User talk:Omg its will run/Archive13

THIS IS AN ARCHIVED TALK PAGE.
Please do not make any edits to this page. If you wish to leave a message for the user with whom this talk page is associated, please do so by following this link.

Re: Baxter/Bentley

Pro Football Weekly: [1] (The technical term is actually "Passed Physical") Pats1 16:55, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Pats, "passed physical" is not what you'd call a technical term. It's just the way PFW words it. Kind of like "Placed on waivers" found on that same page. Waived would be the technical term, although there might even be something more specific. None of this is relevant to your discussion though.►Chris Nelson 16:58, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See? [2] ►Chris Nelson 18:18, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One cannot pass a physical and participate in position drills and still be on the PUP list. If he's participating in drills, he's not on the PUP. I think the article I provided made it pretty obvious. And if you're going to work on NFL rosters here, you should learn that official team websites are often horrible sources for updated rosters.►Chris Nelson 02:32, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Some website" has claimed it. ProFootballWeekly reported it, and they get their transactions from the league office.►Chris Nelson 02:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Haha it's cool dude. I certainly understand your skepticism; I was surprised when I saw it on the wire too.►Chris Nelson 02:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Don't be so hard on yourself man. It's all good.►Chris Nelson 02:49, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basically, they have to be yours or free. I uploaded a lot of Atlanta Braves photos I've taken, but the ones I got from Flickr turned out to be copyrighted. Look in my archives, you should see someone explaining to me that not ALL Flickr photos are usable - only the ones that have a certain licensing.►Chris Nelson 03:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some new template stuff

First off, thanks for adding the new template to more player pages. I was wondering if you could keep these things in mind for the sake of consistency. If you're opposed to any of them we can discuss it; I just want us all to do everything to say way for consistency's sake.

Don't know if you know, but there is an alternative field for the position called "currentpositionplain" which allows you to link things yourself. This comes in handy if you need to write Cornerback/Safety or for writing Guard since it's not found at the Guard article.
We should add debut years and teams until they have actually debuted in the regular season. If you're unsure if a guy has actually debuted, look at the Games column of a player's NFL.com page. I know the code is ugly if you leave it blank, but this will be fixed eventually so we just have to live with it.
When awards get too long, I usually create a subsection in the article then like to that. See Zach Thomas and his college awards for an example.
I've also been condensing similar college awards, for example if a guy was a first-team All-American three times, I'd just put "3x first-team All-American (1999-2001). No need to create three lines for this I figure.
Can you link to the most specific article you can find for the college team? In Brady Quinn's case, you'd link to Notre Dame Fighting Irish football and rename it Notre Dame. But some schools' football teams don't have their own articles, in which case you might have to link to a section of an Athletics article or university article. See Marty Booker for an example of this.
For the current team in the Teams section, please use "present" rather than "current." I can explain why if you want, unless you're cool with it already.
I've always been in favor of listing all teams a guy has been on in the Teams section - even ones he didn't play for. I look at this section as sort of a timeline. However, there obviously should be some kind of distinction between teams a guy played with and teams he was on but did not play with. Take a look at Donnie Spragan and tell me what you think about my method.

Anyway, I'm not telling you to do all these things. But I've been doing them, and whatever we do I'd like it to be consistent. So if you have any comments or questions about these feel free to let me know and we can figure out which route we wanna go.►Chris Nelson 03:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay cool. Also, I haven't been italicizing "present" in the Teams section. And I've been using CBS Sportsline as the stats source because in my experience those pages stay up long after a guy stops playing (unlike NFL.com) and are complete (unlike PFR).

I'd used italics in the old template, but with the parentheses it looks a little weird to me on the right side. Anyway, what'd you think about my idea for representing teams a guy didn't play with and how I distinguished them?►Chris Nelson 04:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what to tell you

It's clear you have a pre-existing relationship with the editor I am having the most difficulty with right now. I have reported the personal attacks and incivility, I have shown how there really is a consensus (or at least a move toward a consensus) by most editors involved. RFCs, 30s, and everything else seems to fall on deaf ears. I think the best thing for now is to try and keep things as amicable as possible (although that isn't easy) and try and focus on content related edits. I'm all ears if you have any suggestions. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 19:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You and your childish alliances, Jmfangio.►Chris Nelson 19:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not so sure I'm going to "choose a side" in regards to this debate. Thus far it's been largely between you and Chris, and I'd rather not get involved in the arguments and debates that you two are having. I'll throw in my own opinion, but in no way am I going to choose a side. I'm here for the betterment of the project, not to side with any one editor. I might share your views, but I'm not going to impose sanctions or whatever upon another editor because of disagreements. I'll leave that up to mediators or whoever. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 19:57, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The 2006-07 Pro Bowl has been mention by a few others. As far as I can tell, that's a reasonable solution. I'm not asking anyone to chose a side, rather, I'm asking that people work toward finding a compromise. One side of the issue is to present year the game was played. The other side wants to focus on the preceeding season. Both have reasonable points, thus a compromise is needed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Teams

Well I gotta say that in my personal opinion I like my edit a lot better. (Guess that goes without saying, if I didn't like it I wouldn't be doing it.) I'm really in favor of creating a sort of "timeline effect" and as long as the teams are distinguished I think it really adds to the article. I can't say I'm totally against adding the Browns to Hallen's infobox - I think as long as the circumstances of his tenure are in the article I don't feel it's a bad thing. As an alternative, we could agree on a minimum time with a team to make it worthy of adding to the teams list. Really, I feel as long as the tenure is explained in the article, which I'm guessing Hallen's is, it really wouldn't hurt anything or come off as misleading, because the asterisk and explanation I type has it right. What do you think?►Chris Nelson 07:50, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your second post, I'd still say yes. I think it's worth nothing, although obviously we should make it show that he did not play for them. This is where the asterisk/explanation come on, and it's likely to be further explains in the article itself. So again, I don't see the harm.►Chris Nelson 07:51, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. I always used to put these teams just as normal teams in infoboxes, although that was never a perfect method. I saw recently an asterisk on Darwin Walker's infobox next to the Buffalo Bills after the trade to the Chicago Bears, and I really liked the idea. That's when I came up with the little notation so that people knew what the asterisk meant. I think listing out the teams and making it somewhat of a timeline adds to the article, although obviously a distinction between the teams needs to be made. What do you think about the phrase itself? It's all I came up with, though I'm open to suggestion if you have something better.►Chris Nelson 07:55, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I dunno, I don't think "regular season appearances" works, because a guy could be inactive for 16 games but still on the active roster, and therefore would not have an asterisk at all. I'll think about it some more and maybe ask a few more people.►Chris Nelson 08:00, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But we are in agreement that the active roster - whether you play or not - requires no asterisk, right? 53-man roster is still the top level, whether you're a starter, backup or scrub.►Chris Nelson 08:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I don't believe an injury should be noted in the infobox in any form. Injured reserve may not be active, but it is not the practice squad either. Bentley's not being paid like a practice squad player, so for the infobox's purposes I'd still consider IR the "main roster". Although, in Bentley's case, because he's currently a Brown, he wouldn't have an asterisk whether he was new or not based on how I've been doing it. I haven't been putting asterisks on anyone's current team, like Brady Quinn, for example, even if they are new. I figure the asterisk can be added if a player leaves a team and never made the active roster.

As for Bentley's infobox, I'll take a look.►Chris Nelson 08:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bentley

Okay, checked out the Bentley infobox and these are my comments. Now some of these are just the way I've been doing them, they aren't written in stone and I'm not saying you have to. Although I do what all NFL infoboxes to be consistent, so no matter which way we go on things I just want us to stick with it.

That date thing does not need zeros for single digit numbers, as you can see. I've already changed this.
I haven't been capitalizing "team" in "First-team" though I have been putting a hyphen.
Remember to italicize publications (AP, SI, PFW)
For reasons I stated before, I'd lose the asterisk on the Browns
I've noticed ESPN has some link issues (this does not mean the Lawyer Milloy ESPN link you had for Bentley, you obviously just forgot to change it). Sometimes players don't link right because I guess the links aren't all set up the same. I've been using CBS Sportsline exclusively, for a few reasons. I like their stats set-up, they do offensive linemen (which PFR has seemed to stop) and the pages stay long after a player hasn't played.

►Chris Nelson 08:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey it's 4:30 here too. I guess we're nocturnal, huh? Anyway, this is what I meant about the date thing.►Chris Nelson 08:43, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, sorry if I was a dick to you on the template talk thread yesterday. I probably don't have much patience in that discussion anymore because I've spent so much time writing about it and debating it. I personally feel it's not even a debate, which is why the whole thing is really frustrating for me and I might come off as a dick sometimes.►Chris Nelson 08:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome Jackson

Some players have to clear waivers (when they can be claimed by another team) before going on Injured Reserve. Obviously this isn't true for all players - I'm sure it has to do with NFL experience and accrued seasons. But yeah, once a guy is waived/injured, he must clear waivers then he's on IR for that team.►Chris Nelson 00:05, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is correct. People have a tendency to delete guys off the roster completely when they are waived/injured, but 99% of the time they revert to IR (it's happened a ton of times in camp already) so I prefer to just keep them to the right and make a section called "Waived/Injured" until they clear waivers. Then I put them on IR. Pats1 probably just saw he was waived and didn't know he was waived/injured and had already cleared waivers and reverted to IR.►Chris Nelson 00:14, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But anyway, if you ever see a follow-up to this happening where it says a guy received an injury settlement, then delete them. A guy that is hurt cannot be flat-out released, so if a team wants to release him they reach an injury settlement with him that compensates him. This has happened a lot as well and it's always a possibility with a UDFA like Jackson.►Chris Nelson 00:16, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Jerome Jackson

Yeah, it's a procedural thing known as Waived/Injured. Basically, to make sure that teams can't just stash uninjured young players on IR, the NFL makes rookies and first year players (under a certain draft round, of course - maybe 5th round) to clear waivers first ("Waived") before they can revert to IR. So, yes, he's still on the team and will likely clear waivers and revert to IR soon. Pats1 00:20, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

He already has, pats. ;-) ►Chris Nelson 00:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Infobox colors

It's actually already done. By putting 'Cleveland Browns' in the current team field of the template, it automatically fills the colors in. It get them from Template:NFLPrimaryColor and Template:NFLSecondaryColor. (I know the pages are basically empty, but if you click EDIT you'll see the list of colors). Anyway, all the colors are perfect, they all match the roster templates, so there's no need to edit them or worry about them making it into the new infobox - it's automatic.►Chris Nelson 00:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Notification

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Chrisjnelson Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 03:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You know what - this is why people get pissed - what does your recent comment to chris' talk page help? Have you seen how many times this guy has attacked me personally? Did you see the fact that another admin is the one that said - go do that. Obviously not? Your comments aren't helping. If you agree with chris on every single thing he's done... spectacular...but stop commenting on he did this and she did that. It's the same problem. If you want to assert something about the RFC, go do it there. It's not ridiculous... we have a dispute - chris ultimately refused to accept any other step in the WP:DR process. You are not helping the situation by insulting me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious to as to who the 'she' is Jmfangio is referring to. Haha. But yeah, Wlmaltby3, stop expressing your opinions. How dare you give your honest and civil opinion in an open forum? How rude! (Sarcasm, love ya!)►Chris Nelson 23:45, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Wlmaltby3, I did open an RfC against Jmfangio earlier today: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Jmfangio. I don't know if it's gonna be approved or not, but I did submit the case. Ksy92003(talk) 23:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let Your Body Take Over

A {{prod}} template has been added to the article Let Your Body Take Over, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please tag it with {{db-author}}. MastCell ^Talk 21:55, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]