will change it now. --Street20 (talk) 05:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

So, we've decided to avoid figuring out a solution despite the fact it will almost certainly become a problem at some point. Good plan.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:39, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm still listening for something better. I don't see how you're ever going to cover every possible situation. We can always wait to see how the outside world refers to them too. There used to be a plethora of Jason Williamses in the NBA - one of them started being known as Jay Williams. Problem solved - and you could have never planned for that. I guess I'm not holding my breath for this to become a serious problem. It's a wiki so nothing is set in stone. —Wknight94 (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand. So what titles are you advocating for Chris Davis (New York Jets) and Chris Davis (Tennessee Titans)? They have to be named something. —Wknight94 (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I was proposing colleges, i.e. Chris Davis (Wake Forest) and (Florida State).►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Again just my opinion, but I'd get irritated if I searched for Chris Davis of the Jets and found he was at Chris Davis (Wake Forest). I'd think the title was grossly out of date, ergo amateurish. That's my (unsolicited) vote. —Wknight94 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

You're right, it was just a thought.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:34, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I know you've already commented about this, Chris, but colleges aren't a great way, either. There are 32 NFL teams.. there are hundreds upon hundreds, maybe thousands of colleges with football programs. Saying something like Chris Davis (Wake Forest) and Chris Davis (Florida State) would be possibly the most confusing disambiguation I could think of. Ksy92003(talk) 22:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Altanta Braves Spring Training non-roster invites

I think I know why they are not on the list. The original article that says Javy Lopez was signed [1] says that "Along with Lopez, the Braves also announced the names of five other players who will come to Spring Training as non-roster invitees." So those guys were only announced that they were coming to Spring Training but they weren't necessarily signed. --Street20 (talk) 01:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you know for sure it happens like that? I don't believe anyone comes to spring training without some sort of contract. I think you might be reading too much into the wording.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:27, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure but like what I said before, they could've been agreements. That article did not specifically stated that they were signed. --Street20 (talk) 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Added onto my reply.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The Chris White's

Right now it's at Chris White (American football) and Chris L. White (American football). Since Chris White (American football) is primarily a guard and the other one is primarily a center, why don't you just make it Chris White (guard) and Chris White (center)? --Street20 (talk) 01:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Because it's just such a gray area, with both having plenty of experience at guard. I feel this is the better way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:29, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Phbasketball6

Phbasketball6 has been adding stats to the infoboxes of quarterbacks. Was that intended to happen? --Street20 (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why not?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:30, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Well it was never done before. Why start now? --Street20 (talk) 01:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

What was never done before?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:32, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Adding stats to the active NFL infoboxes. But now come to think of it, I guess it makes sense since if the retired infoboxes are going to have it, then the active infoboxes should have it too. --Street20 (talk) 01:34, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I added it to the template so I always intended for it to happen. I didn't expect them to get added so quickly, but oh well. I also don't particularly like that he's adding them for players who haven't played a game yet, but whatever.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Coaching Tree

Whats up Chris? I figured you would have an opinion, so I want to ask you what you think of this coaching tree I created? File:PaulBrowntree.bmp Jake (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn man, that's pretty intricate. Good job.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, it didn't really take that long, but I realize I did screw up. Forgot about Morningweg under Mooch and Childress under Andy Reid, but I still think it looks pretty good. Jake (talk) 05:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. So can you use it on Wikipedia? How will you source it?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Good question... I made it, if it were up to me it would be the main one, because Paul Brown can be traced to both Walsh and Schottenheimer. I tagged it {{|PD-self}}, which says this is my own work and I release it to the public domain. What else needs to be done? Jake (talk) 05:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Tyson Jackson

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Tyson Jackson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Duke Robinson

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article Duke Robinson, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Baseball player infoboxes

Do you want to add the birth place of players to the infoboxes, just like the NFL infoboxes? --Street20 (talk) 01:15, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

We could, but we can't edit it since it's protected. It wouldn't be hard to do though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean it's protected? I'll go do it now. --Street20 (talk) 09:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just did it. Hope no one takes it away. Now as for the retired MLB infobox, we'll need an adminstrator to do add the birth place and maybe the death place also. --Street20 (talk) 09:30, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I did something wrong. Apparently there is this extra space in the article that you can't remove unless you add the birth place. Could you help fix it? --Street20 (talk) 09:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I reverted everything I did until someone can fix the mistake I did. --Street20 (talk) 10:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

If you can't figure out the mistake, look at what I did to the John Gall (baseball) article and see if that is a good solution. --Street20 (talk) 10:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Replied

On my talkpage. KellyAna (talk) 04:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

NFL player infobox

There are some words that aren't supposed to be capitalized. Birth, debut, history, highlights, and awards. --Street20 (talk) 22:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Got a policy?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:06, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean? --Street20 (talk) 23:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Got a policy that says it?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:11, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

No but I just thought that in general those words aren't meant to be capitalized. --Street20 (talk) 23:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can change it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Teams in baseball player infoboxes

Do you want to add all organizations to the infoboxes like adding St. Louis Cardinals to Daric Barton? Then under the teams add something like *Minor leagues and/or offseason only or *Did not play for major league club. I think that would be better because it would settle our past disputes on certain articles like Tanyon Sturtze and John Smoltz. --Street20 (talk) 23:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's all relevant and I'd love to see it done like NFL infoboxes. I never liked that an MLB guy could be on the DL all year and not be in the infobox, like Thomson or Sturtze. I would say any time with an MLB team, like being on the DL, would count.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

So would you like to add it or...? I'd also like it to be just like the NFL infoboxes. --Street20 (talk) 23:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that all organizations would be good as it wouldn't hurt. And I wasn't exactly liking certain infoboxes like Cha Seung Baek where it is (2004, 2006-present), 2005 being missing because he spent the entire year in the minors. I just don't like the gaps. And if we do it just like the NFL infoboxes, it will also clear up confusion for players like Dan Miceli. --Street20 (talk) 23:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that "(2004, 2006-present)" looks horrible, there is a difference between the NFL and MLB. In baseball, there are disabled lists (unlike for NFL, unless I'm mistaken, once you're put on IR, you're out for the year; I believe Chris said that, but I could be wrong) that you can come back in a couple weeks, and there are minor leagues where players are called up and sent down all the time. I think that, say, if a guy like Ryan Budde spent some time for the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim in 2007, went to the minors for the Salt Lake Bees, and didn't get back up until 2010 (and was traded later that year), that it should simply say in the infobox "[[Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim]] (2007-2010)." Personally, I believe that if a player spent any time in the minor league system, the the infobox should have him as with the MLB team affiliated with that minor league club for the entire tenure.

I don't think the primary focus here should be to make the infoboxes too similar if the circumstances are different significantly, such as the like of a true minor-league farm system in the NFL. Ksy92003(talk) 03:19, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Street20 - Miceli is a great example of why I prefer a "timeline" effect in the teams list of an infobox. I don't like that we have his 2005 Rockies stint above other 2003 and 2004 stints, I think it makes it look harder to follow. I think we should adopt a system similar to the NFL infobox in this regard.

And Ksy, while I am in favor of having guys like Thomson on the Jays and Sturtze on the Braves in 2007 in their infoboxes, I don't believe that a purely minor league tenure should be represented here. That would become very confusing because it would convey that they were with the Major League club.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

..in which case a denotation could be made in the infobox, similar to the NFL infobox, to say that he spent all of a particular season in the minor leagues. I haven't yet seen an NFL infobox for a player who spent all of a season on practice squad and all of the next season on the NFL roster, so I don't know how denoting that would work.. perhaps, taking my hypothetical Ryan Budde scenario, something like:

[[Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim]] (2002-2010)*

*Spent 2002-2006, 2008-2009 in minor leagues

The rest of my comment will be below in response to Street20's post. Ksy92003(talk) 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So are we for adding all the organizations to each players infoboxes or no? --Street20 (talk) 03:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The person who mentioned Ryan Budde has brought up another point. He spent time in the Phillies organization and played some rehad games while he was on the disabled list but was returned to the Angels after being activated. So his infobox would say:

• Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2002-2006)*
• Philadelphia Phillies (2007)*
• Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (2007-present)

*Minor leagues and/or offseason only

Now I wouldn't know what to do for guys who got plucked in the rule 5 draft. I wouldn't know whether or not I should add the team that took the player but returned him but in the case of Budde I guess it would be okay since he actually played minor league games with them, even if it just was a rehab assignment.

Now I really want to do this because it would fill up every year. I dont like blank years because someone looking at the infobox is going to question what that player did that year. --Street20 (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

If a player played rehab games for a team while on the disabled list for another team, I don't think the team he played rehab games for should be included in the infobox. The key is whether or not he was under contract with the team that he played his rehab games for, which I don't believe Budde was with the Phillies. Ksy92003(talk) 03:55, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

1. What do you mean? Budde was with the Phillies...
2. Ksy, I gotta say, I HATE that example list you first posted with the notation including all the years in the minors. I thik that's taking it too far.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry; the way that Street explained it, without looking at the article itself, I made a false assumption that he was with the Angels, played rehab games for the Phillies while under contract for the Angels, and then went back. Not sure if that's even allowable, so I don't know why I even made that assumption.

Maybe it is taking it a bit too far. But if he played some time for both, I think there'd still have to be some sort of notation to say that he spent some time in that timeframe in the minor leagues. And the information could always be found in the article's text as well, anyway.. or at least it should be. Ksy92003(talk) 04:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it is. I think my notation is better since it's similar to the NFL infobox. I think I will start doing them now unless it's objected. --Street20 (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

By the way, in the case of Ryan Budde, he was taken in the rule 5 draft by the Phillies so he was allowed to play rehab games. But I'm not sure if he was under contract with the Phillies since its still the Angels contract and its the Angels that still own him. --Street20 (talk) 04:16, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually with my notation, there is still something missing. When players are on the disabled list and they miss the entire season. There still needs to be a notation for that. Any suggestions? --Street20 (talk) 04:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe this: *Minor leagues only. **Offseason only ***On disabled list for major league club. ****With major league club but did not play. Any other situations? --Street20 (talk) 04:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Furthering Chrisjnelson's response to Dan Miceli's situation, we definitely need a timeline effect for the baseball infoboxes. Certain players like Ken Huckaby in 2004 began the season for the Texas Rangers then went to the Baltimore Orioles then went back to the Rangers. There needs to be something in the infobox that notes that he was with the Rangers in two different stints during the 2004 season. --Street20 (talk) 04:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict 3x

Would it be at all possible to have two different types of notations: one like "*Played in minor-leagues only" and another like "**Spent season on disabled list?"

As for the Rule 5 draft, I'm not entirely sure how that works, so I can't answer on that. But if a player played any official game in the farm system of an MLB team, then that's good enough for me. If the rehab games were during Spring Training, then that's a different scenario. Ksy92003(talk) 04:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How about players like John Thomson who was on the Toronto Blue Jays disabled list in 2007 but did some rehab games in the minor leagues. So would his say '*Minor leagues only' or would it say '*On disabled list for major league club'? --Street20 (talk) 04:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would a player make rehab stints with another team? That's impossible...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out my sandbox: User:Street20/Sandbox Give your opinions on it. These are real situations--Street20 (talk) 04:46, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

A few comments:

1. I think we'll always be able to keep the notes to one line.
2. If a guy was on the MLB roster, it's irrelevant whether or not he played. No asterisk is necessary. Think of him as a third-string quarterback.

►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

But if people were to look up Adam Melhuses stats for his second time around with the Athletics, wouldn't they be curious to why there is none? --Street20 (talk) 04:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And what do you think of the situations for John Thomson? --Street20 (talk) 05:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

What's to be curious about? He didn't play. That's what no statistics indicate. As for Thomson, it seems fine; we just need to make the note shorter and more concise.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For John Thomson, the first one or the second one? --Street20 (talk) 05:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I would just put something similar to the NFL one we use, like "Minor leagues and/or disabled list only." Does that cover everything?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Full year suspension, but I can't think of anyone who ever got one, if it ever happened. And change it to 'major league disabled list' since there is a minor league one and a major league one. --Street20 (talk) 05:09, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah and offseason. --Street20 (talk) 05:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Damn complex MLB...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:11, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

For the two John Thomson situations, I actually like the second one better because it distinguishes the years he played in the minors and the majors. The first one is more like the NFL one. --Street20 (talk) 05:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

'*Did not play for major league club' is going to sum up everything but I don't like it. --Street20 (talk) 05:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think minor league rehab stints need to be noted at all. If a guy was a pure minor league player, that's one thing. But if a guy was just an MLB guy on the DL making a rehab stint, we don't need to say that. Saying disabled list is enough - that in itself carries the possibility for rehab stints.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:20, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

So I guess we have three situations then (or two if you want to combine minor leagues and offseason):

• Minor leagues only. **Offseason only ***On disabled list for major league club.

Well I think we are going to have to have at least two. --Street20 (talk) 05:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't like combining the minor leagues and offseason together because a lot of players go into Spring Training, get cut, and leave the organization altogether afterwards. --Street20 (talk) 05:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Minor league rehab stints while on the DL might need to be noted. There is a difference while playing in the minor leagues on a rehab assignment and playing in the minors after you are activated. Michael O'Connor of the Washington Nationals began the 2007 season on the DL, did some rehab stints, was activated on June 18, then continued playing for the same minor league team afterward.

There are just way too many situations in MLB. --Street20 (talk) 05:34, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I've made a fictitious sample player in my sandbox which hopefully covers all situations. I'd like to know what you think about separating the Anaheim Angels into two, which distinguishes playing only for the minor league team and for the major league team. I doubt all those situations are going to come up for one player. And one other thing, there are minor league reserve lists which players spend time on but will just be counted under 'Minor leagues only' --Street20 (talk) 05:59, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Edit conflict

I'm thinking I picked a horrible time to go do homework. I read all the previous posts, but really no point for me to respond to all of them. I propose notes for "Minor leagues only" and "On disabled list for season"; I'm not sure that in MLB a player can be an "offseason only" player, like in the NFL. If a player was on the disabled list, and he didn't play an MLB game for the MLB team, whether or not it was as a result of the injury, you could say "On disabled list for season". Using the O'Connor situation, I'd say for him "On disabled list for season" because he didn't make it to the Nationals after going on the disabled list. If a player was simply not good enough to be recalled, obviously then "Minor leagues only" would be the way to go. Ksy92003(talk) 06:04, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

While that looks like a hell of a lot of notations in the fictitious sample player box, I think it's safe to assume that one player isn't gonna have all of those. I'm not sure that we need to differentiate between "On disabled list for major league club," "On disabled list for major league club but played in minor league rehab games," and "On disabled list for major league club but played in minor league rehab games and regular minor league games." I think "On disabled list" should be good enough.. nobody is gonna look at an MLB player and really care about how many regular season or rehab games he played in the minors. I'm not sure any player has ever been suspended for a season, and I'd guess that if somebody were, then the team would probably cut them lose anyway, and I'm still not sure if a player can be "Offseason only." I'm going to add a section to your sandbox, Street20, with what I propose. Ksy92003(talk) 06:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well actually if they are on the disabled list but then play only in minor league games afterwards, I guess it would be okay to use the 'minor leagues only' notation. The suspended notation is only going to be used for players who get suspended then get cut afterwards and only for temporary use like for Mike Cameron who is going to miss 25 games. The 'Offseason only' notation is needed because as I said above, many players go into Spring Training, get cut, and leave the organization altogehter afterwards. So I see at least 4 notations that are needed. --Street20 (talk) 18:39, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And I believe splitting the seasons like John Thomson into four parts is best because let's say I'm a casual baseball fan. I look at his infobox and I see the line: *Colorado Rockies (1993-2002) From that I would assume he played for their major league club from 1992 to 2002. I also see that he made his debut in 1997. I would get extremely confused by that because I wouldn't know for sure whether or not that it was just a careless mistake. So in my opinion, splitting it is the best way to go. --Street20 (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And one other thing, the notation for the disabled list, 'On disabled list for major league club' is required since their is a major league one and a minor league one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Street20 (talk • contribs) 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Check out my other sandbox and see if these are good for final ones. If they are I will I start implementing them. --Street20 (talk) 19:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

And so what do you think of it? --Street20 (talk) 20:58, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, I'm burned out on this stuff.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:05, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll give it a go. I don't know what to do if anyone objects. --Street20 (talk) 21:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Willie Williams

You might want to figure out a disambiguation for these guys: Willie Williams (Steelers and Seahawks) and Willie Williams (Giants). --Street20 (talk) 20:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think this is sufficient.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

If you want to join the infobox discussion on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball. --Street20 (talk) 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Street, I saw your edit on John Smoltz and you're taking it too far. I think if a guy had a stint with the MLB club, you need to do it like we do on the NFL infoboxes. If a guy was with a team from 1988 to 2007 or whatever, but let's say he was on the practice squad in 1988, just let it go without the note. In the NFL infoboxes, we use the notes if a guy's stint with a team was ONLY a practice squad stint. If it was both, we don't use it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I guess what I did with Smoltz was stupid, come to think of it. Could you show me an example of how it should be done? And could you also try to persuade on the talk page of WikiProject Baseball to get this thing approved? Thanks. --Street20 (talk) 23:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Your not going to persuade me I totally dont like this idea one bit--Yankees10 23:28, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Well I guess if we did it like NFL infoboxes, it be

• Detroit Tigers (1985-1987)*
• Atlanta Braves (1987-present)

*Minor leagues only

It seems like you're getting a lot of resistance though. People fear change.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:37, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah to be honest, Chris is right. People don't like change and it would be too much work to make it like that. The fact that Smoltz was in the Tigers system before being traded for Doyle Alexander I think is mostly irrelevant anyways. It should be mentioned in the article that he was in the Tigers system, but Smoltz was pitching at AA at the time they traded him. He wasn't a sure thing to go to the major leagues, but the Braves weren't very good, so he got a shot early on. Tigersfan1992^{How you doing?} 20:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Verifiability

What does that article mean exactly? I don't really understand it. --Street20 (talk) 22:33, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

It means just what it says - the goal is verifiability over truth. It's verifiable from a highly-regarded source that Feliz signed with Philly. Therefore whether it's true or not actually takes a backseat. Plus, one could argue that a countermove just may not me known. Therefore, the Estrada and Feliz edits should stand, because both are verifiable as being "signed" and not just "agreed" upon.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:42, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But in the past I've noticed that CBS is unreliable on signings. Plus all the articles regarding the signings are saying that they are pending physicals. And CBS is putting up the 'signings' on the days that they agreed to the contract. --Street20 (talk) 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability, not truth.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:45, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

But that is basically one source. I can show tons of articles that would counter CBS. So wouldn't those articles verify that they aren't signed? --Street20 (talk) 22:49, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Even their article on Feliz is saying he only agreed. It's just that one stupid transactions page. --Street20 (talk) 22:50, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Alright.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Front offices

As I'm sure you noticed, I removed or in the process of removing some of the positions in the front office parts. Anything like "Director of Football Ops/Player Personnel/Pro Personnel" (except for the Steelers since Colbert is the top ranking personnel guy). This way it's limited to any owning executives (Owner/Chairman/CEO/COO (in a few cases)/President, etc.) and then the top personnel guys (VP of Football Ops/Personnel, General Manager, Assistant GM). If I mess up, alert me. Pats1 ^T/C 22:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)