User talk:Omg its will run/Archive9

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.

Template:Kansas City Chiefs

Could you have a look? That "Related Articles" section looks iffy to me, but I have no idea how these templates are really supposed to be organized... Circeus 03:28, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks as though someone simply added a bunch of extra articles that could really just be placed under a See Also header on the Chiefs' main page. I think they could be taken out. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 04:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, considering the rest of the articles, a few of them are under "culture", "lore" or "stadium", so those should actually be moved up to the main section. Circeus 13:59, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, and it seems you've already made those changes! I really hope we can get something standardized before the upcoming season. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:57, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking community input re standardizing baseball roster pages

Hi ... I'm leaving you this note because you recently made edits to one of the Major League Baseball roster pages. I've made a proposal for standardizing the format, structure and content of these pages here and would appreciate your input so that we may reach a consensus. Thanks. --Sanfranman59 05:53, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with league and team article standardization

Hi! I saw you were participating in the roster standarization project (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball#Proposal to standardize rosters) and was wondering if you'd also be interested in helping me with a similar project for leagues and teams. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 34#Request for help! for more information. I haven't gotten any general response, so I'm soliciting individuals! Thanks in advance for your comments! --CPAScott 15:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Rosters

Didn't you change mine?Chris Nelson 06:20, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, a consensus hasn't been reached. But I've done almost all rosters a particular way and will finish the rest today, so until a consensus is reached I'm going to be organized and keep them all the same. If/when a consensus is reached and if that consensus differs with what I've done, I will change them all accordingly.Chris Nelson 17:59, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't change it for "no reason at all." I've already explained my reason.Chris Nelson 18:03, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't force you to do them. You knew what I was doing and we'd already talked about it. If the consensus determines your way is best, go for it.Chris Nelson 18:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where the confusion is here.Chris Nelson 01:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes... I did.Chris Nelson 01:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because I think the roster should look clean and simple, and the positions listed after the names look like crap. I think players should be listed where they can be best described, like Fraley at center. It doesn't take much scrolling down to get to the depth chart right below it.Chris Nelson 01:42, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yep.Chris Nelson 01:44, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I contemplated this, but I don't feel like it's necessary since players really have no other option except sign or wait until the 2008 draft. Their rights are still held by the teams. If it gets to the point where the season starts and a guy is holding out and placed on a reserve list, then I'd move him. But for now, I don't think it's necessary. It did occur to me though.Chris Nelson 01:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry too. I just really want things to be clean and organized, and I gotta say the multiple positions next to their names, ESPECIALLY with notations too looks really cluttered and bugs the hell out of me.Chris Nelson 01:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]