User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 25

I'm right, right?

The practice squad players and injured reserve guys are still on Template:Super Bowl XLIII right?--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought they should be, but no, only active rosters are on those templates. I don't like it, but that's the standard.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to all for the Pats' ones. I think a few other recent ones are the same. Pats1 ^T/C 12:03, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah the Giants from last year have Brandon London and Shockey on there.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re:Man...

Looks like I got another buddy [1]. :-)--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 03:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Civility

As hard as it may be sometime, please refrain from edit summaries such as this one. Thanks, Grsz¹¹_Review 04:52, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Any interest

Hey, do you have any interest in helping me create the rest of the CFL player articles cause currently there are 87 articles to create and if you break it down by team:

17 for the Eskimos
17 for the Roughriders
2 for the Blue Bombers
23 for the Tiger-Cats
28 for the Alouettes

The rest are done, so any interest in helping me create these?--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:28, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and by the way I changed my username.--Giants ^T 02:45, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes I feel like I don't even know who you are anymore...►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:49, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.--Giants27 ^T 02:53, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where are you seeing all these moves? (other than the Lions and Giants and the first Browns move)--Giants27 T C 23:05, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Browns' official site. Went there to get some info on Dorsey and saw this.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:07, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Moving pages

I see lots of pages moved to and from Joe Blow (Canadian football) and Joe Blow (football player). What is the standard, and why do we have some people like Jerome Davis (Canadian football) when he has played professionally in both US and CDN (and Germany). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:13, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The standard for NFL players is (American football). I believe the standard for the CFL is (football player). It's an imperfect system for sure. I created Jerome Davis at (Canadian football) rather than (American football) because he's had much more of a significant career in the CFL than in the NFL.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:36, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It really should be Canadian football, Australian football, and American football. Football player should be reserved for soccer players, as that is the nomenclature the rest of the world outside those three countries uses. --2008Olympian^chitchat 05:27, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gridiron football makes more sense. It's where the article for the sport is located here and it covers all the leagues, avoiding problems with players who have played in multiple leagues.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:19, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

IT's CHRISTMAS!

Finally he's "retired"!--Giants27 T C 22:50, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Brown

I am trying to find the middle name of the running back that goes to Oklahoma, I didnt think it would be this hard to find. If I cant find the middle name what do you think I should name it?--Yankees10 04:42, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well actually, you don't need (running back) or (American football) at all because there is no article at Chris R. Brown.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:53, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thats solved, so should I name the running back at Oklahoma Chris Brown (running back)--Yankees10 05:01, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, because the Texans' Chris Brown has already had a professional career, while the other hasn't at all. The college one shouldn't have a more basic article location than the pro one. I'll think about it some more.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Edit conflict

Almost got the Steelers moves, damn me!;-)--Giants27 T C 22:22, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Darian Barnes

Darian Barnes played for Rutgers before he transferred to Hampton —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.39.87.233 (talk) 21:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but in the infobox we only put the last one attended, like you'd see on a roster or NFL.com.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:23, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Order

Re: [2] Why does alphabetical make more sense than geographical? An order is an order; it doesn't make much difference which way it's done but it does make some sense to follow what's expected and standard for CFL readers. Canadians are also very familiar with ordering things in this sort of manner, since our country is very much horizontally-based. By contrast, the NFL#Current NFL teams list jumps back and forth all over the place. It's partly based on geography and partly based on alphabet. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:43, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how the CFL does it, and that's fine if it's their thing. But this is an english encyclopedia for EVERYTHING and essentailly nothing is sorted that way. It makes no sense to have tons of things here sorted alphabetically, and then sort a list of rosters geographically. I'm not from Canada, and although my geography knowledge is alright I don't know off the top of my head the CFL teams from west to east. If I'm in the middle of that page, I'd have no idea which direction to go to find a certain team's roster.

The fact is, and you can't really argue it, that not all visitors to that page will know the order of teams geographically. But you can be almost certain that all visitors will be able to put the teams in order alphabetically (essentially, being able to read). That is why it makes no sense to order it in a way that not everyone will pick up on and not everyone will understand immediately.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:56, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two points: 1. The fact is that it is already sorted by geography by virtue of the divisions. To change between geographical order and alphabetical order makes for no order whatsoever. 2. It is standard and expected to find Canadian topics ordered geographically. Most websites, books, studies, businesses, etc. do so. (e.g., Template:Politics of Canadian provinces) Also, there is a table of contents at the top for a reason. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But you're forgetting 3. It makes no sense and is counterproductive. Answer me one question: Are readers of Wikipedia a) more likely to be able to read; or b) more likely to be able to name major cities/provinces of Canada from West to East? Which is it ? Pick one. Only one.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Read. I couldn't name more than those 8 team locations plus maybe 3 or 4 provinces in Canada, so there is no way I could read from west to east, and why west to east, why not east to west, since I live in the east I take great offense to that. ;-).--Giants27 T C 16:52, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Plus these claims that the way we do it for the NFL are ridiculous. We have them sorted by division (logical) and then each division's team's listed alphabetically, which is what the majority of the readers would expect.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fun. You tell me to pick only one, then insist on ordering in two different methods in the same article. Now it's neither alphabetical nor geographical. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:05, 15 February 2009 (UTC) P.S. It's not my fault if you don't know your geography. Reading that article may be a good opportunity to practise it. :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see here, Saskatchewan, Vancouver and British Columbia are in the west, Toronto, Quebec and Ottawa are in the east, Montreal is in the east, Labrador, Yellowknife are somewhere (north?), Calgary in the west? Oh yeah forgot that's not the point of this conversation, my bad :-). The separating of the divisions eastern division (or is it conference?), then the west, but the teams in each should be alphabetical because it's easier for reading purposes.--Giants27 T C 17:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's my point that it's easier reading if it doesn't jump back and forth and it's Chris' point that it should be in alphabetical order regardless. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't jump back and forth. Divisions are a separation of the league, like in any sport. That's as a natural a separation as it comes. They might be called North, South, East, West, Central, or whatever, but our listing them here by that is not BECAUSE it's geographical, it's because that's how they are divided in the sport. If the NFL named it's divisions "Division 1" through "Division 8" then we'd sort them that way. Geography has nothing to do it.

But you're talking about two different things. We're not talking about grouping by division. We're talking about listing WITHIN the division. And in that regard, geography makes no sense because not every reader knows the geography of the country. If I want to know the locations of the CFL teams from west to east, I'll look at a map of Canada. If I want to look at their rosters, I'd want them in alphabetical order because that's a natural listing method and I don't need any other sort of knowledge outside of reading (like geographical) to understand it.

Think about it - what good does listing geographically do to any of us? Why don't we do away with the positions in the roster templates altogether and list every player on a team from east to west by their birth place, starting from the prime meridian? So what if people won't understand the listing and it'll take people longer to find something they are looking for in said list becaue of it? It's their fault they don't know all the hometowns of the team's players and the locations of those towns on the globe, right?

The basic fact is that listing alphabetically requires only one skill to comprehend the pattern - reading. Listing geographically requires multiple skills - reading (to be able to understand any of the words on the page) and geography. Whether or not you THINK they should know the geography of your country to make them a more well-rounded human being, they shouldn't have to, and it is not your place to say they should. There's no sign on the main Wikipedia page that says "Know your geography or get the fuck out" and there never will be.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:32, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were being serious and I agree completely with what you said but that 3rd paragraph was the funniest thing I've read all day.--Giants27 T C 21:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't take my comments personally; comments about learning geography were meant in fun. Arranging them in alphabetical order has nothing to do with readability, it's to do with finding the specific information you want without reading the entire article. Your roster example is a straw man argument with no applicability to this case. The case for arranging them in geographical order is to do with making a logical order in reading the entire article (rather than the alphabetical order that has to do with finding a particular subsection and ignoring the rest). The order, in this particular case, is already set up by West to East because of the natural division of teams (that follows a common natural order in Canada). Maintaining the order already inherent increases the readability of the article for most who have an interest in reading an article on all the rosters in the CFL. If it was simply about finding a particular team's roster, you'd likely be reading that team's article rather than this one anyway and one could abandon the arranging by division because it wouldn't be relevant. The truth is, the article is of some interest to those who'd like to compare and read all the rosters and, in that case, the natural order of West to East and its consistency with other websites and books makes it a better and more useful read. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:14, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This should be brought to a more appropiate place for discussion so that more people can comment, and just a note Wikiproject CFL's talk page is not an option as that place gets less traffic than a Pakistani Restaurant.--Giants27 T C 21:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's a pretty unimportant disagreement without a substantial difference. I do maintain that the readability is improved by maintaining the West to East order and feel it's worth discussing amongst those interested but opening an RFC or something over the order of rosters is unnecessary; no one need lose sleep or work-time over it. There is no loss of information; just readability. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:31, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I never said let's open an RFC, all I said was we should try and get the opinions of other editors.--Giants27 T C 21:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But what you maintain is wrong and could not be backed up with fact if you researched it, polled people, etc.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My $.02: East-to-west instead of alphabetical seems very non-Wiki to me. Alphabetical is simple and clear; to someone who doesn't have a clue about Canadian geography, arranging teams by their geography not only sounds odd and unusual, but confusing and unclear. Pats1 ^T/C 02:31, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It makes more sense than arranging by whatever randomly happens to be the first letter of the city name. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Man, not to be uncivil, but if I ever told that one to a librarian... Pats1 ^T/C 02:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You cannot possibly be serious.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:46, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I mean that's seriously incomprehensible.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are not trying to find a book, we are trying to read an article. One would not arrange the chapters in a book alphabetically. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:20, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's a list. A list for all people, including those who don't know Canadian geography. You're grasping straws here. All we've done here is explain very clearly and present a good argument for alphabetical over geographical order, and your arguments/statements get worse and worse and make less and less sense as time goes on. I can also essentially guarantee you that if we have people vote on this, the vast majority will be in favor of alphabetical over geographical. So do you want to drop it now or do you want to let others vote, then drop it?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:48, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I feel the same for your argument. Your argument is that it's simply a list and generally lists are in alphabetical order; understood. My argument is that it can also be read with sense reading and comparing the rosters of the teams, in which case it makes sense to order it by division and to continue that geographical arrangement, which also mimics other CFL sources and other Canadian topics. There is not necessarily a "Right Answer"; just differing points-of-view and use. If you want to discuss it and convince me of your point of view; I'm in. If you don't; fine. I do find your comments about being "incomprehensible" annoying as it appears you do not care to see my point of view and evaluate it but rather just dismiss it. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:06, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's because all opinions, as evidenced by my arguments compared to yours, are clearly not created equal. There is far more logic to an alphabetical listing, and I've proved it. It's not about opinion or preference, it's about logic, common sense and usefulness.

If I haven't convinced you of it by now, then there's nothing more I can do. So like I said, you can either drop it now, or have everyone else on Wikipedia tell you that you should drop it. Just a matter of how much time you want to waste.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:11, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no logic to alphabetical ordering, it's just a convenient way to order that which has no natural order. If you haven't considered my arguments, then there is no point in posting them and you can live in ignorance. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:14, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've considered them. I can just clearly see what makes more sense, and yours are not it. So what's the plan?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:16, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you've considered my argument, then can you explain what my point of view is? DoubleBlue (talk) 04:19, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We're past it. What happens now? Do we continue edit-warring, do you drop it or do we take it somewhere else where people throw in their opinions and yours assuredly gets outnumbered?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:21, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see no evidence in this conversation that you've sought to understand my argument and thus it is a useless exercise to "discuss" it with you. If I seek to re-order it in the future, I will notify you. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's nothing else to understand. I get you like the geographical order. I get that the CFL website does it. I get that other places may do it here. But I have weighed the pros and cons of both that kind of order and an alphabetical order, and I have found the latter to be the more logical and useful way. The knowledge that the majority of people anywhere would agree also satisfies my stance.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:30, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chris is right. Whether you like it or not, you're not going to find much support for your "There is no logic to alphabetical ordering" argument around Wikipedia. It's an established ordering principle. Pats1 ^T/C 04:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement

Okay, let's make this official if anyone updates the roster templates with transactions (not count updating etc.), they get 30 minutes to update the player pages, however if one of the players does not have a player page they will be given 1 hour to update respective player pages. Deal? Oh and to annoy you. ;-)--Giants27 T C 00:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What brought that up?

And dude, sorry, but that list is awful. So many of those guys aren't very valuable at all, and aren't even close to the top of the free agent crop.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:05, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question, boredom, and I know put it together in 20 minutes.--Giants27 T C 03:06, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And you really have to stop focusing on Pro Bowls. They aren't an indication of ability. Kerry Collins wasn't great last year, he had an awesome running game, great line and great D. H will probably end up back in Tennessee because there won't be a big market for him.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:07, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re-ordered it and added Bart Scott (how did I miss him before?) Anyways how bout' the deal I proposed.--Giants27 T C 03:41, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:51, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you like the idea.--Giants27 T C 19:30, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I'd actually made that template before but I wasn't good about keeping up with it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:08, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. What's the benefit of having two roster templates to update? Why not just use one? DoubleBlue (talk) 03:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One is for information purposes on the team article (and team season articles), the other is for navigation between players on player articles. Entirely different purposes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:46, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Although I agree with this, isn't that a nit of a double standard?--Giants27 T|C 22:47, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did admit at the time it didn't pass WP:VERIFY. I just did those things because I know myself, I trust myself and if they aren't contested it makes the encyclopedia better. But if someone challenged the edits, I know they don't pass WP:VERIFY and will let them be undone. It's kind of like we do with the NFL roster templates. Pats1 and I "know" a player's old number if he re-joins a team or his new position if the team changes schemes. It might not exactly pass WP:VERIFY, but we're the only ones who edit the template and we know we're right so we just do it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm not challenging you because you've been editing the templates a lot longer than I have I just wanted to mention it. And I wouldn't say you guys are the "only" ones but I get what you mean. ;-)--Giants27 T|C 23:03, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I just mean there's only a handful of editors that do it. Honestly, it may not stand up to all WP policies all the time, but it's truly the best source for NFL rosters anywhere on the internet because of what we do.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Kwame Harris

Dumbass why did you change Kwame's page. Everything was factual and cited. Change it back to the way it was before and leave it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.141.147.66 (talk) 19:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Umm....to respond (because I had the same edits waiting for the 30 minutes to go by), they were all not from a neutral point of view, saying he sucked and was awful is not neutral.--Giants27 T|C 20:19, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, I am sorry for being an ass (I actually feel horrible since you responded very maturely).

Its just that Kwame Harris boils my blood, if you seen him play then you would say its like watching a train wreck. There is a good reason a large majority of people criticize him, but I see your point, wiki should be without bias/personal opinion.

Sorry again. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.141.147.66 (talk) 22:17, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I realize he's heavily penalized and if you can source all that, go right ahead and add it back. But it should also talk about neutral stuff, like how many games he played in, the touchdown he scored, how his team did with him starting, etc. It's too heavily weighted on the penalties.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 00:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going off the categorical hierarchy already in in place. See the category "American players of American football by state" for more information.Football79 (talk) 23:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of FAs from Roster templates

Only the UFAs get deleted right?--Giants27 T|C 22:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and non-tendered RFAs/ERFAs as we find that out. We keep the rest on there since they are more likely (or in the ERFAs' cases, guaranteed) to remain on their current team.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

John Tait

Nelson, Why is it ok for a player's wiki page to refer to him as retired and have him no longer on Bear's roster and yet we cannot remove him from the active roster? Something is not right, either he is or he isn't a member of the team. Be consistent. If you want Tait as an active player until he files his paperwork then why allow his player page to state him as a free agent??? Rgoss25 (talk) 16:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because I haven't edited his page. It's not my job. I edit what I choose.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:18, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, you agree that there is inconsistency? I guess it will work itself out. He will officially retire and then we'll be able to remove him from the template. Rgoss25 (talk) 16:36, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep and yep.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hey can you put the Hartwick College colors in the college football infobox? Thanks.--Giants27 ^T/C 17:05, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]