User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 29

Travis Wilson

You keep adding Travis Wilson back to the Cowboys roster template. He was cut before camp. It even says so on his Wikipedia page. If you need proof, go to the Cowboys' official website. He's not on the roster. RevanFan (talk) 16:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

See the roster template talk page.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:51, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Eagles player pages

Okay, so how will I know if they are notable enough? Eagles247 (talk) 19:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Well for pro players, generally we consider all active/reserve list/practice squad players during the regular season notable. Any other pro league players (AFL, CFL) are notable as well.

As for college players, they need to be particularly notable or exceptional to be added. Guys like Jackson and Robinson are borderline because they earned conference honors, but overall they were just decent college players and haven't done anything in the pros yet.

Really, I'd say as a rule, just hold off on creating pages for undrafted guys until they make the team. Lots of UDFAs get one shot in an NFL training camp, are cut, and never heard from again.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:53, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Eagles247 (talk) 20:04, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Waiver

Hi Chris. Can I ask you about the waiver of Dawson. I understand he is not officially released until he completed the waivers period but do you know when that is. I assume it will be updated on the transaction wire or on his nfl.com bio at some point. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:09, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

He was waived/injured and to answer you're question (I love talk page stalking, haha) it normally won't say if he clears waivers but it's usually 7 (?) days. But since he was w/i'd he'll go on waivers when healthy.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:29, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't see that he was waived injured. The Texans transactions wire just said waived but I did hear that he had an MCL sprain. So as he was waived injured, other teams may pick him up, if they like, but if not he reverts to the Texans injured reserve because they have to pay him, right? DoubleBlue (talk) 23:56, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

See Rotoworld for the w/i part. As for the second part I believe so, not a 100% though.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

K, thanks. :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 00:14, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

He's already cleared waivers and is now on IR per Pro Football Weekly. He'll probably end up being released with an injury settlement, but that's not a given. He could easily stay on IR with the Texans the whole season.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Jeez, it's hard to know which wire report to believe. At any rate, this particular player stays on IR with Texans. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:02, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It just takes experience to know which sources are the best. The people at Rotoworld are idiots and their analysis is usually horrible, so they can't be trusted they say what "should" happen. Team sites typically aren't reliable either, though some are better than others. But PFW has the official NFL transaction wire and is easily the best source on the internet.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Khalil Jones

Figured this AfD I opened a while ago, would interest you: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Khalil Jones, another one of those undrafted rookie articles.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:20, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on our discussion yesterday I made some possible changes to Template:Infobox NFLactive, here which is the one with the code and the finished product here.--Giants27 (c|s) 14:16, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Looks pretty good. I see no reason not to add it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:57, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Reverts

I am sorry. I reverted the Robbins edit because he had offseason microfracture knee surgery which takes usually one year to recover from like Tom Brady. He recovered in about six months (which puzzled me) and didn't think he would be off of the Active/PUP list so soon. So I reverted the edit by Giants27. I was already on nydailynews/blogs/giants/ and it said nothing about Robbins being activated, but then I refreshed the page and saw that he was indeed activated. Yet again, I am sorry for reverting the edit and should of checked my sources better. Ositadinma (talk) 21:54, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Made a mistake

Ethan Kilmer left camp not Smith Raul17 (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't revert if just because of the Smith thing, I reverted it because as far as we know, Kilmer has not been moved off the roster. Before we delete him, Miami will need to place him on Reserve/Left Squad or Reserve/Retired. We'll find out tomorrow when Pro Football Weekly updates the transaction wire.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:52, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

I thought both the dolphins site and the NFL site had removed Kilmer. Raul17 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

They did, but those sites are not reliable sources because they are run by people that don't understand the processes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:06, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Rodney Ferguson

Why the move? There is no other Rodney Ferguson to disambiguate, and most sources I've seen identify him without the II.--TM 14:25, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Titans official site lists him that way.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:29, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'd say that we have a conflict of sources then. You should have discussed it before the move. The sources on the article list him without the II.--TM 15:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I just felt that since his own pro team referred to him a certain way, and that's what he's known for, that's how his name should be here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:35, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, a far greater number of sources leave the II out. For example, ESPN, University of New Mexico and Sports Illustrated.--TM 15:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

UFL SF Template

I realize that draft picks are not necessarily signings, but instead of blanking the template perhaps in the interm we could simply put at the top current draft choices. In a start up league, draft choices are usually not made unless there is intent to sign them. From what I've been hearing, the draft choices were already under contract to the UFL and this was simply a dispersal draft. Plus I'm not sure whether UFLAccess.com is a worthy site, but SF has at least some signings announced there. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 22:28, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Well the reason I deleted them is because they don't seem to be signed. There were announcements on LV and NY signings, yet not all the drafted players were listed. If they were signed, they would have been.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:09, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Templates for deletion nomination of Template:Miami Dolphins roster navbox

Template:Miami Dolphins roster navbox has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. RF23 (talk) 00:30, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Marvin Phillip

I thought he was waived not waived/injured.--Saffi2k7 (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Football

I don't know what you think you're doing, but your edits make no sense. Those athletes all play one sport - American football. Calling them gridiron football players is absolutely nonsensical. Why would you use a less descriptive, less accurate term? Hell, if that's your goal, why not just call them football players? Furthermore, reverting without so much as an edit summary to even try to defend your edits is bad form, as is calling calling another editor a stalker. Reverting someone's misguided, nonsensical, bullshit edits is hardly stalking. Either knock it off or attempt to find some consensus for your changes (I would suggest Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football). Otherwise you will be reverted, and if you continue to make personal attacks, you may be blocked. faithless (^speak) 05:50, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Your behavior was, by definition, stalking. No personal attack there. Though calling someone's edits "bullshit" could be construed as a personal attack. So why don't you block yourself? Alrightcoolbye.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'll try and play mediator I've called someone else a stalker and that's more of a "stop editing the same pages as me, minutes/hours after I do," message. Calling another editors, edits "bullshit" is not a personal attack either, if you were called for example "a little piece of shit" then it would be a personal attack. But in this case Faithless was criticizing the edits not Chris. And finally, Chris half your edits are right in my opinion National Football League followed by (NFL) is not being used on any page, and will need consensus, WT:NFL or WT:CFL come to mind. While gridiron football is used for guys who have played both American and Canadian football while Arena is not included. If the guy has only played one form, whether it be American or Canadian then you use that.--Giants27 (c|s) 13:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, his comment still definitely falls under the umbrella of personal attacks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The "This page in a nutshell" on WP:NPA says that you should "Comment on content, not on the contributor," also the first line states the same thing. So, in my opinion it sounds as though he's saying the edit is bullshit not you but I do see your point.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:09, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not privy to the articles you're discussing but I've come around to the idea that gridiron football is a good general term to use in the introduction for people who've played both American and Canadian football. The precision comes within the article discussing the times playing the codes. For dabs, it is actually the preference to use the most general descriptive word to disambiguate and only use more precision when when two people share that article title as well WP:NCP. I would still not favour using (gridiron player) as a standard though; I still think the more general (football player) is the starting point. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Heads Up

Hey just a heads up, if a guy like Parker Douglass gets signed and played in the Indoor Football League, I created a template for the year a while back (located here) but since the league's only been in existence under that name it can only be used for guys who have played in 2009 and after.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Alright, sweet.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:27, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Cato June

See reply at Talk:Cato_June#Length.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:40, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Roy Hall

Wasn't he waived not waived/injured. Please reply. --Saffi2k7 (talk) 22:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Dolphins

Did I read this right. Ernest Wilford is playing tight end for the Dolphins. Was he not a below average wide reciever for the Jaguars. Ositadinma (talk) 17:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

He was moved to tight end to give him a chance to make the team. He won't, though.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Stat box

Why do you keep puting a stat box on Andre Brown. He is a rookie and hasn't even had a snap in a NFL game (and won't this year because of a ruptured Achilles tendon). It looks stupid when it has As of week 17 of the 2008 season when at the time he was STILL in college. Ositadinma (talk) 23:38, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Because THOSE are his stats. The absence of statistics in a career is equally as relevant the lack of statistics in a career. You shouldn't have to dig through Brown's bio to know he's never played in a game. You should be able to see he hasn't accumulated stats, which will make you want to learn more about what's happened in his career.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

See minor league baseball players pages. They have info boxes, but they do not have stat boxes since they have never played in a MLB game. When they make their debut, we add the stat boxes. Why not the same in the NFL? Players who have not made a debut yet have relatively short articles on wiki and would not have to dig through their article to see if they have ever played in a professional game. For me it doesn't matter, but then I (or other wiki editors) would have to go through players articles who have not made a debut and add a stat box (which is easy, but) it would be simpler if we wait to add a stat box until they make a professional debut and not before then. Ositadinma (talk) 03:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Because the fact a guy has no stats is just as much a story as a guy having stats. Why doesn't a guy have stats? Is he a backup? Is he a rookie? Has he been hurt? No stats tell just as much a story as stats do.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

On the infobox there is a section were it say professional debut. When he makes his debut we put the date in. If he has not make his debut the default says No regular or postseason appearances. So why is it if it says he has not made a debut, does he need a stat box? Ositadinma (talk) 04:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

There's just no reason not to have it. It lets people know he hasn't accumulated any stats, and lets the reader or inexperienced editor know that if he does in the future, they can add them there.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Like I said it doesn't matter to me, but let me make this clear. Any professional American football player with an info box needs a stat box. If so I will add statboxes to ALL New York Giants players currently on the roster. Ositadinma (talk) 17:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion, wait till the beginning of the season when there's not 80 guys.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Good idea Giants27. Ositadinma (talk) 17:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would I be opposed to that? That's what I've been doing...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Last amateur club

I noticed an edit that leaves me to suspect, though you did not leave an edit summary you naughty boy, that you share my feeling that the infobox should list only the last amateur club played before being signed/drafted for a pro team; whether that be a college, high school, junior, or whatever. Is that the case? DoubleBlue (talk) 03:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You referring to the edits to the Eskimos players? He was adding high school to a template that that not have that field, that's why I deleted it. I don't think the infobox should have that field personally, but the fact that it doesn't know means it certainly shouldn't be there in text. It's not gonna show up anyway, so what's the point?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I didn't notice that. I just saw the line that you had reverted in the diff. The field, in my opinion, is for players who got signed out of high school; thus the "College" heading does not make sense. However, I've noticed some adding the field for others as well just identifying what high school they played for. It's not wrong, strictly, but I kind of feel the infobox should stick to the key facts and the last amateur club is generally notable for how they got noticed/got their training but high school, though of interest in the article, is a little too distant for a quick fact in the infobox. The CFL Facts, Figures, and Records books use the heading "Last amateur club" in their bios, which is kind of a tempting catch-all. Sorry, I wouldn't have brought it up but I thought you were already thinking about the issue. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know what you're talking about.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:09, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I was mistaken in thinking that you were already thinking about something that I was thinking about and wanted to share thoughts, then. Since you're not, forget about it. Have a good night. :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 04:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Shane Andrus

I have read it. The term "undrafted free agent" was coined to refer to those players THEIR FIRST YEAR out of college, who went undrafted, but were signed by a team. He was an "undrafted free agent," he was not signed by the Colts as one, he was signed by the colts as a "free agent." That he went undrafted is also a notable point, but as he's no longer a rookie and has played with multiple teams in multiple years, the use of the term "undrafted free agent" is improper. 98.220.57.204 (talk) 03:41, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah HELL! My bad! I just re-read it... 98.220.57.204 (talk) 03:43, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

For some reason I read it as 2009, not 2006. That's what happens when you wikipedia after drinking... 98.220.57.204 (talk) 03:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Chad Brown

When you have four Chad Brown's, you do a disambiguation page. That's Wiki policy. Handicapper (talk) 20:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Tell whatever Admin to refer to me. Handicapper (talk) 20:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You are wrong in your unfounded statement. Tell the Admin to refer to me if you want to avoid Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests.

Do not mess around. (Chad C. Brown) Your conduct is quickly becoming unacceptable. Handicapper (talk) 20:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Middle initials are not used to disambiguate pages unless there is no other option.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:49, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

All trainers and jockeys are recorded by the official sanctioning racing body, the NTRA, by their name with a middle intial. Chad C. Brown Don't make statements you know nothing about. Handicapper (talk) 20:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

You referred to Wikipedia:Naming conventions (common names) as policy. It is not. Handicapper (talk) 21:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

More changes to Infobox

I've made some more changes to the NFL infobox shown here with the results using all relevant fields here. Thoughts?--Giants27 (c|s) 00:34, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'd throw in arena league stats for guys like Sippio.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Added and I shuffled some things around.--Giants27 (c|s) 01:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

We need to find a way to removed (through Week 17 of the 2008 season) or whatever for retired players.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I moved the |statseason= into the place where |statweek= was and completely removed that sentence.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There needs to be some kind of visual indicator though for current players, so people know if the stats are current, or old and need to be updated. Those fields just need to be optional.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just removed the statweek field, not optional but with the wording is more neutral than before.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:07, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Based on this edit summary should I assume that your good with the new infobox?--Giants27 (c|s) 16:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I think so. What all is changed/different?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Now, the currentteam and currentnumber fields can be removed, deathdate and deathplace have been added, CIS and high school fields are now compatible and finally CFL and AFL stats can be added. All I think now is that it could use a name change.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:42, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well I really don't want high school to be used for NFL players, I don't think it's relevant. We're also going to need another numbers field like the retired infobox.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Another number field? I'm pretty sure you can add four or so numbers like the retired infobox. And you don't have to use the highschool field but apparently the CFL people think it's relevant because the other one has it so for the sake of ditching the two infobox crap I'm going to leave it in.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:51, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:53, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

I doubt they'll be any people disagreeing with it, so I'll go ask Pats to unlock it again.--Giants27 (c|s) 17:19, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Brown

Could you give me your source to your recent edit to Andre Brown. I thought the Giants were going to wait until the roster is cut down to 53 before they place him on I.R. Ositadinma (talk) 20:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Booty's new #

He will wear #9, GO VIKINGS!.GWST11 (talk) 21:27, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, the Vikings are idiots.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Write it down right now, the Vikings WILL lose to the Lions since even they can capitalize on Favre's interceptions.--Giants27 (c|s) 00:04, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Some AfDs you'll be interested in: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Four Norsemen of the Apocalypse, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jaison Williams and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marcus Fitzgerald.--Giants27 (c|s) 02:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank You and Questions?

Than you for changing the roster status key on the List of current NFL team rosters. Left/Camp and Left/Squad basically mean the same thing. Left/Camp means leaving training camp for some reason and Left/Squad means leaving the team for some reason. I wanted you to change the roster status key because if some unknown users came across Left/Squad and saw that it was not in the roster status key they would just have reverted it. I undid your edit beacuse it was not in the roster status key and it would of been false information. I did not change the roster status key because I simply do not care about Left/Camp or Left/Squad since they are basically the same thing and also because I did not create the roster status key and did not want anybody to scrutinize my edit since you are the NFL edit king. Sincerley, Ositadinma (talk) 16:38, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Come to think about is there even such a thing as Reserve/Left Camp, because that is what it says next to Marlon Davis' of the Cleveland Browns. He was actually on the Reserve/Left Squad list also, but since it was during training camp - Reserve/Left Camp? Like I said they are basically the same thing. Could you help me out with this, Chris? Ositadinma (talk) 17:12, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, also are not most guys retired if they Did Not Report. Why not list them as Reserve/Retired instead of Did Not Report? Is it that since they still have a contract that they are still obligated to report to camp even if retired? Could you please answer this questions since your are the NFL edit king and it would clear up alot of confusion on my part. Thank you. Ositadinma (talk) 17:30, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I honestly can't recall seeing "left camp" on the official transaction wire, but maybe User:Pats1 has. I've seen "left squad" quite a bit and that's where Kilmer was moved per [1].

As for the reserve/retired vs. reserve/did not report thing, I know some but I don't fully know how it all works. Yes, a lot of guys placed on DNR are retired and will probably never come back (like Jake Plummer) but as it stands they are not on reserve/retired like a lot of retired players are (Strahan, Tiki Barber, etc.). I'm not sure if this has anything to do with the player filing retirement papers. Or perhaps it's a more difficult process to activated a guy from reserve/retired, so if there's a chance they could come back maybe they keep them on DNR. You could ask Pats1, he might know more.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:35, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I forget. Maybe I was wrong when I made the key. But the ProFW archives aren't online anymore so I can't double-check it. Fact of the matter is, the only player on Left Camp/Squad right now is Kilmer, and he is officially Left Squad. Pats1 ^T/C 18:04, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I know that Marlon Davis was put on the Reserve/Left Squad list, because I just looked that up on Ohio.com [2]. Chris and Pat, should we just get rid of Reserve/Left Camp and go with Reserve/Left Squad since we never heard of Reserve/Left Camp before and because they mean the same thing. ? Ositadinma (talk) 18:15, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I would think so. Is the Browns' official website roster the only reason we have it?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Actually on the Browns official website's roster it lists Marlon Davis on the Reserve/Non-Football Injury list. So I do not know. Ositadinma (talk) 18:27, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

The Pats put Michael McGrew on the Reserve/Left Camp list in 2006. That's where I'm getting it: http://www.patriots.com/news/index.cfm?ac=latestnewsdetail&pcid=41&pid=20217. Pats1 ^T/C 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Reserve/Future

Should we list Reserve/Future contracts in the roster status key? I know that Pats1 deleted that recently. Your thoughts on that? Ositadinma (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure there's anything called reserve/future. It may just be a future contract, which would be stating the obvious. Pats1 ^T/C 22:56, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

That's what they've called the future contracts in the past. Reserve because the current season is still happening and the next league year hasn't begun.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

So should we put the Reserve/Future thing in the roster status key. As I know of the term is usually when a player signes a Reserve/Future contract it is at the end of the season (Week 17 of the regular season – the playoffs). He is a street free agent meaning that he would of not been on any active roster in the 2009 season and signed a contract for a team to play in the 2010 season before the 2009/2010 free agency period begins. Ositadinma (talk) 18:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

We don't need to put Reserve/Future in the key because we will never use it. We keep future signings in a separate section on the right of the template.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Also does the category American shooting survivors pertain to people geting shot by someone or them shooting themself pertaining to Plaxico Burress. Ositadinma (talk) 18:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Nowhere in that category, or its parent category, does it seem to exclude self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Do you have anything to back that up other than your own assumption?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No, but for me it seems silly. Whenever somebody hears about a shooting survivor, most people conclude that somebody shot them, not them shooting themselves. Ositadinma (talk) 18:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Well sorry, but your assumption is irrelevant. That category is simply for survivors of shootings, and Plax is by definition just that.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:20, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Dude

I did not copy it man. I wrote the it myself and I did not copy. Sorry, for any future edits that may piss you off. --Saffi2k7 (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So you want me to completely rephrase the way that I see it. --Saffi2k7 (talk) 21:19, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Really?

Are edits like this really necessary, it shows up in the same place on the template no matter what.--Giants27 (c|s) 23:11, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just think it's best to have them in the order they appear in the template, so that when you're fixing them up you can go through it in your head and make sure you got it all.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Marvel Smith

Hey Chrisjnelson, Marvel Smith has reportedly retired, so I edited Template:San Francisco 49ers roster and placed him on reserve/retired. Then I edited his player page so that it shows he's retired. User:Pats1 reverted my edit on the 49ers roster template, saying that we only remove him from the roster when he's placed on reserve/retired. I asked him if I could keep the player page the same, and he said to ask you. What do you think we should do? Eagles24/7 19:53, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Typically, I just leave a guy's page to say retired just because most users are going to go there and edit it that way anyway. It's only the templates where we really keep things 100% official. But with someone like Jake Plummer, there's really no sense in keeping it 100% accurate (that he's on Did Not Report and not officially retired) because you're just going to have to fix it everyday.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:21, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool. Thanks, Eagles24/7 20:34, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Kazmir

The Kamzmir trade fell through at the last second. Baseball is hard to edit because off all of the speculation and this owner said this. So please wait until they are offically done. Remember certain players have to clear waivers (like Kazmir, who is on the forty). Also the commisioner's office has to approve it and sometimes medical records has to be required (Kazmir has a history of injuries). All of these injuries above could of contributed to him not being traded. Plus Kazmir has an ERA above 5.90 and has a heafty contract. See - WP:CRYSTAL. Ositadinma (talk) 01:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I think Chris understands policy... --Giants27 (c|s) 02:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I know Chris understands policy. I was saying how MLB transcations occur (Way different from NFL, which he mostly edits). When I have a question about NFL edits, I go to him about, because he knows alot. I was refering to baseball edits in the complience of WP:CRYSTAL, which he did not follow when he put Kazmir on the Angels. Don't always be the first one to edit pages when information is first leak (some people consider Twitter and personal blogs sources, which is debatable), but be the first to make sure that your edits are correct. It is not about quantity of edits, but quality. Just some contructive criticism here. Ositadinma (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Correction. SEE, just like that baseball trades happen. Kazmir just got dealt to the Angels for minor leaguers Alex Torres and Matt Sweeney (plus a player to be named later). Earlier when you made the edit it was originaly going to be two other minor leaguers. That's why you got to keep your eye open on MLB trades and follow closley WP:CRYSTAL. Ositadinma (talk) 03:03, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I made my edit based on a report that said "Kazmir trade official." that passes WP:CRYSTAL, whether it turned out to be true or not. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:09, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Basically what I am saying is don't jump the gun. A lot of sites report MLB transcations (and they are usually right), but when they are not offical. Please don't edit baseball templates when there isn't an offical deal done yet. When a team says they are going to call somebody up on Friday, they mean on Friday (unless they change their minds) and not before then. Don't make an edit on Thursday (Not just you, but others editors as well). As an baseball editor you have to differate what is real from fiction and that could be hard sometimes, so when it comes to baseball edits your best shot to follow WP:CRYSTAL and not let the media sway you. Like I said just some contructive criticism here. Ositadinma (talk) 03:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm not jumping the gun at all. I'm following Wiki policy. There is no policy that says, or even implies, that the only source of a sports transaction is the league or the teams. That's not how it works here per WP:VERIFY. So no, I will not be adjusting my editing style, because that's not how it's done here. Technically, you reverting me is what goes against Wiki policy. So you're the one needs to brush up on his policies. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:22, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

First of all I did not revert you, a random IP did. You can go through the history. You don't get what I am saying. Wikipedia should be 100% percent vertifiable. When it is not there is something wrong. That is why a lot of teachers all across the country imply that Wikipedia is not a reliable source (And it should not be, because of all of the vandalisim and false edits). What I am saying is when you edited the Angels and Rays templates; the deal was not official (You edited at about 18:00 UTC when the first deal was on the table and that fell through). You were right on the Kazmir deal because it was done, but not until a couple hours later when a new proposed deal went official, during that time those templates were not vertifiable, since Kazmir was still on the Rays and not on the Angels). What I meant about the transacation is that sometimes those sources are faulty (I'm not saying that MLB is not), but there is a reason why their is a roster and transacation link - so people can vertify the information; quick and easy, instead of searching for it. That was all I was saying. Ositadinma (talk) 03:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I can't help you if you don't understand Wikipedia policy. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:13, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Since the Angels are my team, I've been following this story all day. There have been sources, prior to official word from the Rays (the L.A. Times, for example) that have said that the "deal is done". If there is a source, a reliable one such as the Los Angeles Times, that says that the deal is done, and the Rays "haven't said anything" about it, so long as they aren't denying the reports, that passes WP:VERIFY and WP:RS, and is good enough.

As it stands now, the deal is official according to ESPN, the Tampa Bay Rays, the Angels, and all media outlets, so there's nothing to worry about anymore. Ksy92003 (talk) 04:18, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Right, all that I was, am, will be saying is don't make an edit till it is official. There were two deals on the table (The first one fell through, when Nelson made the edit and the second made it, making it official) The Rays didn't have to make it official, but I do understand what Ksy92003 is saying. Let's just squash this because no one is making any head way. We can all agree on is that when it is official, then make an edit, but not before. Ositadinma (talk) 04:24, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey Guys - this is where WP:COMMONSENSE applies. Until it happens... it hasn't happened... And with that I go back into retirement. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

That's not how Wikipedia works. You don't make the edit when it is official, you make the edit when it reported by usually reliable sources (ESPN, beat writers, etc.) report is as official. That's Wiki policy, so either get it changed or learn the current policy. ►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:41, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Lets take this as an example. Lets say you make an edit on Wikipedia and you have a usually reliable source. Somebody looks at that edit and uses it in a project in school or business. What happens when you make that edit (even though you had a reliable source) and it turns out to be false. You put false information on Wikipedia and somebody has to suffer the consquences for it (Even though Wikipedia is NOT a reliable source). How would you feel if it was done upon you. Wikipedia should be reliable and true or official. There are reliable sources out there that say Thomas Edison invented the light bulb (When he only invented the filament to the light bulb). Can I put that on Wikipedia since it follows WP:VERIFY, even though it is untrue. Do you get what the analogy to Kazmir. Ositadinma (talk) 04:51, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Go away. Read the policy. Try and understand it. If it doesn't sink in, read it again. If it still doesn't sink in, probably give up reading and writing altogether. Either way, don't come back here.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Cato June

Chill out on the reverts for a while. I'm not taking a position on the infobox dispute, but you've already reverted three times in a time frame of less than 24 hours. If you make another revert before 11:12 (Eastern time), you will have broken WP:3RR, and I don't want you to get blocked for it. Just be careful. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:01, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're close on Template:Infobox NFLactive as well, with three reverts already. I don't want to, but I will have to report you if you violate WP:3RR. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:26, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Two reverts. The first was just an edit.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:28, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

You're right, my mistake. But still be careful. Ksy92003 (talk) 02:29, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Infobox NFLactive

Can we change the infobox's name since it is use for more than NFL players? Just a suggestion, maybe Infobox American footballactive, or something along those lines. Ositadinma (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking "Infobox Gridiron football player" since this WILL be used for CFL players too.--Giants27 (c|s) 21:47, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

But here is the problem, most people don't know what "Gridiron football" means; they will resort it to more of the now defunct XFL league, which the CFL is not. Anyways it doesn't matter what the name should be because we have to fix out the differences in people opinion about the infobox first and come to a consenus to what should be added to the infobox. I though I'd just bring it up because the infobox does not accuratly symbolize all of the football leagues in its' title. Ositadinma (talk) 22:04, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean when you said, "fix out the differences in people opinion about the infobox first and come to a consenus to what should be added to the infobox" so far other than the highschool thing, there has been no complaining about it. And gridiron football is the appropiate term and is more well known than you think.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:08, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I was refering to people reverting other people's edits and going back and forth on it. Come to a consenus and make the infobox more stable so that everyday somebody doesn't change it or revert it. The term gridiron is more popular in Canada, UK, and Australia. It isn't use alot in America even though the field is a gridiron and rules are unified under "Gridiron football". Ositadinma (talk) 22:14, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Last I checked it was only on the highschool thing nothing else. And last I checked this was Wikipedia, the American encyclopedia thus Canadian, UK, Australia and the like are relevant when naming the infobox.--Giants27 (c|s) 22:17, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

All I am saying it wait to the infobox becomes stable before we name it something different. I know they are relevant. Whoever named this game was stupid, since their was already a "football" before football. If it wasn't for that person we would not of had all of this trouble. Ositadinma (talk) 22:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Could you please expand on your reasoning for removing the NFLE teams that a player played for from the infobox. It makes sense to me that the infobox be a quick review of the pro teams the players has played for. If anything, I would remove the teams he was only a PR guy for. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Because we can't create a timeline if we have tenures within a tenure. Most NFLE players were under contract with NFL teams at the time anyway, whereas someone like Ramiro Pruneda was only a member of the NFLE team and no other at the time he played there, which is why it's in his infobox. It's just the standard and has been since the template was made.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:09, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

His rights may have been held by an NFL team but he didn't play for them. It makes no sense not to list teams he actually played for and betrays an NFL bias. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:15, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Kind of a nonsensical way of looking at things. Of course there is an NFL bias (and there should be) - NFL Europe was a developmental league that was owned by the NFL...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:17, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm aware of that but it makes no difference looking at the teams he played for in the infobox. At the time, he played for a NFLE team, he was playing for an NFLE team, we was not playing for the NFL team, he wasn't on the NFL roster, he wasn't even on the practice roster, they just held his rights. We certainly wouldn't list every team that a player's rights were held by in the infobox, though it may be of interest in the context of the article. What's of interest, at a quick glance, is the teams he played for. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:22, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

And if we know that the NFLE was a developmental league and we list that he was playing for them, then we can surmise that he was likely under an NFL contract at the time and can confirm that in the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:24, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Not that you've sufficiently proved you don't understand how NFL Europe worked, I see no point in continuing this discussion.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:29, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Consensus is how Wikipedia operates

Re your reverts and comment on the Template:Infobox NFLactive page and its talk page w/r/t high school info in an infobox ... You might want to take another look at Wikipedia:Consensus; it's how the Wiki community does things, decisions of a group, not the opinion of a single individual. I wish you luck as a sports writer (you say on your user page that's your plan); you might have to loosen up a bit though and be a bit more flexible to be successful. Cheers. Truthanado (talk) 01:53, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

BTW, re: your comment "it wouldn't go in career information because not everyone played high school football" ... If the player didn't play high school football, then the infobox input would read "highschool=none" and the infobox would show "High school: none". Considering the vast majority of NFL players did play high school football, it would be an interesting and encyclopedic piece of information to highlight those who didn't in the infobox. Truthanado (talk) 02:03, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Sportswriter advice

If I may pass along a little advice on how to be a good sportswriter, from a very good writer that I know.

"A good sportswriter writes what his readers want to know about, not about what the sportswriter wants to tell them about."

It's sort of a variation of "the customer is always right". Best of luck. Truthanado (talk) 02:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)