![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Okay so I see you made the sandbox page. Now the thing is, I don't know how to edit these templates at all without screwing them up, so can I just tell you exactly how I envision this thing and you edit it accordingly?► Chris Nelson 06:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start working on this now. We'll see what we can come up with. Jmfangio| ►Chat 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's looking great man. A couple of things I've noticed:
A couple of things I did:
Leaving out debut dates is the best strategy. This isn't baseball where there are levels of minor leagues to get through, if you're drafted you'll probably play fairly soon if you make the team. The years located in the Teams section are sufficient, and if people want specifics they can: a) read the article; or b) visit a stats link likely to be found in the article.► Chris Nelson 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Pats1 and I are in agreement on this.► Chris Nelson 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, please stop undoing my edit. My edit is the ONLY way it can be. Taking the name from the title is simply not logical. If we do that, some articles won't just have the name in the title of the infobox. Some will be Jason Taylor (American football player) or Steve Smith (Carolina Panthers). You know as well as I do this is not the way it should be. Having a field for the name corrects this, and it is why the current NFL and MLB infoboxes do this. There should no debate about this.► Chris Nelson 22:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The current infobox does not really accommodate a place for undrafted free agents. Is there any way we can have an optional field where it replaces the NFL draft thing and instead says something like Undrafted free agent (2002) or whatever? Simply leaving out the draft thing for UDFAs is not very clear, and someone not familiar with the infobox might not know what its absence signifies. Plenty of UDFAs contribute to NFL teams and have careers of decent lengths, so there needs to be something in the infobox showing this info.► Chris Nelson 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to hurl accusations, but it seems you're fighting me on everything even if there's no consensus yet. So let's take this one issue at a time. Present vs. current when it comes to listing a player's NFL teams in the infobox.
Why it should be present: The years in parentheses represent a timeline. So-and-so was on the Dolphins from 2001-2002, the Patriots from 2003-2004 and now the Cowboys from 2005 to now. Just an example. The word current, in this form, is an adjective. There is no noun form of current, at least not relating to time. Present, meanwhile, is a noun. It is a time. It is now. Years are also nouns, 2002 is a thing, a noun. This is why the infobox should say 2002-present because technically it does not make sense to use current. This might be confusing, but logically this is the way it should be so please don't fight me on this one.► Chris Nelson 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay fine. settled. Please use present from now on, since it is more grammatically correct.► Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Next issue...
I am in favor if listing out Pro Bowl and things of that sort rather than just putting (x3) or whatever. You obviously are not. I feel even the most accomplished of players won't have an infobox unnecessarily long just by listing these out, and I for one prefer this info near the top when I visit an article. So what do you we do since this is split? Take a poll somewhere?► Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Per my suggestion, perhaps you should create your own template. Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
But there are many articles of NFL players that went to Pro Bowls that have the (Example) 2007 Pro Bowl article link as either 2007 or 2006. If the person wants to see the years that they went to the Pro Bowl they can just click the link pro-football-refernce. -- Phbasketball6 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Beleive me I put more infoboxes for NFL players the anyone on Wikipedia, and the Pro Bowl thing is confussing, its been since I first came here. And your right Pats 1 but there are many articles out there that are different.
To Chris Nelson Yes they are and we're not going to fix every single person, and if someone who doesn't edit wikipedia but looks up information and sees 2006 for the 2006 Pro Bowl he'll think its for the 2006 season and not the 2005 season which it really is and if finding out its not true they'll hate wikipedia.
The new template is short and only shows whats only neede to be shown, the old one can take up the whole page from top to bottom one the right side, and the new one only has one link (pro-football-refernce), not eight possibilites. -- Phbasketball6 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I know its the correct way but different people did that to me though. I wasn't asking what if this would happen to me, I was telling you. and yea I know change it back, but I don't remember every single player that has the Pro Bowl linked incorrectly. -- Phbasketball6 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)-- Phbasketball6 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Pro Bowl thing isn't the only reason why I like the new template better, and the old template takes up a lot of room like when Johnny Unitas had the old one. -- Phbasketball6 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait Chris Nelson, you like this template here. ?-- Phbasketball6 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So it was only the Pro Bowl thing that you were arguing about, are we going to still use the new template, cause the Pro Bowl thing I like your way. -- Phbasketball6 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There's also a debate over whether the NFL debut section is necessary. Pats1 and myself don't really feel it is.► Chris Nelson 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I now agree with the way of listing the Pro Bowl. I agree with only one color and putting down present then current. -- Phbasketball6 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that its not necessary for the NFL debut section, the whole time I was worried about the old template would stay and we wouldn't be able to use the new one. -- Phbasketball6 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. -- Phbasketball6 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please notify me when I'm able to use the new template. Thanks-- Phbasketball6 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Should a player's awards be listed out by year for clarity or just by number for brevity? Or both?
Please add your vote with four tildes and mark your support.
The college bowl game issue, at least what I think you mean, does not compare. Yes, a 2007 Sugar Bowl would be called that, and rightly so. But that doesn't go against what I'm saying, because the 2007 Pro Bowl SHOULD be called that very thing. It's only the year in a player's article that must be changed, because it applies to the player's season performance. The 2007 Pro Bowl is a reward for a player's 2006 performance and their selection is required. The 2007 Sugar Bowl is not a selected reward for an individual performance. It's like the Super Bowl, it's just a championship game. The issues are not comparable.
Fortunately for you I doubt I'll ever go through the infoboxes, I've pretty much lost all motivation. But you seriously need to reexamine your life - what there is of it, anyway. You're arguing against fact, against accuracy, and you're as delusional as anyone I've ever seen. It was an epic mistake to ask your assistance on this template. All you've done is cause unnecessary problems. You make Wikipedia a worse place by your presence and actions.► Chris Nelson 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the new NFL infobox uses a players pro-football-reference.com profile as opposed to their official nfl.com page? I know both are usually equally reliable, but nfl.com has better features (ex game logs, situational stats) and is, well, "official". However, P-F-R.com ranks players and and the ability to make a URL based on their one a player's name. I do not want to start other techmobowl incident, so, I would like to hear what you guys think. Thanks -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree because for someone like Tom Ashworth the pro-football-reference doesn't have stats on him because he's an offensive lineman who was never gone to the Pro Bowl. -- Phbasketball6 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe there will be more stats down there at the bottom. The downside to NFL.com is that stats can disappear if a guy isn't on a team for a while. I'm sure we'll find a way to put more stats, no worries.► Chris Nelson 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have the way the template is for Rex Grossman than the Nolan Ryan one because the Rex Grossman looks more official and professional. -- Phbasketball6 03:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[2]► Chris Nelson 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well you're doing the opposite, you're fucking ruining this place. Just like in the college football thing, you're making things so much more complicated than they are. You're causing problems that shouldn't even exist. You think you're helping, you're not. And don't give me that bullshit about it being my opinion and all that shit, it's not my opinion. That's the way it is, and in your head you've got it twisted. This is my last reply. Thanks for all your help on the infobox, what a fucking retarded adventure that was. I suppose it's my fault. I trusted you could help me, but I didn't know better and I didn't know you're totally fuck up everything.► Chris Nelson 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about debuts. I can put up with that section if we keep it, even though I'm personally against it.► Chris Nelson 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Green was voted to the Pro Bowl in those seasons, 2003 and 2005, and that is how the Dolphins present it. But obviously the Pro Bowls took place in 2004 and 2006, respectively. So when listing them on an article, it'd be accurate to say he was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2003 and 2005, but link them to the appropriate Pro Bowls. If you're going to make me put a source right in the infobox, so be it. But I'm hoping you understand than by doing it my way, as seen in Green's case, it is all accurate. I'll source it if I have to, and if I do it will 100% back up my edit, but I'd rather not put sources in infoboxes and just come to an understanding.► Chris Nelson 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
► Chris Nelson 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We need to make this section optional so there isn't ugly code for players that haven't debuted yet..► Chris Nelson 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could the request link to the relevant talk page section for clarity? Morgan Wick 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
CBS Sportsline has proven to be incomplete, while other sources I can provide, ones just as reputable, are not. MiamiDolphins.com has Trent Green as a 2003 and 2005 Pro Bowler, as in he earned his selection in the 2003 and 2006 regular seasons, which is the standard way of saying things. However, those games were played in 2004 and 2006, respectively, because of where the Pro Bowl falls on the calendar. Nevertheless, it is most common to refer to a player by the regular season in which they earned the Pro Bowl. If I must, I will add the official Dolphins website as a source in Green's infobox, and from what I can tell that'd be incontestable.
You wouldn't say Jason Taylor was a 2007 Pro Bowler, because the 2007 season has not happened yet and he has not done anything in 2007 to earn a spot in the Pro Bowl for that season. It's just not how things are said in the media and by the teams themselves, and therefore not something we should do here.
Obviously, simply saying "3x Pro Bowl" is still accurate. I'm not arguing that. But listing out things like Pro Bowl years and linking them as I suggest has been common practice here since the last infobox, and went largely unchallenged. It can be proven to be both a) accurate; and b) an enhancement of the article, since I would wager the majority of articles do not have a solid list, but rather has accomplishments scattered throughout the article.
This has been common practice here for years, and for good reason. I asked for Jmfangio's help on creating an infobox, and obviously that was a huge mistake on my part as it proved to be so much more trouble than it was worth. I was not looking to overhaul the infobox and neither was anyone else. For the most part I am trying to keep intact the previous infobox, with a few minor additions (jersey numbers, etc.). Most of the old infobox was perfectly fine, and that includes linking Pro Bowl years. There is absolutely no need to change a common practice based on what is, so far, one person's preference. Until he can show the majority prefers this newer method, things should remain as they have been.► Chris Nelson 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If you head to AtlantaFalcons.com, MiamiDolphins.com and New England Patriots.com, you will see that each of these websites provides the Pro Bowl years in the EXACT same fashion as I do. Now keep in mind, Jmfangio said here that he believes Pro Bowls should be listed with the year matching the Pro Bowl year, like this: [[2004 Pro Bowl|2004]]. Under this format in Trent Green's case, the years would read 2004 and 2006 instead. Are you seriously saying we should go by what one guy on Wikipedia says over the official websites of these professional football teams that pay these players millions of dollars? Call me crazy, but I'll take the Miami Dolphins' or Kansas City Chiefs' word on Trent Green's career over Jmfangio any day.► Chris Nelson 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute about what content belongs in this infobox, how to go about making adjustments to it, and with regards to various wiki guidelines and policies. As a note, this template is currently in use at {{ Infobox NFLactive}}. It was created here. 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that not all positions simply have an article named just that position. The position Center, for example, is located at Center (American football) for obvious reasons. If we have the link already embedded in the template, we will be unable to link that article while renaming it Center for purposes of the infobox. Therefore it is necessary to link positions ourselves. Thank you.► Chris Nelson 08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris J Nelson's behavior is not the only one that needs to be changed drastically. -- Phbasketball6 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Further reverts on this template today by either of you will result in blocking for violations of the three-revert rule. Pastordavid 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ #if: {{{birthplace}}} | {{!}}- {{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" {{!}} '''Place of Birth:''' {{{birthplace}}} }}
As a drive-by editor on CVU duty, I noticed this page. It seems to me that what started out as a fairly amicable collaboration has resulted in a more and more vitriolic relationship and it spans beyond just this date of birth stuff. You need to sort it out and do so civilly. (and each pointing out the other fella is the culprit is not constructive IMO) Jddphd 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The other edit I was trying to make was this one. You'll see that Jmfangio originally had whatever you put in the currentposition field link to the article of that name. Quarterback links to Quarterback, and so on. But some positions Center (American football), for example, don't work the way that template is now. Jmfangio said he had a way to fix this, but as far as I know he has been unable to. Check out Rex Hadnot. Under the way the template is now, I HAVE to put the (American football) part of the position in order to get it to link to the right place. If I just put guard, it'll go to Guard. So I thought it would be best to keep it the way I had it in order to not make current infoboxes look mess up (like Hadnot's) and that Jmfangio could figure out the solution on the template on his user page.► Chris Nelson 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that only apply if you're linking it yourself in an infobox? Jmfangio is trying to get it to link to the right place automatically when you just write the position in.18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is another issue with linking positions in the infobox, and it is one that I feel lends itself to the notion that we should just link the positions ourselves. Many websites list plays at two positions, for example "Center/Guard" or "Cornerback/Safety". Under our current template, it is impossible to express these positions and have them link to any correct article, at least to my knowledge. I can't say I see the harm in allowing us to put the brackets around the positions ourselves.► Chris Nelson 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't create unencyclopedic titles soley for the convenience of a single template. Quarterback, long snapper, etc, exist only within the context of American football. Having parenthetically named articles where there is nothing to disambiguate is awful. This change certainly should have been discussed outside of one template discussion page (like one of the three football Wikiproject pages) before being implemented. There are other solutions that involve only changing the template ... parser functions for example. Use #switch to see if the value is "center", "fullback", etc, then change it to Center (American football), etc. Automatically adding "(American football)" and bracketing breaks team-specific position names ... for example, we call our weakside linebacker a whip. I would like to be able to link to linebacker but display the text "whip". It is still possible to combine both worlds, though ... add a {{{currentpositionplain}}} parameter than can be used for the team-specific positions and use parser functions to correctly auto-bracket generic positions. -- B 00:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't disambiguate nothing.► Chris Nelson 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
From WP:D: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.
That says it all right there. Quarterback, and almost all football positions, are words or phrases with only one meaning - a football position. To add disambiguation characteristics, i.e. (American football) to an article whose subject has just one meaning is flat-out wrong.► Chris Nelson 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is what is in the infobox right now:
{{Infobox NFLactive |primarycolor= |secondarycolor= |primarytext= |secondarytext= |image= |width= |caption= |currentteam= |currentnumber= |currentposition= |birthdate= |height= |weight= |debutyear= |debutteam= |highlights= |college= |draftyear= |draftround= |draftpick= |pastteams= |pfr= |cbs= |espn= |si= }}
So the logical question is - what do you want taken out, added, or changed? Pastordavid 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, so for when we edit someone like Mat McBriar. -- Phbasketball6 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We need to implement something that hides the NFL debut year and team sections if no values are filled in, so there isn't ugly code in it for rookies. (See Ted Ginn, Jr.)► Chris Nelson 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a major unresolved issue above, namely that of Pro Bowl year reporting.
There are two aspects to this:
1. The specification of each year which a player was selected, not just how many times the player was selected.
I believe there is no disagreement on this, but please note your opposition below if there is.
2. How the year is referenced - whether it is the year in which the game is actually played, or the beginning year of the season. Is it:
Chris and JMF - do you agree that this is the nature of the dispute?
If so, let's get some comments on it.
For my part, I have to agree w/ Chris. I would go by the standard that is reported on the official NFL team sites. This seems to be their convention and as such it seems reasonable to stick with this.
-- Jddphd 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh crap - I've had a look around and as I see JMF has pointed out on his talk page, the official NFL site has something contrary!
I would have sworn that Chris' perspective on this was correct.
Now what?
Jddphd 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
NFL.com even calls them the 2006 rosters for the 2007 Pro Bowl. As I've said before, basically any team website or media outlet will refer to them as I do. this really shouldn't even be up for debate. As you can see on the pages of Michael Vick, Junior Seau and Trent Green I have provided reputable sources for each list.► Chris Nelson 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
But there are other sites that do it differently. NFL.com relies on sportsline.com for its stats. here is Michael Vick's profile page there. it is direct opposition to your claim. You can provide a source all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that this could be argued both ways. You're not wrong, but neither are the people that want it to list the years the games were played. This is the exact same situation as Bowl Games. The seasons take place in one calender year. Most of the important bowl games take place the following year. They are all listed by the year the game was played. To restate something from earlier: "First off there is confussion with the Pro Bowl. For an example when I put down for someone that went to the 2007 Pro Bowl I would name the link as 2006, then many times afterwards people change it to 2007, I then decide for the 2007 Pro Bowl I would call it 2007 but people still change it to 2006. " That was from another user. Even if we decide we like it your way, this still creates problems! Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris, I don't think you are 100% correct here. And the fact that it's different on the NFL site itself seems to provide reasonable evidence that it's not 100% similar.
According to my research, the Elias Sports Bureau is the official provider of statistics to the NFL. Can anyone find any info from them on how they handle the reporting? Seems to me this might be a source. Jddphd 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's my take: how you name the Pro Bowl (either by year it actually occurred or the season with which it is associated) is kind of like which side of the road you drive on--one's not necessarily better than the other, but it is important that you settle on a convention. It'd be nice if there were some external convention used consistently by the media, because then the obvious choice would be to adopt it so we would be consistent with the rest of the world. But that doesn't appear to be the case, so we need to settle on our own convention. So how about a simple poll, and everyone agrees to accept it as binding?
Yeah, yeah, I know this is Wikipedia, "voting is bad", we rely on consensus and not sheer numbers--but really, that's only relevant when there is a substantial difference between the possible options. When it doesn't really matter which one we use, but involved parties can't reach a consensus themselves, perhaps a simple poll would be the best way to finally reach a decision. Kurt Weber 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
To attempt to find an authoritative source to address this dispute, I have asked the NFL. I sent an email from their website. Below is the text
Hello - I am hoping you can help. I am collaborating on an article on the Wikipedia site related to the NFL players. There is a dispute over how to label the year a player was selected to the Pro Bowl. One person believes the year should be noted as the year in which the game was actually played. Hence for this person a reference Peyton Manning would note that he was selected for the 2007 Pro Bowl. Let's call this the "year" convention. Another person believes that the year should correspond to the seasons. Thus for this person the reference to Peyton Manning would note that he played in the 2006 Pro Bowl, since it was the 2006-2007 season. Let's call this the "season" convention. We are at an impasse because people have seen it both ways on officially licensed sites. On several of the team sites they use the season convention, while on your own site you use the year convention. If you are interested, the text of the dispute is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive We ask for your help - your official help. We need an authoritative word if there is one, and we are hoping you can lend some clarity to this. Please feel free to comment directly on that page, or email me back if you'd like. Thanks in advance. ((my name)) (on behalf of several editors at Wikipedia)
Jddphd 05:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I'll give them points for speed, but not for usefulness. The site itself is entirely run by Sportsline and I was told to contact the League office directly. We're therefore getting Sportsline's interpretation, which I (like Chris, I think) don't consider authorative. I went back on my own to a number of the NFL sites and I am now leaning toward their seemingly consistent practice of using the "season" convention (e.g., Peyton Manning played in the 2006 Pro Bowl, despite that game actually occuring in 2007). It meets my gut-level feeling as well. I think if I had to pick a standard I'd lean toward that one. What do you think JMF? Can you live with it? I mean, if the individual team sites are doing it (which in my limited audit suggests they are), I think it's reasonable. Jddphd 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, have a look here please -- WP:TROUT. Now stop it both of you!! You are good Wikipedians! You both care about the NFL! You both care about this template!! You guys should be really close allies, but both of you, in every single comment, escalate the tensions. Please stop fighting. You don't need to always have the last word. Just let things slide a little. If you feel insulted, just turn the other cheek. You'll be amazed how rapidly we can calm things down if we all just ignore the next comment that makes us annoyed, and focus on something productive (maybe even a different article for a couple of days) instead. -- JayHenry 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just created a template that automatically fills in team colors. I believe it should be working without a hitch. It makes use of two #SWITCH templates, which you can see {{ NFLPrimaryColor}} and {{ NFLSecondaryColor}} which I just created. You can take a look at the code there to get an idea of how it works. Please let me know if there are any problems, but I believe it's working correctly. -- JayHenry 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah the switch templates!! that was trick! Thanks man, that's a huge help! I'll unwatch your talk page! You need a barnstar! Jmfangio| ►Chat 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ehh...someone has to be the first to use it. And, though contracts are complicated, it's only intended to provide a basic overview of the contract (i.e. the other day Dwight Freeney signed a six-year, $72 million contract, so that's all that'd be there). Kurt Weber 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? Anything? Kurt Weber 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys - I'm out of this. The two of you have dug your heels in and resisted good faith efforts to help. If I had to choose I'd agree with the season convention, but I don't expect this is going to swing the balance.
I believe that further RFC's or related efforts to mediate will be doomed to fail unless one or the other of you is willing to let it go. There is only one solution that escapes this problem, and that's to remove the year entirely.
Bottom line - I don't see any way out of this and I don't wish to invest more of my time in this.
Good luck to both of you. I will investigate more binding mechanisms to get around this, but you've heard the last from me as a WP:3O on this page.
Jddphd 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been talked about already, but I see that the positions have been hardcoded with a disambig of (American football). In fact, there are only maybe 2 or 3 positions that actually use this format. So it doesn't make much sense. Pats1 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you two ( Chrisjnelson ( talk · contribs) and Jmfangio ( talk · contribs)) are going at it on my talk page perfectly encapsulates the problem. The ad hominem nature of your comments illustrates that the two of you have lost the plot. If you want my true opinion on this you BOTH should take a self-imposed break from this template. Whatever "good" you believe you are doing for Wikipedia on this template is occuring via mechanisms that are now distinctly nonWikipedian and both of you are guilty of this despite your protestations to the contrary. On this page alone is evidence of WP:OWN, a highly evolved absence of good faith with what results in an absence of civility, and - just for good measure - a smattering of personal attacks.
Seriously. Take a break. Work on something else for a while.
Jddphd 12:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. Take a break. Work on something else for a while. ,I think that is pretty good advice. If the point is to improve content and it is at this time nothing good is happening and some hard feelings are being created. Take a break and then after a couple of weeks perhaps you folks will find a compromise.
RMANCIL 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC) It could be a good policy to allow each other some space try and work on different projects and don't edit the others work.
RMANCIL
15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, this new template doesn't work with WikiCommons images. Compare [4] with the current Cadillac Williams where the template was changed. And yes, the Commons image does still exist (obviously since it displays still in the older rev). AUTiger » talk 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does this template use {{ ft to m}} vs {{ ft in to m}}? If someone is 6 ft 1 inch tall, you have to put in 6.1 or 6.083 or some other approximation. Unless someone can come up with a really good reason for it, it really ought to be changed posthaste as every article using it is screwed up right now.-- B 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} - please change the {{ ft to m}} to {{ ft in to m}}. When that is done, we can update the doc section. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you could do the change mentioned here? Also, I think the bar that says National Football League debut should be conditional on having values entered for debutyear and debutteam, if possible. There's not really a need for any part of that section unless as debut is entered, because for rookies it looks bad.► Chris Nelson 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made three posts about this at the link I provided in my last message here. No one has replied back and the first one was from over a week ago. I even posted about this yesterday to attempt to get a discussion going if anyone feels one is necessary. You yourself have yet to post on the issue. If you care about it, discuss it. If you don't care to discuss it now, that's not our problem and changes will be implemented to fix the template. It's hardly a controversial edit. But you can't say I need to wait for discussion when I've been trying to give people the chance to discuss it for over a week and not one person has. If User:B can do it now, that'd be great. If not, I'll do it myself when the template gets unprotected. In the meantime, discuss any issues if you have them. If you don't, you can't whine about there not being any discussion.► Chris Nelson 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well let's be real here. You're only disputing it and avoiding helping the problem because I'm the one who raised the issue. It's personal, and maybe that's understandable. And maybe my propose solution, the one similar to RyguyMN's edits, is not the absolute best one. It is, however, better than the current state, and I know you know that. I'd be all for a message that says something like Has not debuted" or whatever as you proposed. It'd be nice if we could do that so it automatically shows up if now year/team has been entered. But I do not know how to do that, and you refuse to implement it or even discuss it to much of a degree. Therefore until you can get over your personal problem with me and help make the solution even better, the satisfactory solution from before will be re-implemented. If you ever feel like discussing it further or adding a solution as the one you discussed, that'd be great. But if you aren't going to, we have no choice but to solve the current problem without you.► Chris Nelson 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is what I'm talking about. See Ted Ginn, Jr. or any other rookie with the new infobox. I'm just trying to get rid of that [[ NFL season|]] for the [[]] thing in some way. I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree it needs to be fixed in some way. But in addition to it being clearly uncontroversial, Jmfangio is behaving as if he will not allow it to change, even when he refuses to discuss it. So I don't know what he wants.► Chris Nelson 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the right section for this. Is there any way to change the template so that the metric conversions go to 2 significant figures after the decimal? 10 cm is a long distance to be vague with and most sports sites which use the metric system use that many figures. Just want to be fair to those not familiar with the US Standard system. Eeks2284 17:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:* Certainly nothing wrong with putting this here. To make sure I understand you, you want to convert into cm?
Juan Miguel Fangio|
►Chat
18:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a question - what should we do with players taken in the supplemental draft? (Ex. Manuel Wright, Tony Hollings, Paul Oliver, Jared Gaither.) There's really no way to put this in the draft section the way it is now, but we need to figure out a way to show this info so they don't look like undrafted free agents. Any ideas?► Chris Nelson 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've identified two areas that need to be reviewed and potentially fixed:
Just some thoughts...let me know what you all think. I can attempt to make changes once protection is removed. I do like this layout over the previous NFL player infobox - it has a lot less clutter and is more informative. RyguyMN 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The debut problem is fixed. (If someone wants to add text to be displayed for players who have not made a debut once the protection is removed, that's fine - but it's outside the scope of a critical bug fix.) RyguyMN, can you point to an article that the career highlight problem is breaking? If so, we can fix it. If a critical bug needs to be fixed, just add {{ editprotected}} to the page - I had no notion that the protection on this page was extended ... I'm kinda annoyed at it, but there's no reason that bug fixes should have to wait until unrelated personality conflicts can be resolved. -- B 05:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Juan, Chris - I can't find in the template where there is a link to Jersey number#American football. If I search for "jersey", I don't see anything and {{{currentnumber}}} isn't wikilinked. Can you point out exactly what you would like changed? As for the debut thing, can you two come up with exactly what wikicode you would like to have in there? If you can agree on it, I'll make the change.-- B 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{debutyear|}}}|[[{{{debutyear}}} NFL season{{!}}{{{debutyear}}}]] for the [[{{{debutteam}}}]]|No [[Season (sport)#regular season|regular season]] appearances}}
If there is no debut year, it generates this: No regular season appearances
If there is a debut year, it generates this: [[{{{debutyear}}} NFL season|{{{debutyear}}}]] for the [[{{{debutteam}}}]]
B, I think we should do away with linking the jersey number. I'm not sure it's THAT relevant to the infoboxes, and since that bar is a team color it often looks bad. I, like a lot of people I'd imagine, have active links blue. As a result, it creates a horrible contrast with some colors. If you have your browser set up like me (which is default), see Ted Ginn, Jr. for an example. I really don't think we need to link the jersey number.► Chris Nelson 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the mediation is over with, does protection serve any purpose any more? If the pro bowl thing is the only point of contention and you guys would be willing to agree to leave it as is unless/until there is WikiProject consensus to change it, I see no reason not to have the template unprotected. -- B 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute over how content should be displayed for a Pro Bowl nomination/appearance. As as all other methods of WP:DR (sans arbitration) have been exhausted, please take the time to respond to the following poll. Per WP:STRAW and WP:DR, this is simply a test and not binding in anyway shape or form. Previous discussion on this page has addressed this, please familiarize yourself with the issue before voting. Votes should come in the form of '''Support Option _''' with ~~~~ to follow.
Certain parties want to display pro bowl awards by year of the nomination ([[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]]). Other's want to display year the game was played ([[2006 Pro Bowl|2006]]. Clarification of the information helps to support what the listing means. It does not seem to address the fact that the alternative proposal is also valid. An neutral solution of listing the number of appearances quantitatively has been proposed.
Support Option 2 Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 3 Despite the fact that it's crossed out, it's the way the NFL does it. The 2006 Pro Bowl is at the end of the 2005 season, that's just how it works.
Bjewiki
22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 2 For the Pro Bowl, assigning a year doesn't seem to have much meaning. When a player's credentials are talked about, specific years are rarely mentioned when talking about Pro Bowls. Number of appearances should have more weight, thus be displayed. RyguyMN 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 3 Why is it crossed out? This option is best as it relates to the years of other awards won by players. For example, if Peyton Manning is listed as being on the Colts in 2003 (in the teams box), then his awards should also be listed to reflect this. He won the MVP award in 2003, so the award should be listed as the 2003 NFL (co-)MVP. And he also went to the Pro Bowl for his performance in 2003, so he should have a format of [[2004 Pro Bowl|2003]] listed for his Pro Bowl appearances.
Pats1
01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option3 Sure it doesn't exist, but I vote for this option anyway. It is informative and 100% accurate.►
Chris Nelson
01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't really care - but option 1 is a horrendously bad idea. Whatever option is selected, it needs to either be option 2 or it needs to allow the template so set the formatting. For example, have fields {{{probowlgame1}}}, {{{probowlgame2}}}, etc that would accept a year as their parameter. The template would generate something like [[{{#eval:1+{{{probowlgame1}}}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]] (using #3 as an example) or [[{{{probowlgame1}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]]{{#if:{{{probowlgame2|}}}|, [[{{{probowlgame2}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame2}}}]]|}} Pro Bowls (another possible implementation). That way, everything will be consistently displayed. There's one big disadvandage of #2 that is worth considering - when we go through to update everything for 2007/8, if Joe Schmoe has had 5 pro bowls, we have no idea if this pro bowl is his sixth or if someone has already updated him and it is his fifth. It also makes fact vandalism potentially less obvious. (By the way, why is option 3 struck?)-- B 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 2. The number of Pro Bowl appearances is most important, the years of those appearances is secondary. IMO, the purpose of the infobox is to hit the highlights. The authors/editors of each player's article can then use more concise language when listing the years in the body of the article. (Example: " Yepremian was selected to the Pro Bowl following the 1973 and 1979 seasons.") — xanderer 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This poll is not set up correctly. I feel my way is the only correct way to do things, and therefore I propose that should be the standard rather than having everyone just do what they like best.► Chris Nelson 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they could change it to appearances and then change the year. But why do that? Why not just decide that SELECTIONS be the standard, and then you cannot factually question the years?► Chris Nelson 22:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The only thing we need to decide on is out to refer to it in the infobox. If we say "Pro Bowl appearances" and list years, it'd be factually accurate to list years of the Pro Bowls themselves. But my edit says "Pro Bowl selections" and it is a proven fact that the selections take place during the regular season. Can we not agree that the regular season should be the focus, since it was during the regard season they excelled (presumably) and earned the selection (which also took place during the regular season)? I do not just see why we cannot all decide that the standard is "Pro Bowl selections" and then there is no debate over how to list the years because one way is wrong and the other is right.► Chris Nelson 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Pats1 makes an excellent point; perhaps the best. Look at all the awards. Look at the NFL MVP Award, the NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award, NFL Rookie of the Year Award, etc. Look at all those articles. Notice that, although each award is announced in January of the new year, they are referred to by the year of the regular season. Jason Taylor won the 2006 Defensive Player of the Year Award, this is how it is ALWAYS expressed. But it was announced in January 2007 because that's how the season is. The Pro Bowl should be no different. All these awards/honors are for the regular season. Therefore those are the years to remember. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with just writing "Pro Bowl (x8)". It's correct, and informative. But my point has always been that my method has always been done here, it's even more informative and it's factually accurate. There's simply no logical reason to even contest this.► Chris Nelson 01:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with something like this:
[[{{{probowlgame1}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]]{{#if:{{{probowlgame2|}}}|, [[{{{probowlgame2}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame2}}}]]|}} Pro Bowls
This would generate something like this
That way, it's obvious that the year refers to the game itself. Or replace "pro bowl" with "season":
What would be wrong with one of those? If it's spelled out, it's obvious to anyone what it is talking about and consistency is enforced by having {{{probowlseason1}}}, {{{probowlseason2}}}, etc parameters to the template. Juan, do you consider the problem with listing each season to be philosophical (too much information), practical (we don't know that 2002 means), or technical (no good way to consistently display it)?-- B 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
... |probowlseason1=2000 |probowlseason2=2002 |probowlseason3=2003 |probowlseason4=2006 |probowlseason5= |probowlseason6= ...
I'd like to see it in use to form an opinion on it. Anywhere you could put it, like the sandbox, so we could have an idea how it'd look?► Chris Nelson 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You've shown you misunderstood by arguing things I'm not saying. People do say those things. But people often say things like "Peyton Manning was a Pro Bowl selection in 2006" and that is the only correct way to present the year in that case. It baffles me how anyone could think the Pro Bowl's year is more relevant than the regular season year. There's very little logic behind it. And despite your instance that no one says it my way, I can assure you that you are in fact in the minority and that 99% of the media and fans say it my way. Don't believe me. Do a little research and I know what you'll find. Look on your favorite team's website, for instance. I guarantee you the Browns use regular season years when discussing Pro Bowls on player pages.► Chris Nelson 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm sure I'm gonna lose this thing eventually, even though I know I'm right. In which case we'll end up using Jmfangio's compromise, " Pro Bowl (x8)".► Chris Nelson 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the old height field and was updating all the templates when my edits were interrupted. I am leaving this alone so that i don't shot someone. Someone else will need to finish it up. I got about 150 or 200 articles in, you can use the what links here function on the left to fix it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what everyone thought of this - it looks a little odd writing Free Agent in the team section and having the No. spot blank when a guy is not on a team - at least in my opinion. So I was thinking, why don't we make that entire bar, the current team/jersey number bar, conditional on a team being entered in that field? I think the lack of infobox colors, as well as the list of teams below, will convey well enough that the guy is not currently affiliated with a team. I think it might look better for free agents if that bar just wasn't there at all. So does anyone else have an opinion or an idea?► Chris Nelson 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the number saying N/A for free agents, but why would we link it. Just doesn't seem necessary to me, because the linked article has no direct relevance with the infobox. Kind of like how you aren't supposed to just wikilink dates all the time. There are so many other thing that are not linked that would make more sense to be linked than "N/A". Just my two cents.► Chris Nelson 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever convention we use on this template should be the convention used across Wikipedia. Right now, 2007 Pro Bowl is about the Pro Bowl that took place on February 10, 2007, after the conclusion of the 2006 season. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Pro Bowl naming. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So I think we need to have something to say a guy was an undrafted free agent, rather than just having the draft section disappear. I don't know how exactly this would work, but how about something like, if no draft info is entered, it creates something that says "Undrafted free agent in 1996". Or, what if we just put a new field in the infobox, maybe like "Undrafted=Y" and then UndraftedYear=1996", so that it would create " Undrafted free agent in 1996" or something in a bar right below the college? I don't know what the best way to do it, but those are a few ideas. What do you guys think?► Chris Nelson 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's simply not your decision to make. I made a legitimate edit and you reverted it without a reason relating to the edit itself. That RFC thing, our past encounters, any unrelated, outstanding disputes regarding the infobox - all irrelevant. If you are against this edit, it is your obligation to explain why. It is not within your right to tell me to wait and go edit other things. So unless you want to discuss THIS issue and the edit I made, do not revert it. This is no unreasonable.► Chris Nelson 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not complicated. If you do not have a legitimate reason to revert an edit, you do not do it. It's not your place to tell anyone how or what to edit. Either discuss it, or don't revert. Simple as that. You don't own this template.► Chris Nelson 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't know about the edit that Chrisjnelson made, but of course NFL has more players than any other sport, so that's much more articles. Editing the NFL infobox makes many more changes than does the MLB or NBA infoboxes. If there are any controversial edits made to this template, then they should be removed until there is a clear discussion and it is widely agreed to implement that change. I don't know if the edit was controversial, but in your eyes you think it was. Now, I don't know if there was any added opinion due to the fact that Chrisjnelson, an editor you got into a revert war in the past with, had anything more to do with your reasoning behind reverting the edit, but you say it was controversial, and if one user who contributes greatly to football articles sees an edit that s/he thinks is controversial, then I think his/her opinion holds a lot of weight. This should be discussed before anything else takes place. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Juan, it is completely unacceptable to declare that you will automatically revert any edit made by Chris. There's no reason for a dispute in one area of the template to impede progress in another area. -- B 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell at this point in time, Jmfangio is currently holding certain things hostage by disallowing Chrisjnelson from making changes to them, for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Not all edits need discussion, especially if a discussion will ultimately end up being "yeah, go ahead and do it." There's no reason for Jmfangio to be disallowing Chrisjnelson from making changes at this point in time. He's suddenly guilty of WP:OWN just as he's been claiming Chrisjnelson is. Wlmaltby3 – talk/ contribs 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris - I know your edits are in good faith, but that ain't the whole ball of wax. I don't know if this is standard, but because of all the that's going on and the fact that this talk page probably shouldn't be archived until outstanding issues are addressed.... would any of you (chris, b, wmalt, anyone else) be okay with me starting a sub-page for new discussions. When everything else has taken place this page can easily be archived and we can move the subpage here. Not standard practice, but again, it will help give those who want to discuss content and not "behavior" an easy way to do that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the most frustrating things I have ever been included in. There's absolutely no reason for any of this to be happening. Jmfangio: You consistently accuse people of personal attacks and other such nonsense when they're not even occuring! I would love to know what your definition of a personal attack is. You keep claiming everyone's going off topic and not discussing the issues at hand, BUT YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE DOING THAT. Every time a new discussion is opened, you jump in, throw your two-cents in, and then it ends up being a discussion about civility and other such nonsense that didn't even need to exist, simply because you started accusing people of personal attacks and incivility. You're driving everyone here insane. You keep claiming everyone else is the problem, BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING ONE BIT. Wlmaltby3 – talk/ contribs 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Okay so I see you made the sandbox page. Now the thing is, I don't know how to edit these templates at all without screwing them up, so can I just tell you exactly how I envision this thing and you edit it accordingly?► Chris Nelson 06:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm going to start working on this now. We'll see what we can come up with. Jmfangio| ►Chat 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's looking great man. A couple of things I've noticed:
A couple of things I did:
Leaving out debut dates is the best strategy. This isn't baseball where there are levels of minor leagues to get through, if you're drafted you'll probably play fairly soon if you make the team. The years located in the Teams section are sufficient, and if people want specifics they can: a) read the article; or b) visit a stats link likely to be found in the article.► Chris Nelson 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Pats1 and I are in agreement on this.► Chris Nelson 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Dude, please stop undoing my edit. My edit is the ONLY way it can be. Taking the name from the title is simply not logical. If we do that, some articles won't just have the name in the title of the infobox. Some will be Jason Taylor (American football player) or Steve Smith (Carolina Panthers). You know as well as I do this is not the way it should be. Having a field for the name corrects this, and it is why the current NFL and MLB infoboxes do this. There should no debate about this.► Chris Nelson 22:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
The current infobox does not really accommodate a place for undrafted free agents. Is there any way we can have an optional field where it replaces the NFL draft thing and instead says something like Undrafted free agent (2002) or whatever? Simply leaving out the draft thing for UDFAs is not very clear, and someone not familiar with the infobox might not know what its absence signifies. Plenty of UDFAs contribute to NFL teams and have careers of decent lengths, so there needs to be something in the infobox showing this info.► Chris Nelson 23:13, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not trying to hurl accusations, but it seems you're fighting me on everything even if there's no consensus yet. So let's take this one issue at a time. Present vs. current when it comes to listing a player's NFL teams in the infobox.
Why it should be present: The years in parentheses represent a timeline. So-and-so was on the Dolphins from 2001-2002, the Patriots from 2003-2004 and now the Cowboys from 2005 to now. Just an example. The word current, in this form, is an adjective. There is no noun form of current, at least not relating to time. Present, meanwhile, is a noun. It is a time. It is now. Years are also nouns, 2002 is a thing, a noun. This is why the infobox should say 2002-present because technically it does not make sense to use current. This might be confusing, but logically this is the way it should be so please don't fight me on this one.► Chris Nelson 23:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Okay fine. settled. Please use present from now on, since it is more grammatically correct.► Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Next issue...
I am in favor if listing out Pro Bowl and things of that sort rather than just putting (x3) or whatever. You obviously are not. I feel even the most accomplished of players won't have an infobox unnecessarily long just by listing these out, and I for one prefer this info near the top when I visit an article. So what do you we do since this is split? Take a poll somewhere?► Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Per my suggestion, perhaps you should create your own template. Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
But there are many articles of NFL players that went to Pro Bowls that have the (Example) 2007 Pro Bowl article link as either 2007 or 2006. If the person wants to see the years that they went to the Pro Bowl they can just click the link pro-football-refernce. -- Phbasketball6 02:02, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Beleive me I put more infoboxes for NFL players the anyone on Wikipedia, and the Pro Bowl thing is confussing, its been since I first came here. And your right Pats 1 but there are many articles out there that are different.
To Chris Nelson Yes they are and we're not going to fix every single person, and if someone who doesn't edit wikipedia but looks up information and sees 2006 for the 2006 Pro Bowl he'll think its for the 2006 season and not the 2005 season which it really is and if finding out its not true they'll hate wikipedia.
The new template is short and only shows whats only neede to be shown, the old one can take up the whole page from top to bottom one the right side, and the new one only has one link (pro-football-refernce), not eight possibilites. -- Phbasketball6 02:19, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I know its the correct way but different people did that to me though. I wasn't asking what if this would happen to me, I was telling you. and yea I know change it back, but I don't remember every single player that has the Pro Bowl linked incorrectly. -- Phbasketball6 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)-- Phbasketball6 02:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
The Pro Bowl thing isn't the only reason why I like the new template better, and the old template takes up a lot of room like when Johnny Unitas had the old one. -- Phbasketball6 02:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Wait Chris Nelson, you like this template here. ?-- Phbasketball6 02:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
So it was only the Pro Bowl thing that you were arguing about, are we going to still use the new template, cause the Pro Bowl thing I like your way. -- Phbasketball6 02:38, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
There's also a debate over whether the NFL debut section is necessary. Pats1 and myself don't really feel it is.► Chris Nelson 02:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok, I now agree with the way of listing the Pro Bowl. I agree with only one color and putting down present then current. -- Phbasketball6 02:45, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I also feel that its not necessary for the NFL debut section, the whole time I was worried about the old template would stay and we wouldn't be able to use the new one. -- Phbasketball6 02:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree. -- Phbasketball6 02:53, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Can you please notify me when I'm able to use the new template. Thanks-- Phbasketball6 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Should a player's awards be listed out by year for clarity or just by number for brevity? Or both?
Please add your vote with four tildes and mark your support.
The college bowl game issue, at least what I think you mean, does not compare. Yes, a 2007 Sugar Bowl would be called that, and rightly so. But that doesn't go against what I'm saying, because the 2007 Pro Bowl SHOULD be called that very thing. It's only the year in a player's article that must be changed, because it applies to the player's season performance. The 2007 Pro Bowl is a reward for a player's 2006 performance and their selection is required. The 2007 Sugar Bowl is not a selected reward for an individual performance. It's like the Super Bowl, it's just a championship game. The issues are not comparable.
Fortunately for you I doubt I'll ever go through the infoboxes, I've pretty much lost all motivation. But you seriously need to reexamine your life - what there is of it, anyway. You're arguing against fact, against accuracy, and you're as delusional as anyone I've ever seen. It was an epic mistake to ask your assistance on this template. All you've done is cause unnecessary problems. You make Wikipedia a worse place by your presence and actions.► Chris Nelson 18:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Is there a reason why the new NFL infobox uses a players pro-football-reference.com profile as opposed to their official nfl.com page? I know both are usually equally reliable, but nfl.com has better features (ex game logs, situational stats) and is, well, "official". However, P-F-R.com ranks players and and the ability to make a URL based on their one a player's name. I do not want to start other techmobowl incident, so, I would like to hear what you guys think. Thanks -- ShadowJester07 ► Talk 03:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I agree because for someone like Tom Ashworth the pro-football-reference doesn't have stats on him because he's an offensive lineman who was never gone to the Pro Bowl. -- Phbasketball6 03:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I believe there will be more stats down there at the bottom. The downside to NFL.com is that stats can disappear if a guy isn't on a team for a while. I'm sure we'll find a way to put more stats, no worries.► Chris Nelson 03:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I would rather have the way the template is for Rex Grossman than the Nolan Ryan one because the Rex Grossman looks more official and professional. -- Phbasketball6 03:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
[2]► Chris Nelson 04:15, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Well you're doing the opposite, you're fucking ruining this place. Just like in the college football thing, you're making things so much more complicated than they are. You're causing problems that shouldn't even exist. You think you're helping, you're not. And don't give me that bullshit about it being my opinion and all that shit, it's not my opinion. That's the way it is, and in your head you've got it twisted. This is my last reply. Thanks for all your help on the infobox, what a fucking retarded adventure that was. I suppose it's my fault. I trusted you could help me, but I didn't know better and I didn't know you're totally fuck up everything.► Chris Nelson 04:54, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
What are you talking about? I'm not talking about debuts. I can put up with that section if we keep it, even though I'm personally against it.► Chris Nelson 15:51, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Green was voted to the Pro Bowl in those seasons, 2003 and 2005, and that is how the Dolphins present it. But obviously the Pro Bowls took place in 2004 and 2006, respectively. So when listing them on an article, it'd be accurate to say he was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2003 and 2005, but link them to the appropriate Pro Bowls. If you're going to make me put a source right in the infobox, so be it. But I'm hoping you understand than by doing it my way, as seen in Green's case, it is all accurate. I'll source it if I have to, and if I do it will 100% back up my edit, but I'd rather not put sources in infoboxes and just come to an understanding.► Chris Nelson 16:08, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
► Chris Nelson 16:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
We need to make this section optional so there isn't ugly code for players that haven't debuted yet..► Chris Nelson 16:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Could the request link to the relevant talk page section for clarity? Morgan Wick 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
CBS Sportsline has proven to be incomplete, while other sources I can provide, ones just as reputable, are not. MiamiDolphins.com has Trent Green as a 2003 and 2005 Pro Bowler, as in he earned his selection in the 2003 and 2006 regular seasons, which is the standard way of saying things. However, those games were played in 2004 and 2006, respectively, because of where the Pro Bowl falls on the calendar. Nevertheless, it is most common to refer to a player by the regular season in which they earned the Pro Bowl. If I must, I will add the official Dolphins website as a source in Green's infobox, and from what I can tell that'd be incontestable.
You wouldn't say Jason Taylor was a 2007 Pro Bowler, because the 2007 season has not happened yet and he has not done anything in 2007 to earn a spot in the Pro Bowl for that season. It's just not how things are said in the media and by the teams themselves, and therefore not something we should do here.
Obviously, simply saying "3x Pro Bowl" is still accurate. I'm not arguing that. But listing out things like Pro Bowl years and linking them as I suggest has been common practice here since the last infobox, and went largely unchallenged. It can be proven to be both a) accurate; and b) an enhancement of the article, since I would wager the majority of articles do not have a solid list, but rather has accomplishments scattered throughout the article.
This has been common practice here for years, and for good reason. I asked for Jmfangio's help on creating an infobox, and obviously that was a huge mistake on my part as it proved to be so much more trouble than it was worth. I was not looking to overhaul the infobox and neither was anyone else. For the most part I am trying to keep intact the previous infobox, with a few minor additions (jersey numbers, etc.). Most of the old infobox was perfectly fine, and that includes linking Pro Bowl years. There is absolutely no need to change a common practice based on what is, so far, one person's preference. Until he can show the majority prefers this newer method, things should remain as they have been.► Chris Nelson 07:23, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
If you head to AtlantaFalcons.com, MiamiDolphins.com and New England Patriots.com, you will see that each of these websites provides the Pro Bowl years in the EXACT same fashion as I do. Now keep in mind, Jmfangio said here that he believes Pro Bowls should be listed with the year matching the Pro Bowl year, like this: [[2004 Pro Bowl|2004]]. Under this format in Trent Green's case, the years would read 2004 and 2006 instead. Are you seriously saying we should go by what one guy on Wikipedia says over the official websites of these professional football teams that pay these players millions of dollars? Call me crazy, but I'll take the Miami Dolphins' or Kansas City Chiefs' word on Trent Green's career over Jmfangio any day.► Chris Nelson 07:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute about what content belongs in this infobox, how to go about making adjustments to it, and with regards to various wiki guidelines and policies. As a note, this template is currently in use at {{ Infobox NFLactive}}. It was created here. 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Please note that not all positions simply have an article named just that position. The position Center, for example, is located at Center (American football) for obvious reasons. If we have the link already embedded in the template, we will be unable to link that article while renaming it Center for purposes of the infobox. Therefore it is necessary to link positions ourselves. Thank you.► Chris Nelson 08:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris J Nelson's behavior is not the only one that needs to be changed drastically. -- Phbasketball6 16:50, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Further reverts on this template today by either of you will result in blocking for violations of the three-revert rule. Pastordavid 16:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
{{ #if: {{{birthplace}}} | {{!}}- {{!}} colspan="2" style="text-align:center;" {{!}} '''Place of Birth:''' {{{birthplace}}} }}
As a drive-by editor on CVU duty, I noticed this page. It seems to me that what started out as a fairly amicable collaboration has resulted in a more and more vitriolic relationship and it spans beyond just this date of birth stuff. You need to sort it out and do so civilly. (and each pointing out the other fella is the culprit is not constructive IMO) Jddphd 17:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The other edit I was trying to make was this one. You'll see that Jmfangio originally had whatever you put in the currentposition field link to the article of that name. Quarterback links to Quarterback, and so on. But some positions Center (American football), for example, don't work the way that template is now. Jmfangio said he had a way to fix this, but as far as I know he has been unable to. Check out Rex Hadnot. Under the way the template is now, I HAVE to put the (American football) part of the position in order to get it to link to the right place. If I just put guard, it'll go to Guard. So I thought it would be best to keep it the way I had it in order to not make current infoboxes look mess up (like Hadnot's) and that Jmfangio could figure out the solution on the template on his user page.► Chris Nelson 17:18, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't that only apply if you're linking it yourself in an infobox? Jmfangio is trying to get it to link to the right place automatically when you just write the position in.18:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There is another issue with linking positions in the infobox, and it is one that I feel lends itself to the notion that we should just link the positions ourselves. Many websites list plays at two positions, for example "Center/Guard" or "Cornerback/Safety". Under our current template, it is impossible to express these positions and have them link to any correct article, at least to my knowledge. I can't say I see the harm in allowing us to put the brackets around the positions ourselves.► Chris Nelson 03:33, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
You don't create unencyclopedic titles soley for the convenience of a single template. Quarterback, long snapper, etc, exist only within the context of American football. Having parenthetically named articles where there is nothing to disambiguate is awful. This change certainly should have been discussed outside of one template discussion page (like one of the three football Wikiproject pages) before being implemented. There are other solutions that involve only changing the template ... parser functions for example. Use #switch to see if the value is "center", "fullback", etc, then change it to Center (American football), etc. Automatically adding "(American football)" and bracketing breaks team-specific position names ... for example, we call our weakside linebacker a whip. I would like to be able to link to linebacker but display the text "whip". It is still possible to combine both worlds, though ... add a {{{currentpositionplain}}} parameter than can be used for the team-specific positions and use parser functions to correctly auto-bracket generic positions. -- B 00:18, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
You can't disambiguate nothing.► Chris Nelson 03:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
From WP:D: Disambiguation in Wikipedia is the process of resolving conflicts in article titles that occur when a single term can be associated with more than one topic, making that term likely to be the natural choice of title for more than one article. In other words, disambiguations are paths leading to the different article pages that could use essentially the same term as their title.
That says it all right there. Quarterback, and almost all football positions, are words or phrases with only one meaning - a football position. To add disambiguation characteristics, i.e. (American football) to an article whose subject has just one meaning is flat-out wrong.► Chris Nelson 03:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Here is what is in the infobox right now:
{{Infobox NFLactive |primarycolor= |secondarycolor= |primarytext= |secondarytext= |image= |width= |caption= |currentteam= |currentnumber= |currentposition= |birthdate= |height= |weight= |debutyear= |debutteam= |highlights= |college= |draftyear= |draftround= |draftpick= |pastteams= |pfr= |cbs= |espn= |si= }}
So the logical question is - what do you want taken out, added, or changed? Pastordavid 17:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, so for when we edit someone like Mat McBriar. -- Phbasketball6 19:35, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
We need to implement something that hides the NFL debut year and team sections if no values are filled in, so there isn't ugly code in it for rookies. (See Ted Ginn, Jr.)► Chris Nelson 19:15, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There appears to be a major unresolved issue above, namely that of Pro Bowl year reporting.
There are two aspects to this:
1. The specification of each year which a player was selected, not just how many times the player was selected.
I believe there is no disagreement on this, but please note your opposition below if there is.
2. How the year is referenced - whether it is the year in which the game is actually played, or the beginning year of the season. Is it:
Chris and JMF - do you agree that this is the nature of the dispute?
If so, let's get some comments on it.
For my part, I have to agree w/ Chris. I would go by the standard that is reported on the official NFL team sites. This seems to be their convention and as such it seems reasonable to stick with this.
-- Jddphd 23:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Oh crap - I've had a look around and as I see JMF has pointed out on his talk page, the official NFL site has something contrary!
I would have sworn that Chris' perspective on this was correct.
Now what?
Jddphd 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
NFL.com even calls them the 2006 rosters for the 2007 Pro Bowl. As I've said before, basically any team website or media outlet will refer to them as I do. this really shouldn't even be up for debate. As you can see on the pages of Michael Vick, Junior Seau and Trent Green I have provided reputable sources for each list.► Chris Nelson 01:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
But there are other sites that do it differently. NFL.com relies on sportsline.com for its stats. here is Michael Vick's profile page there. it is direct opposition to your claim. You can provide a source all you want, it still doesn't change the fact that this could be argued both ways. You're not wrong, but neither are the people that want it to list the years the games were played. This is the exact same situation as Bowl Games. The seasons take place in one calender year. Most of the important bowl games take place the following year. They are all listed by the year the game was played. To restate something from earlier: "First off there is confussion with the Pro Bowl. For an example when I put down for someone that went to the 2007 Pro Bowl I would name the link as 2006, then many times afterwards people change it to 2007, I then decide for the 2007 Pro Bowl I would call it 2007 but people still change it to 2006. " That was from another user. Even if we decide we like it your way, this still creates problems! Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:18, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Chris, I don't think you are 100% correct here. And the fact that it's different on the NFL site itself seems to provide reasonable evidence that it's not 100% similar.
According to my research, the Elias Sports Bureau is the official provider of statistics to the NFL. Can anyone find any info from them on how they handle the reporting? Seems to me this might be a source. Jddphd 01:31, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Here's my take: how you name the Pro Bowl (either by year it actually occurred or the season with which it is associated) is kind of like which side of the road you drive on--one's not necessarily better than the other, but it is important that you settle on a convention. It'd be nice if there were some external convention used consistently by the media, because then the obvious choice would be to adopt it so we would be consistent with the rest of the world. But that doesn't appear to be the case, so we need to settle on our own convention. So how about a simple poll, and everyone agrees to accept it as binding?
Yeah, yeah, I know this is Wikipedia, "voting is bad", we rely on consensus and not sheer numbers--but really, that's only relevant when there is a substantial difference between the possible options. When it doesn't really matter which one we use, but involved parties can't reach a consensus themselves, perhaps a simple poll would be the best way to finally reach a decision. Kurt Weber 16:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
To attempt to find an authoritative source to address this dispute, I have asked the NFL. I sent an email from their website. Below is the text
Hello - I am hoping you can help. I am collaborating on an article on the Wikipedia site related to the NFL players. There is a dispute over how to label the year a player was selected to the Pro Bowl. One person believes the year should be noted as the year in which the game was actually played. Hence for this person a reference Peyton Manning would note that he was selected for the 2007 Pro Bowl. Let's call this the "year" convention. Another person believes that the year should correspond to the seasons. Thus for this person the reference to Peyton Manning would note that he played in the 2006 Pro Bowl, since it was the 2006-2007 season. Let's call this the "season" convention. We are at an impasse because people have seen it both ways on officially licensed sites. On several of the team sites they use the season convention, while on your own site you use the year convention. If you are interested, the text of the dispute is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_NFLactive We ask for your help - your official help. We need an authoritative word if there is one, and we are hoping you can lend some clarity to this. Please feel free to comment directly on that page, or email me back if you'd like. Thanks in advance. ((my name)) (on behalf of several editors at Wikipedia)
Jddphd 05:14, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well I'll give them points for speed, but not for usefulness. The site itself is entirely run by Sportsline and I was told to contact the League office directly. We're therefore getting Sportsline's interpretation, which I (like Chris, I think) don't consider authorative. I went back on my own to a number of the NFL sites and I am now leaning toward their seemingly consistent practice of using the "season" convention (e.g., Peyton Manning played in the 2006 Pro Bowl, despite that game actually occuring in 2007). It meets my gut-level feeling as well. I think if I had to pick a standard I'd lean toward that one. What do you think JMF? Can you live with it? I mean, if the individual team sites are doing it (which in my limited audit suggests they are), I think it's reasonable. Jddphd 14:04, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys, have a look here please -- WP:TROUT. Now stop it both of you!! You are good Wikipedians! You both care about the NFL! You both care about this template!! You guys should be really close allies, but both of you, in every single comment, escalate the tensions. Please stop fighting. You don't need to always have the last word. Just let things slide a little. If you feel insulted, just turn the other cheek. You'll be amazed how rapidly we can calm things down if we all just ignore the next comment that makes us annoyed, and focus on something productive (maybe even a different article for a couple of days) instead. -- JayHenry 05:20, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I just created a template that automatically fills in team colors. I believe it should be working without a hitch. It makes use of two #SWITCH templates, which you can see {{ NFLPrimaryColor}} and {{ NFLSecondaryColor}} which I just created. You can take a look at the code there to get an idea of how it works. Please let me know if there are any problems, but I believe it's working correctly. -- JayHenry 03:13, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ah the switch templates!! that was trick! Thanks man, that's a huge help! I'll unwatch your talk page! You need a barnstar! Jmfangio| ►Chat 03:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Ehh...someone has to be the first to use it. And, though contracts are complicated, it's only intended to provide a basic overview of the contract (i.e. the other day Dwight Freeney signed a six-year, $72 million contract, so that's all that'd be there). Kurt Weber 18:16, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Anyone? Anything? Kurt Weber 15:21, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Guys - I'm out of this. The two of you have dug your heels in and resisted good faith efforts to help. If I had to choose I'd agree with the season convention, but I don't expect this is going to swing the balance.
I believe that further RFC's or related efforts to mediate will be doomed to fail unless one or the other of you is willing to let it go. There is only one solution that escapes this problem, and that's to remove the year entirely.
Bottom line - I don't see any way out of this and I don't wish to invest more of my time in this.
Good luck to both of you. I will investigate more binding mechanisms to get around this, but you've heard the last from me as a WP:3O on this page.
Jddphd 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has been talked about already, but I see that the positions have been hardcoded with a disambig of (American football). In fact, there are only maybe 2 or 3 positions that actually use this format. So it doesn't make much sense. Pats1 02:47, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
The fact that you two ( Chrisjnelson ( talk · contribs) and Jmfangio ( talk · contribs)) are going at it on my talk page perfectly encapsulates the problem. The ad hominem nature of your comments illustrates that the two of you have lost the plot. If you want my true opinion on this you BOTH should take a self-imposed break from this template. Whatever "good" you believe you are doing for Wikipedia on this template is occuring via mechanisms that are now distinctly nonWikipedian and both of you are guilty of this despite your protestations to the contrary. On this page alone is evidence of WP:OWN, a highly evolved absence of good faith with what results in an absence of civility, and - just for good measure - a smattering of personal attacks.
Seriously. Take a break. Work on something else for a while.
Jddphd 12:11, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Seriously. Take a break. Work on something else for a while. ,I think that is pretty good advice. If the point is to improve content and it is at this time nothing good is happening and some hard feelings are being created. Take a break and then after a couple of weeks perhaps you folks will find a compromise.
RMANCIL 15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC) It could be a good policy to allow each other some space try and work on different projects and don't edit the others work.
RMANCIL
15:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
FYI, this new template doesn't work with WikiCommons images. Compare [4] with the current Cadillac Williams where the template was changed. And yes, the Commons image does still exist (obviously since it displays still in the older rev). AUTiger » talk 23:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
Why does this template use {{ ft to m}} vs {{ ft in to m}}? If someone is 6 ft 1 inch tall, you have to put in 6.1 or 6.083 or some other approximation. Unless someone can come up with a really good reason for it, it really ought to be changed posthaste as every article using it is screwed up right now.-- B 05:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}} - please change the {{ ft to m}} to {{ ft in to m}}. When that is done, we can update the doc section. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 05:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Do you think you could do the change mentioned here? Also, I think the bar that says National Football League debut should be conditional on having values entered for debutyear and debutteam, if possible. There's not really a need for any part of that section unless as debut is entered, because for rookies it looks bad.► Chris Nelson 16:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I have made three posts about this at the link I provided in my last message here. No one has replied back and the first one was from over a week ago. I even posted about this yesterday to attempt to get a discussion going if anyone feels one is necessary. You yourself have yet to post on the issue. If you care about it, discuss it. If you don't care to discuss it now, that's not our problem and changes will be implemented to fix the template. It's hardly a controversial edit. But you can't say I need to wait for discussion when I've been trying to give people the chance to discuss it for over a week and not one person has. If User:B can do it now, that'd be great. If not, I'll do it myself when the template gets unprotected. In the meantime, discuss any issues if you have them. If you don't, you can't whine about there not being any discussion.► Chris Nelson 17:07, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Well let's be real here. You're only disputing it and avoiding helping the problem because I'm the one who raised the issue. It's personal, and maybe that's understandable. And maybe my propose solution, the one similar to RyguyMN's edits, is not the absolute best one. It is, however, better than the current state, and I know you know that. I'd be all for a message that says something like Has not debuted" or whatever as you proposed. It'd be nice if we could do that so it automatically shows up if now year/team has been entered. But I do not know how to do that, and you refuse to implement it or even discuss it to much of a degree. Therefore until you can get over your personal problem with me and help make the solution even better, the satisfactory solution from before will be re-implemented. If you ever feel like discussing it further or adding a solution as the one you discussed, that'd be great. But if you aren't going to, we have no choice but to solve the current problem without you.► Chris Nelson 17:21, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes that is what I'm talking about. See Ted Ginn, Jr. or any other rookie with the new infobox. I'm just trying to get rid of that [[ NFL season|]] for the [[]] thing in some way. I don't think anyone could reasonably disagree it needs to be fixed in some way. But in addition to it being clearly uncontroversial, Jmfangio is behaving as if he will not allow it to change, even when he refuses to discuss it. So I don't know what he wants.► Chris Nelson 18:29, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
I think this is the right section for this. Is there any way to change the template so that the metric conversions go to 2 significant figures after the decimal? 10 cm is a long distance to be vague with and most sports sites which use the metric system use that many figures. Just want to be fair to those not familiar with the US Standard system. Eeks2284 17:50, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:* Certainly nothing wrong with putting this here. To make sure I understand you, you want to convert into cm?
Juan Miguel Fangio|
►Chat
18:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
Here's a question - what should we do with players taken in the supplemental draft? (Ex. Manuel Wright, Tony Hollings, Paul Oliver, Jared Gaither.) There's really no way to put this in the draft section the way it is now, but we need to figure out a way to show this info so they don't look like undrafted free agents. Any ideas?► Chris Nelson 03:52, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
I've identified two areas that need to be reviewed and potentially fixed:
Just some thoughts...let me know what you all think. I can attempt to make changes once protection is removed. I do like this layout over the previous NFL player infobox - it has a lot less clutter and is more informative. RyguyMN 04:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The debut problem is fixed. (If someone wants to add text to be displayed for players who have not made a debut once the protection is removed, that's fine - but it's outside the scope of a critical bug fix.) RyguyMN, can you point to an article that the career highlight problem is breaking? If so, we can fix it. If a critical bug needs to be fixed, just add {{ editprotected}} to the page - I had no notion that the protection on this page was extended ... I'm kinda annoyed at it, but there's no reason that bug fixes should have to wait until unrelated personality conflicts can be resolved. -- B 05:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
{{editprotected}}
Juan, Chris - I can't find in the template where there is a link to Jersey number#American football. If I search for "jersey", I don't see anything and {{{currentnumber}}} isn't wikilinked. Can you point out exactly what you would like changed? As for the debut thing, can you two come up with exactly what wikicode you would like to have in there? If you can agree on it, I'll make the change.-- B 17:40, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
{{#if:{{{debutyear|}}}|[[{{{debutyear}}} NFL season{{!}}{{{debutyear}}}]] for the [[{{{debutteam}}}]]|No [[Season (sport)#regular season|regular season]] appearances}}
If there is no debut year, it generates this: No regular season appearances
If there is a debut year, it generates this: [[{{{debutyear}}} NFL season|{{{debutyear}}}]] for the [[{{{debutteam}}}]]
B, I think we should do away with linking the jersey number. I'm not sure it's THAT relevant to the infoboxes, and since that bar is a team color it often looks bad. I, like a lot of people I'd imagine, have active links blue. As a result, it creates a horrible contrast with some colors. If you have your browser set up like me (which is default), see Ted Ginn, Jr. for an example. I really don't think we need to link the jersey number.► Chris Nelson 18:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Since the mediation is over with, does protection serve any purpose any more? If the pro bowl thing is the only point of contention and you guys would be willing to agree to leave it as is unless/until there is WikiProject consensus to change it, I see no reason not to have the template unprotected. -- B 17:44, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
There is a dispute over how content should be displayed for a Pro Bowl nomination/appearance. As as all other methods of WP:DR (sans arbitration) have been exhausted, please take the time to respond to the following poll. Per WP:STRAW and WP:DR, this is simply a test and not binding in anyway shape or form. Previous discussion on this page has addressed this, please familiarize yourself with the issue before voting. Votes should come in the form of '''Support Option _''' with ~~~~ to follow.
Certain parties want to display pro bowl awards by year of the nomination ([[2006 Pro Bowl|2005]]). Other's want to display year the game was played ([[2006 Pro Bowl|2006]]. Clarification of the information helps to support what the listing means. It does not seem to address the fact that the alternative proposal is also valid. An neutral solution of listing the number of appearances quantitatively has been proposed.
Support Option 2 Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 3 Despite the fact that it's crossed out, it's the way the NFL does it. The 2006 Pro Bowl is at the end of the 2005 season, that's just how it works.
Bjewiki
22:21, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 2 For the Pro Bowl, assigning a year doesn't seem to have much meaning. When a player's credentials are talked about, specific years are rarely mentioned when talking about Pro Bowls. Number of appearances should have more weight, thus be displayed. RyguyMN 23:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 3 Why is it crossed out? This option is best as it relates to the years of other awards won by players. For example, if Peyton Manning is listed as being on the Colts in 2003 (in the teams box), then his awards should also be listed to reflect this. He won the MVP award in 2003, so the award should be listed as the 2003 NFL (co-)MVP. And he also went to the Pro Bowl for his performance in 2003, so he should have a format of [[2004 Pro Bowl|2003]] listed for his Pro Bowl appearances.
Pats1
01:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option3 Sure it doesn't exist, but I vote for this option anyway. It is informative and 100% accurate.►
Chris Nelson
01:57, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Don't really care - but option 1 is a horrendously bad idea. Whatever option is selected, it needs to either be option 2 or it needs to allow the template so set the formatting. For example, have fields {{{probowlgame1}}}, {{{probowlgame2}}}, etc that would accept a year as their parameter. The template would generate something like [[{{#eval:1+{{{probowlgame1}}}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]] (using #3 as an example) or [[{{{probowlgame1}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]]{{#if:{{{probowlgame2|}}}|, [[{{{probowlgame2}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame2}}}]]|}} Pro Bowls (another possible implementation). That way, everything will be consistently displayed. There's one big disadvandage of #2 that is worth considering - when we go through to update everything for 2007/8, if Joe Schmoe has had 5 pro bowls, we have no idea if this pro bowl is his sixth or if someone has already updated him and it is his fifth. It also makes fact vandalism potentially less obvious. (By the way, why is option 3 struck?)-- B 02:01, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Support Option 2. The number of Pro Bowl appearances is most important, the years of those appearances is secondary. IMO, the purpose of the infobox is to hit the highlights. The authors/editors of each player's article can then use more concise language when listing the years in the body of the article. (Example: " Yepremian was selected to the Pro Bowl following the 1973 and 1979 seasons.") — xanderer 22:48, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
This poll is not set up correctly. I feel my way is the only correct way to do things, and therefore I propose that should be the standard rather than having everyone just do what they like best.► Chris Nelson 21:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, they could change it to appearances and then change the year. But why do that? Why not just decide that SELECTIONS be the standard, and then you cannot factually question the years?► Chris Nelson 22:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
The only thing we need to decide on is out to refer to it in the infobox. If we say "Pro Bowl appearances" and list years, it'd be factually accurate to list years of the Pro Bowls themselves. But my edit says "Pro Bowl selections" and it is a proven fact that the selections take place during the regular season. Can we not agree that the regular season should be the focus, since it was during the regard season they excelled (presumably) and earned the selection (which also took place during the regular season)? I do not just see why we cannot all decide that the standard is "Pro Bowl selections" and then there is no debate over how to list the years because one way is wrong and the other is right.► Chris Nelson 22:28, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
Pats1 makes an excellent point; perhaps the best. Look at all the awards. Look at the NFL MVP Award, the NFL Defensive Player of the Year Award, NFL Rookie of the Year Award, etc. Look at all those articles. Notice that, although each award is announced in January of the new year, they are referred to by the year of the regular season. Jason Taylor won the 2006 Defensive Player of the Year Award, this is how it is ALWAYS expressed. But it was announced in January 2007 because that's how the season is. The Pro Bowl should be no different. All these awards/honors are for the regular season. Therefore those are the years to remember. Obviously, there's nothing wrong with just writing "Pro Bowl (x8)". It's correct, and informative. But my point has always been that my method has always been done here, it's even more informative and it's factually accurate. There's simply no logical reason to even contest this.► Chris Nelson 01:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
What's wrong with something like this:
[[{{{probowlgame1}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame1}}}]]{{#if:{{{probowlgame2|}}}|, [[{{{probowlgame2}}} Pro Bowl|{{{probowlgame2}}}]]|}} Pro Bowls
This would generate something like this
That way, it's obvious that the year refers to the game itself. Or replace "pro bowl" with "season":
What would be wrong with one of those? If it's spelled out, it's obvious to anyone what it is talking about and consistency is enforced by having {{{probowlseason1}}}, {{{probowlseason2}}}, etc parameters to the template. Juan, do you consider the problem with listing each season to be philosophical (too much information), practical (we don't know that 2002 means), or technical (no good way to consistently display it)?-- B 02:08, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
... |probowlseason1=2000 |probowlseason2=2002 |probowlseason3=2003 |probowlseason4=2006 |probowlseason5= |probowlseason6= ...
I'd like to see it in use to form an opinion on it. Anywhere you could put it, like the sandbox, so we could have an idea how it'd look?► Chris Nelson 02:21, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
You've shown you misunderstood by arguing things I'm not saying. People do say those things. But people often say things like "Peyton Manning was a Pro Bowl selection in 2006" and that is the only correct way to present the year in that case. It baffles me how anyone could think the Pro Bowl's year is more relevant than the regular season year. There's very little logic behind it. And despite your instance that no one says it my way, I can assure you that you are in fact in the minority and that 99% of the media and fans say it my way. Don't believe me. Do a little research and I know what you'll find. Look on your favorite team's website, for instance. I guarantee you the Browns use regular season years when discussing Pro Bowls on player pages.► Chris Nelson 20:07, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well I'm sure I'm gonna lose this thing eventually, even though I know I'm right. In which case we'll end up using Jmfangio's compromise, " Pro Bowl (x8)".► Chris Nelson 20:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I removed the old height field and was updating all the templates when my edits were interrupted. I am leaving this alone so that i don't shot someone. Someone else will need to finish it up. I got about 150 or 200 articles in, you can use the what links here function on the left to fix it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 08:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
I was wondering what everyone thought of this - it looks a little odd writing Free Agent in the team section and having the No. spot blank when a guy is not on a team - at least in my opinion. So I was thinking, why don't we make that entire bar, the current team/jersey number bar, conditional on a team being entered in that field? I think the lack of infobox colors, as well as the list of teams below, will convey well enough that the guy is not currently affiliated with a team. I think it might look better for free agents if that bar just wasn't there at all. So does anyone else have an opinion or an idea?► Chris Nelson 04:48, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with the number saying N/A for free agents, but why would we link it. Just doesn't seem necessary to me, because the linked article has no direct relevance with the infobox. Kind of like how you aren't supposed to just wikilink dates all the time. There are so many other thing that are not linked that would make more sense to be linked than "N/A". Just my two cents.► Chris Nelson 07:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
Whatever convention we use on this template should be the convention used across Wikipedia. Right now, 2007 Pro Bowl is about the Pro Bowl that took place on February 10, 2007, after the conclusion of the 2006 season. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League#Pro Bowl naming. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 15:30, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
So I think we need to have something to say a guy was an undrafted free agent, rather than just having the draft section disappear. I don't know how exactly this would work, but how about something like, if no draft info is entered, it creates something that says "Undrafted free agent in 1996". Or, what if we just put a new field in the infobox, maybe like "Undrafted=Y" and then UndraftedYear=1996", so that it would create " Undrafted free agent in 1996" or something in a bar right below the college? I don't know what the best way to do it, but those are a few ideas. What do you guys think?► Chris Nelson 20:48, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
That's simply not your decision to make. I made a legitimate edit and you reverted it without a reason relating to the edit itself. That RFC thing, our past encounters, any unrelated, outstanding disputes regarding the infobox - all irrelevant. If you are against this edit, it is your obligation to explain why. It is not within your right to tell me to wait and go edit other things. So unless you want to discuss THIS issue and the edit I made, do not revert it. This is no unreasonable.► Chris Nelson 21:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This is not complicated. If you do not have a legitimate reason to revert an edit, you do not do it. It's not your place to tell anyone how or what to edit. Either discuss it, or don't revert. Simple as that. You don't own this template.► Chris Nelson 22:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Again, I don't know about the edit that Chrisjnelson made, but of course NFL has more players than any other sport, so that's much more articles. Editing the NFL infobox makes many more changes than does the MLB or NBA infoboxes. If there are any controversial edits made to this template, then they should be removed until there is a clear discussion and it is widely agreed to implement that change. I don't know if the edit was controversial, but in your eyes you think it was. Now, I don't know if there was any added opinion due to the fact that Chrisjnelson, an editor you got into a revert war in the past with, had anything more to do with your reasoning behind reverting the edit, but you say it was controversial, and if one user who contributes greatly to football articles sees an edit that s/he thinks is controversial, then I think his/her opinion holds a lot of weight. This should be discussed before anything else takes place. Ksy92003 (talk) 22:28, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Juan, it is completely unacceptable to declare that you will automatically revert any edit made by Chris. There's no reason for a dispute in one area of the template to impede progress in another area. -- B 23:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
As far as I can tell at this point in time, Jmfangio is currently holding certain things hostage by disallowing Chrisjnelson from making changes to them, for ABSOLUTELY NO REASON. Not all edits need discussion, especially if a discussion will ultimately end up being "yeah, go ahead and do it." There's no reason for Jmfangio to be disallowing Chrisjnelson from making changes at this point in time. He's suddenly guilty of WP:OWN just as he's been claiming Chrisjnelson is. Wlmaltby3 – talk/ contribs 23:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris - I know your edits are in good faith, but that ain't the whole ball of wax. I don't know if this is standard, but because of all the that's going on and the fact that this talk page probably shouldn't be archived until outstanding issues are addressed.... would any of you (chris, b, wmalt, anyone else) be okay with me starting a sub-page for new discussions. When everything else has taken place this page can easily be archived and we can move the subpage here. Not standard practice, but again, it will help give those who want to discuss content and not "behavior" an easy way to do that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat 23:57, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
This has got to be one of the most frustrating things I have ever been included in. There's absolutely no reason for any of this to be happening. Jmfangio: You consistently accuse people of personal attacks and other such nonsense when they're not even occuring! I would love to know what your definition of a personal attack is. You keep claiming everyone's going off topic and not discussing the issues at hand, BUT YOU'RE THE ONLY ONE DOING THAT. Every time a new discussion is opened, you jump in, throw your two-cents in, and then it ends up being a discussion about civility and other such nonsense that didn't even need to exist, simply because you started accusing people of personal attacks and incivility. You're driving everyone here insane. You keep claiming everyone else is the problem, BUT YOU'RE NOT HELPING ONE BIT. Wlmaltby3 – talk/ contribs 00:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)