Template talk:Infobox NFLactive/Archive 1

message: 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)
replies: text: Good thought. The third situation I can think of would be for like the Todd Lowber's of the world, who never entered into the NFL draft but caught on with teams as tryouts. Pats1 00:36, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Undrafted free agents

message: 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)
replies: text: * I'm not the one jumping around on issues.  The present vs current thing is actually a non-issue.  I just forgot to leave that in during the edit (but not here).   Please don't hand out english lessons on here.  Editors are not likely to respond well to that and may take offense to that.  Jmfangio| ►Chat  23:52, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Present vs. current

message: Could the request link to the relevant talk page section for clarity? Morgan Wick 18:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Should we maybe summarize our arguments considering this thing is so massive?►Chris Nelson 19:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had a look over the discussion, and I don't see any policy or guidelines mentioned, except maybe WP:CCC. Morgan Wick 19:23, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Oh whoops, I pointed to the wrong section - eeck - sorry for wasting your time - it's actually the Listing out highlights/awards section.  I too have gotten lost with all the different topics started in such a short period of time. Jmfangio| ►Chat  19:33, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

text: *:(glares, mutters about splitting discussion in two places) I think the input from other parties is substantial enough to disqualify the dispute from WP:3O but I do wonder what problem Chris Nelson has with Jmfangio's "only list the number" idea. Other than that I recuse myself. Morgan Wick 23:30, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My problem is that it is more accurate to put it the way I do, it's correct and enhances the argument. Jmfangio has to date been unable to understand that my edit is 100% accurate. I'll source every infobox I do that way if I have to, and it wouldn't be difficult at all because all media outlets and teams do it the way I do.►Chris Nelson 01:34, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1. Jmfangio has already pointed you in the direction of at least one counterexample, Sportsline and NFL.com. 2. Wouldn't listing just the number and omitting the year be just as "accurate"? Morgan Wick 07:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Some food for thought:
*I have Michael Vick's article listing Pro Bowl selections in 2002, 2004, 2005 with each linking to the appropriate Pro Bowl.
*I have Trent Green's article listing Pro Bowl selections in 2003 and 2005 with each linking to the appropriate Pro Bowl.
*I have Junior Seau's article listing Pro Bowl selections from 1991-2002, with each linking to the appropriate Pro Bowl.
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. 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)
thread_title:  [[WP:3O]] request 

message: 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 .  It was created here. 08:04, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment:Template creation and implementation 

message: 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)
replies: text: Finding this solution seems a hell of a lot more complicated than doing it ourselves. It's not really a pan for m to put a couple brackets around the word Quarterback.►Chris Nelson 08:30, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * There's a bigger problem with this, but I'm not fixing it until your behavior changes drastically.  You know there are ongoing disputes, so it would be advisable to halt development of this until we can iron those out. Jmfangio| ►Chat  08:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Position

message: 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)
replies: text: * This is something I have a solution for, but I'm not inclined to implement anything else until we can get through one issue.  This article does not need thirty different subtopics at once.  Let's get through the pro bowl issue and go from there. Jmfangio| ►Chat  03:38, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I said before, I'm done with that issue and will not discuss it further. I have argued my point to exhaustion, and I will not let one misguided opinion prevent the enhancement of articles here. So if you don't want to help with that issue, that's fine. I'll find it elsewhere. After all, you don't WP:OWN this template. (But why do I still expect you to revert any edit made to it?)►Chris Nelson 03:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps the simplest option here would be to create a field called .  If someone is only a quarterback, and currentposition2 is empty, then it would just say Quarterback.  But if someone is a Center/Guard you could put currentposition=Center, currentposition2=Guard and it could display Center/Guard with links to both!  Does that make sense? --JayHenry 04:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I've got that ready to go, but there are some questions about the use of it. But I'm waiting until we get past the "pro bowl" before going any farther with those type of edits.  The only reason I even  opened the "color" changes door was because it was resulting in a user reverting perfectly acceptable edits. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another issue

message: 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  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)
replies: text: Or we summon the strength to type those four brackets and link things ourselves! *GASP* 00:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL - that's crazy talk! In all seriousness, there is an advantage to auto-linking ... it ever the article is moved, we don't have to go fix 10000 pages.  But having bad names for 30 articles when only 2 of them need disambiguation is just an all-around bad idea. --B 00:24, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a good point that I must admit I never thought of. Although it seems unlikely many of any positions will have their names changed. But either way, if we do auto-link it what can we do about guys listed on official website rosters as Center/Guard or Cornerback/Safety?►Chris Nelson 00:27, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We can make  override .  If you don't want your text decorated, use currentpositionplain=Guard/Center/Tuba player and that will display instead of currentposition. --B 00:31, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds simply enough.... I think. Just out of curiosity are you going to move the articles back? I can't say I believe a discussion is needed to do so, considering they moved for a horrible reason.►Chris Nelson 00:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done.  They are moved back to the proper titles. --B 01:59, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * It wasn't done for the sake of this template.  Looking at the article structure there was a great deal of inconsistency.  This made them uniformed and was made because a) two impartial editors suggested it.  b) it was supported by WP:D and WP:NC.  The current solution (to have the overiding field) is ideal.  I have reverted back the articles because of the existing alternative.  The old positions still "work" as they are redirects.  Your solution allows for both sides to "get something out of this".  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:36, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * This is ridiculous, you were fine with the solution the other day?  I'm sorry that you have personal issues with me, but you need to get past them.  I'm not going anywhere and you are not going anywhere.  We both know that.  If you don't want to listen to other people's opinions, I don't know what to tell you.  I am going to continue the dispute resolution process with you and will make not of it on your talk page.   Revert wars do not help get through these issues.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:45, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is a hideously bad solution

message: 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)
replies: text: * Please slow down.  As I mentioned, there are a number of things that need to be hashed out before you go adding these to more players.  I mentioned before that I will turn this into an optional field.   As you are disputing the fact that it even belongs in the first place, we need to wait until someone takes over the RFC. Jmfangio| ►Chat  19:21, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually I'm all for it. I think it looks good and adds to the articles.►Chris Nelson 19:25, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Another edit to the template

message: 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)
replies: text: * Just read this, and I appreciate the effort, but I'm not sure that the "official" take on it will resolve the issue.  People fall on both sides of the issue.  As I said, I could go either way.  But that isn't the point.  The point is that this information is contentious and will continue to be so.  Removing the actual years and placing a quantity qualifier is both impartial and accurate.  The same cannot be said for the other methods.  I welcome an alternative solution, but I don't see how saying "this year" over "that year" will help. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:46, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How is that a compromise? That's what you've been asking for since the beginning. It's only a third side to the issue, not a compromise. Pats1 13:56, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: Jddphd, I appreciate the effort, but the way you phrased it in the letter was not correct. When referring to the game itself (Manning played in the XXXX Pro Bowl) it's usually the year of the game itself. What I have been talking about is player selection, i.e. saying "Trent Green was a Pro Bowl selection in 2003 and 2005." Now when you speak like THIS, it is appropriate to say the year of the regular season because a) he was selected for his performance in THAT regular season; and b) that's when the voting and actual selection took place. It is factually inaccurate to say Trent Green was a Pro Bowl selection in 2004 and 2006, because he was never selected or voted for in those calendar years at all.►Chris Nelson 15:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Jddphd Real quickly - if you are taking over the RFC, you might want to make note of that.  It is not a question of what "i can live with", this isn't about me - never has been and never will be.  The problem is that the content is very easily misinterpreted.  The infobox exists as a template for easily repeatable information.  The information must be able to stand on it's own in the absence of supplemental context.  People who "drive by" these articles end up arguing over how to display the years.  How do we move past this?  We could suggest that the standard format for these are: * Pro Bowls nominated for:xxxx-xxxx.  How about: * Pro Bowls played in: xxxx-xxxx.  I don't think those clear the air one bit?  We need to find a solution, not show which side of the issue is "more right". Jmfangio| ►Chat  22:51, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

text: JMF - If you think there will be people who misunderstand it regardless, then you need to keep up on it. I don't necessarily agree with this position, as I would think that given the proper instruction on the template page that someone would be rather likely to figure it out more often than not, but who knows. Jddphd 22:28, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What you don't understand is that there's no need for a solution because there is no problem. There's what you believe, and then there's the truth.►Chris Nelson 03:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm giving you fair warning, you have absolutely exacerbated my patience with you.  Please discuss this politely. Jmfangio| ►Chat  04:25, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already come too close to discussing "it" again so I'll do better at just staying away from "it" entirely. "It" is a non-issue. As for warning me... ha.►Chris Nelson 04:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I'm really not sure what you expect to happen here.  If you would like me to point out the numerous times where you have gotten hostile with me, or if you would like me to point to comments that assert article ownership, I can do that.  At this time, you know that there are issues outstanding, so while others are welcome to edit the template (as at least two other's have done), it is very misleading for you to go around and ask people to make changes that I have already expressed some concerns with.  You know that there is going to be discussion about them. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:02, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I only asked someone else because you said you refuse to discuss other issues. If you want to discuss the positions issue I raised (which I believe is where you said you wouldn't discuss it) then go ahead. But if you're not going to and are going to continue to focus on a dead issue, I have no choice but to seek someone else's assistance. Just be clear, I'm only asking someone else because you've previously said you won't help me with them.►Chris Nelson 05:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I don't refuse to talk about anything.  I have however, said that until you and I can figure out some way to co-exist, you shouldn't be canvasing wiki for other people to do work you know there are outstanding issues with.  I think this aspect of the conversation needs to be focused at your talk page.  Personal behavior and things like that are going to be better suited for that.  The purpose of this page is to discuss the template at hand.  If you have personal issues with me, please raise them on your talk page and i will continue to respond, unless avoidance is the only way to have some rest on this. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're comments at Template talk:Infobox NFLactive#Another issue seem to indicate otherwise. If you have any solutions for the issues I've raised, then please implement them. If you do not have solutions or refuse to implement them for personal reasons, you are forcing me to seek assistance from others when it comes to the template. As for "canvasing", I messaged one person. That recently added good stuff to the template. So basically, that is the exact opposite of canvasing. This appears to be yet another Wikipedia policy you've misunderstood.►Chris Nelson 05:12, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * If you want to strike your comments regarding the pro bowl issue (thus relinquishing any input on them) i will also move on.  But i'm not going to move on to several other issues, again, take the personal issues to your talk page. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:14, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: I've decided to stop talking to him permanently. Would you mind getting involved in the discussions regarding position links and making the NFL debut section included only if there are values entered?►Chris Nelson 05:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm happy to help with the template.  But even more than fixing this template, I'd like to help fix your working relationship.  There's no reason for you guys to have this animosity.  You could be really valuable allies on the Wiki. --JayHenry 05:24, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * If we could simply just leave personal attacks out and just focus on content that would be great.  I would love to have as many people as possible help.  But I'm not sure how to deal with this current proposition.  I have some thoughts about it, but we have been unable to get through one issue.  What do we do?  Other's come in and offer external thoughts, they seem to agree with finding a neutral solution, and yet that leaves us back at square one. Jmfangio| ►Chat  05:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sent a letter to the NFL 

message: 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  and  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)
replies: text: Is it just me or did the template all of a sudden screw up on its own?►Chris Nelson 03:48, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autofill for team colors 

message: 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)
replies: text: Can't say I'm really for it. Too often details are incomplete or undisclosed completely. But that's just me.►Chris Nelson 15:23, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: When details are undisclosed, the field can be just left blank--when I put it in initially, I wrote it so that if there's nothing given for that parameter it won't show up.  For "incomplete" details, well, you don't need them--what I was thinking of was more along the lines of "X signed a 7-year, $20 million contract", and that's what would show in the box.  Kurt Weber 15:54, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm just not for the idea. But I can live with it if you get a majority.►Chris Nelson 15:57, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contracts 

message: 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)
thread_title:  FAILED RFC - further efforts doomed unless someone concedes 

message: 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)
replies: text: Haha, this was EXACTLY what was being talked about buddy! (We actually are buddies, I'm not being a dick to him!) User:B already fixed it.►Chris Nelson 03:03, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Me pay attention lots. :D Pats1 03:13, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not your fault man. If only Wikipedia had some sort of system where past edits were archived and organized for easy access... If only.►Chris Nelson 03:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position redirects 

message: The fact that you two ( and ) 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)
replies: text: * You don't even want to know what i've just had to put up with this guy.  I left this alone, you'll even see above where i said: I'm not going to say anything until others have a chance to voice their opinions.  I'm not the problem here.  Go look at what this nut job (yes i just called him a nut job) did to the Michael Vick article while i was editing it.  I put the damn info IN THE MAIN BODY (which is much more important than an infobox), and he still couldn't accept it.  I'm sick of him.  I've asked for RFC, RFM, 30 and nobody has gotten this jerk off my back.  He's a jerk... and no i'm not taking it back...GET HIM TO LEAVE ME ALONE!!!!!!  Two weeks of this and I'm still putting up with it.  I just wanted polite discussion and not this "I want this done my way" or "i'm right because you are wrong" bullshit.  Fix this problem, ban us both, i don't give a shit, just get this guy off my back!!! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  12:16, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: All I've done is enhance articles are work on improving the template. His business is his business. If he thinks something is personal, that's on him. I'm just doing what is best for the articles. So I'm not taking a break.►Chris Nelson 21:01, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * I am not going to be editing articles until this dispute can be resolved.  I will however, be available for discussion and such. The template is locked, so that solves "part" of the problem.  I will be happy to request an unblock if we can hammer out some of these issues. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:42, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will be editing as normal.►Chris Nelson 22:49, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal: You two should take a break 

message: FYI, this new template doesn't work with WikiCommons images. Compare  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)
replies: text: Maybe I'm missing something ... but the image had been removed from that page ... I added it back ... I don't think the template caused a problem. --B 23:28, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I had tried adding it back (copying and pasting the name) in the image parameter of the new template but it red-linked in preview. Don't know why it works now and my preview didn't. AUTiger » talk 02:05, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

text: * Can you copy the code you used to this page? The only thing i can think of is that you capitalized the i in image.  In case there is something wrong, this would be a good way to figure it out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:10, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I was using the blank image = line that was in the previous edit and copied the image name from an earlier rev. I only previewed and didn't save so would be hard to capture exactly what it was. As it is working now, I wouldn't worry about it. AUTiger » talk 05:53, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This template breaks Commons images

message: 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)
thread_title: Supplemental drafted players

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't think it needs protection because I won't be editing the template at all (since I suck at it). I don't really have any changes in mind that are needed right now, and if I do think of any I'll just bring them here. So yeah, I don't see the need for protection.►Chris Nelson 17:47, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * When this expires, I don't see a need to extend it.  Chris said previously that he wasn't going to edit the template, and then he did.  That is what led to the request for page block.  I am very concerned that the issues at hand (WP:NPA and WP:OWN) will come up again as they have on a few other pages. I would proceed with caution. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: All I edited on the template was replacing RyguyMN's edits that changed the debut problem. Now that we're fixing this, there is no reason to assume I'll edit it again. I'll say it right now - User:B, if I edit the template without discussing my edits here first, give me a temporary ban.►Chris Nelson 17:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok ... I've removed the protection ... please play nice and don't make controversial changes without talking them over first. --B 18:17, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Would you go ahead and make the debut change just to keep it "neutral"?  I did the number wikilink.  I'll probably do the same to the currentteam. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  19:09, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protection 

message: :Option 1: Continue to agree that no standardization is needed.  As in, a person is free to list the information by year of the game or by year of the nomination.
:Option 2: Support that Pro Bowl nominations should be standardized and that displaying the number of nominations/appearances is sufficent.
:Option 3: Support that Pro Bowl years should be standardized this way (2005) with the regular season year being shown and linked to the appropriate Pro Bowl article. (See here for an explanation.)
====Votes====
Support Option 2 Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Please show me how this invalidates the poll.  The information can't be standardized if two sides don't agree on the standardization itself.  For example, as user Phbasketball6 aserted earlier, there are people who display the information both ways. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But people that display it one way are incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion. One way is factually right, one way is factually wrong. Hence, the right way is a perfect candidate for standardization.►Chris Nelson 21:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Please tell me what is factually incorrect about this - A player plays in the 2007 and 2006 pro bowl.  Thus - we list - "Pro Bowls Appearances (2006, 2007)".  Don't argue that your way is better, simply answer one question: Is it factually incorrect to say that the player appeared in the 2006 and 2007 games? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that is all fine. Your statement is perfectly accurate. Pro Bowl appearances in 2007 are entirely possible. But Pro Bowl selections are not, because selection for the Pro Bowl in the 2007 calendar year will take place this fall. Hence, no selection has taken place in 2007 for anyone yet. My edits say "2x Pro Bowl selection", and the selections take place in the regular season and are rewards for regular season performances. Therefore it is factually inaccurate to say use the years of the actual Pro Bowls when referring to selections.►Chris Nelson 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Stop adjusting the content of the poll.  Nobody is saying your way is factually incorrect, but if someone were to go by the Michael Vick article, they would have every right to change it to accurately reflect Pro Bowl appearances.  This would not solve the problem.  Clarification is not the problem, showing preference to one or the other is the problem. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Because both sides of the issue are factually correct.  One can argue all day as to which is more important -> the year of the nomination or the year of the game.  There is no way to impartially support one over the other.  I know you will cite numerous examples from the media, but numerous examples for the "other side" exist.  This is the exact reason why I supported an neutral displaying of the information. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Will you kindly tell me why you support it saying "Appearances" and listing the year of the Pro Bowls themselves, rather than the way I do it? I just want to know your opinion.►Chris Nelson 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I don't really support either. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do you care? No one here has actually spoken out against my method. I do not see the harm in us all agreeing my method be the standard since no one here disagrees with the logic.►Chris Nelson 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think voting is a bad idea ... but how does the NFL list it on their site?  Usually, when there is a question, we go with whatever the organization in question self-identifies. --B 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Voting is generally a bad idea, but again - i'm trying to avoid Arb. getting involved in this.  CBSsportsline, which powers the NFL, supports listing it by year of the game.  The official NFL site has both instances and a third alternative.  The 2007 pro bowl game is often referenced as the 2006-2007 Pro Bowl.  It's a mess and both "sides" can support either. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * (EC)This case is outside of the area that usually interests ArbCom - they don't really mess with simple content disputes. If the NFL doesn't even know what to call it, then I think whatever year is used, it definitely needs to say "2007 Pro Bowl" or "2006 Season".  (In other words, make it clear to the user what the number means.)  Since we're talking about the pro-bowl, using the year of the pro-bowl makes slightly more sense to me ... but I can see the other side too - it doesn't make much sense to say he set a record in the 2006 season and went to the 2007 pro bowl as a result. --B 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see your talk page and read the link I posted. Also, while it may make sense to use the year of the Pro Bowl, trust me when I say that 99% of NFL fans as well as the media do not say it this way. The Pro Bowl is a reward for the regular season, so when you say "A guy was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2006" any NFL fan will naturally assume it was for his work in the 2006 season, and would be correct in doing so. Also, the "mess" regarding NFL.com is greatly exaggerated and is really not even true. CBS Sportsline does provide stats ot the NFL, but their awards are incomplete and therefore should not be taken into account. As for NFL.com, there's really no mess at all. Everything is as it should be, and everything they do matches my edits.►Chris Nelson 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * B - The dispute resolution process has now been exhausted.  We can't even get a survey without a bunch of arguments. This is exactly why the ArbCom needs to step in.  The other user continues to personally attack other editors and state an inability to discuss the issue.  This never has been about which way is more correct.  Both sides are correct.  Both sides have legitimate points, and neither can say "communicating this information is more important than communicating that information".  This is about an infobox, where context is relative.  That is the problem. Chris - You an pats (the two major supporters of year of the nomination), have never recognized that others have a legitimate point.  THis is an infobox, not the article as a whole. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made any personal attacks lately. Unless you count "dude" but that's totally not my problem. Jmfangio, Pats1 and I fully understand the dispute. Both of us have watched football our whole lives and know all about the NFL and how things work; probably more so than 99% of common fans. You can say the other side has legitimate points, but there is no evidence to support that because it's simply not true. Anyone that follows football knows that this is the way things are done, and that is that. It's like you're saying "Well you have legitimate points that the sky is blue, while others have legitimate points the sky is green." It's simply not true. One is correct, and one is not. It's unfortunate you've yet to grasp that, but it doesn't make it untrue.►Chris Nelson 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The Survey

message: Support Option 2 Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:43, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Votes

message: 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)
replies: text: * Please show me how this invalidates the poll.  The information can't be standardized if two sides don't agree on the standardization itself.  For example, as user Phbasketball6 aserted earlier, there are people who display the information both ways. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:55, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But people that display it one way are incorrect. This is not a matter of opinion. One way is factually right, one way is factually wrong. Hence, the right way is a perfect candidate for standardization.►Chris Nelson 21:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Please tell me what is factually incorrect about this - A player plays in the 2007 and 2006 pro bowl.  Thus - we list - "Pro Bowls Appearances (2006, 2007)".  Don't argue that your way is better, simply answer one question: Is it factually incorrect to say that the player appeared in the 2006 and 2007 games? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:00, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, that is all fine. Your statement is perfectly accurate. Pro Bowl appearances in 2007 are entirely possible. But Pro Bowl selections are not, because selection for the Pro Bowl in the 2007 calendar year will take place this fall. Hence, no selection has taken place in 2007 for anyone yet. My edits say "2x Pro Bowl selection", and the selections take place in the regular season and are rewards for regular season performances. Therefore it is factually inaccurate to say use the years of the actual Pro Bowls when referring to selections.►Chris Nelson 22:03, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Stop adjusting the content of the poll.  Nobody is saying your way is factually incorrect, but if someone were to go by the Michael Vick article, they would have every right to change it to accurately reflect Pro Bowl appearances.  This would not solve the problem.  Clarification is not the problem, showing preference to one or the other is the problem. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:06, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Because both sides of the issue are factually correct.  One can argue all day as to which is more important -> the year of the nomination or the year of the game.  There is no way to impartially support one over the other.  I know you will cite numerous examples from the media, but numerous examples for the "other side" exist.  This is the exact reason why I supported an neutral displaying of the information. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:11, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay. Will you kindly tell me why you support it saying "Appearances" and listing the year of the Pro Bowls themselves, rather than the way I do it? I just want to know your opinion.►Chris Nelson 22:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I don't really support either. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Then why do you care? No one here has actually spoken out against my method. I do not see the harm in us all agreeing my method be the standard since no one here disagrees with the logic.►Chris Nelson 22:15, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I think voting is a bad idea ... but how does the NFL list it on their site?  Usually, when there is a question, we go with whatever the organization in question self-identifies. --B 22:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Voting is generally a bad idea, but again - i'm trying to avoid Arb. getting involved in this.  CBSsportsline, which powers the NFL, supports listing it by year of the game.  The official NFL site has both instances and a third alternative.  The 2007 pro bowl game is often referenced as the 2006-2007 Pro Bowl.  It's a mess and both "sides" can support either. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:25, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * (EC)This case is outside of the area that usually interests ArbCom - they don't really mess with simple content disputes. If the NFL doesn't even know what to call it, then I think whatever year is used, it definitely needs to say "2007 Pro Bowl" or "2006 Season".  (In other words, make it clear to the user what the number means.)  Since we're talking about the pro-bowl, using the year of the pro-bowl makes slightly more sense to me ... but I can see the other side too - it doesn't make much sense to say he set a record in the 2006 season and went to the 2007 pro bowl as a result. --B 22:33, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Please see your talk page and read the link I posted. Also, while it may make sense to use the year of the Pro Bowl, trust me when I say that 99% of NFL fans as well as the media do not say it this way. The Pro Bowl is a reward for the regular season, so when you say "A guy was selected to the Pro Bowl in 2006" any NFL fan will naturally assume it was for his work in the 2006 season, and would be correct in doing so. Also, the "mess" regarding NFL.com is greatly exaggerated and is really not even true. CBS Sportsline does provide stats ot the NFL, but their awards are incomplete and therefore should not be taken into account. As for NFL.com, there's really no mess at all. Everything is as it should be, and everything they do matches my edits.►Chris Nelson 22:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * B - The dispute resolution process has now been exhausted.  We can't even get a survey without a bunch of arguments. This is exactly why the ArbCom needs to step in.  The other user continues to personally attack other editors and state an inability to discuss the issue.  This never has been about which way is more correct.  Both sides are correct.  Both sides have legitimate points, and neither can say "communicating this information is more important than communicating that information".  This is about an infobox, where context is relative.  That is the problem. Chris - You an pats (the two major supporters of year of the nomination), have never recognized that others have a legitimate point.  THis is an infobox, not the article as a whole. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:00, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't made any personal attacks lately. Unless you count "dude" but that's totally not my problem. Jmfangio, Pats1 and I fully understand the dispute. Both of us have watched football our whole lives and know all about the NFL and how things work; probably more so than 99% of common fans. You can say the other side has legitimate points, but there is no evidence to support that because it's simply not true. Anyone that follows football knows that this is the way things are done, and that is that. It's like you're saying "Well you have legitimate points that the sky is blue, while others have legitimate points the sky is green." It's simply not true. One is correct, and one is not. It's unfortunate you've yet to grasp that, but it doesn't make it untrue.►Chris Nelson 02:03, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Height fixing 

message: 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)
replies: text: I don't see how that could end up being a problem. I like the idea. I was going to propose a sort of monochrome color scheme for free agents, but then everyone will think players playing for the Raiders were free agents (which they might as well be). Could you point to an example of a free agent at the moment? Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:22, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jamal Robertson.►Chris Nelson 07:23, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think "free agent" should be left in there. Not having anything there may cause someone to believe he's not in the league anymore... I think. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:32, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah you may be right. I guess it's not that big a deal.►Chris Nelson 07:34, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think if the team field is left blank, though, that the number thing should be hidden. Free agents don't have numbers. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 07:49, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Number=N/A, It's free text so it's fine to enter N/A. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:25, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Just FYI - I made it so the template automatically adds anyone whose team is "Free agent" to the :Category:National Football League free agents.  It's case sensitive, if the template says "Free Agent" it won't work, but otherwise it should be good to go. --JayHenry 17:18, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Thanks, I spent hours looking for that documentation! Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:20, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * As far as I can tell, the best place to look for rules on those complicated #IF statements is m:Help:ParserFunctions.  For some reason it's only available on the meta.wikimedia.org site. --JayHenry 17:28, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * DUH!!! Thanks! hope you like the barnstar, you've definitely earned it in my book. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:32, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Free agents

message: 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)
replies: text: * Kurt - I don't know that "waht's done on wiki now" is ultimately the way to decide this.  Certain people would rather focus on the fact that the 2k7 game is filled with people who excelled during the 2k6 season.  They are not incorrect in their logic there.  Both sides are right. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:08, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Kurt, the issue has NEVER been how to name the Pro Bowl articles. Everyone agrees those should be the years they were actually played in.►Chris Nelson 17:38, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You both miss the point; the point is that how Pro Bowls are referred to is a question that is relevant to the entire NFL WikiProject rather than just to this template, so I am suggesting that the discussion should take place on the WikiProject's talk page.  Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 20:34, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Kmweber I understood what you were saying.  You'll see I already responded to that thread.  This particular aspect is not simply about how to place the information in articles but rather, how to avoid edit wars over infobox content. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:39, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last comment on Pro Bowl naming 

message: 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)
replies: text: * It is absolutely legitimate to say I will revert an edit made by a user who refuses to discuss things.  He simply just bulldozes everyone.  I'm not going to put up with it.  This isn't my article, this isn't my webspace, this isn't my anything.  This guy has already stated on here more times than i can count that things should be done the way HE wants them.  How many steps in the DR process has he ignored? How many times have people said to him, wait a minute - let's talk.  I'm not holding up discussions, but I'm not going to let one user railroad others until some outside editors get involved.  Look at how many freaking topics are running on this page at one time - this is TOTALLY unproductive.  The guy wants to blast over people on the pro bowl issue - okay; but I'm not going to let him take over the entire page. Either discuss things politely, give people the chance to discuss things and respect other's opinions or move on.  Simple as that. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:14, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: **Umm ... the fact that he posted his intentions on the talk page a half an hour before making the edit would seem to be pretty clear evidence that he was willing to discuss it. --B 23:20, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Chris making a few statements doesn't seem like discussion to me.  I said SLOW DOWN.  I said i will revert his (or any other for that matter) edits that involve controversial edits that haven't been discussed.  I don't even agree with half the things i've done to this thing, but i've done it.  Slow down - discuss - respect other's opinions.  If that happens, I won't be reverting anyone - EVEN THOUGH I DON'T AGREE WITH MOST OF WHAT'S BEEN DONE.  That is so far removed from WP:OWN it's ridiculous. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:22, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * And one more thing, I do see where I made the statement about his edits being systematically reverted simply because there is an RFC, I had already made supplemental notations in my edit summaries, so I do understand where you guys go that portion of your argument from.  Regardless, I don't think anyone can question my willingness to discuss - after all - a good bit of these topics have comments from me. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:24, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As I've already stated: Not everything requires a discussion. That's why we assume good faith and make bold edits. You're the only one who feels his edits are controversial at this point. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * I couldn't agree with you more on that.  This isn't a good faith question with me. I know that chris is doing this because he believes it helps the content here on wikipedia.  I am the staunchest supporter of WP:BOLD, I'm bold as hell.  However, Chris knows that other's have expressed these same types of edits here before.  I've asserted my points on this very issue somewhere up above and I know he's responded (he's responded to everything else).  There is also Template talk:Infobox NFL player where the same thing happened because of chris.  I didn't argue over numbers, I didn't even really argue over team colors - although that is a hottly disputed topic all over the various sports projects.  But go look at how many issues this guy has raised at one time.  Not to mention the fact that people consistently say: Okay - let's find a solution.  He ignores it.  I'm actually looking for the best wiki guideline to cite here - but what's happened is - discussions occured - chris (although not always) has often disagree with what's happened.  While those conversations have gone on - multiple other discussions have been raised by him.  How exactly does that allow for this thing to move along?  I'm not arguing here - i'm not even saying he's wrong on everything - I'm saying - slow down - let's handle one issue at a time.  That is certainly reasonable and certainly appropriate. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure I understand why you seem to feel only one discussion can go on at any given time. That's like saying two people aren't allowed to edit an article at the same time. (Granted if someone knows someone else is editing an article, it's usually in their best judgment to not edit the article, which is the cause of hundreds of reverts and edit wars.) It's perfectly acceptable to have more than one discussion ongoing, especially if it's going to help things get accomplished faster. The reason it seems as though we're moving so fast and stretching ourselves so thinly is because there's only a handful of editors working on the NFL articles. If this was another project with hundreds of members, you wouldn't even stop to think about telling anyone to slow down. There's no reason to tell anyone to slow down, especially if there's really no reason to do so. Let the discussions happen as they happen. I doubt any outsider is going to come in and say, "Oh, well, maybe I shouldn't ask this - they've already got two discussions going on." That's not how Wikipedia works. If I'm misunderstanding you, I'm sorry. But there's no reason to command us into slowing down, especially not if the multiple discussions are going to help things get done quicker. Wlmaltby3 – talk/contribs 23:41, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * You know, I will say that this isn't helping anythign.  We STILL talking about this and that - instead of just dealing with the issues at hand.  Absolutely more than one discussion can go on at a time.  But that doesn't mean a user should be opening up many many discussions at one time and not allowing other users to follow.  I'll bet you that there aren't any other editors outside of me who can tell you all the different issues going on - why? Because there too dang many!  You call my actions ridiculous (yeah i saw that) and then you come here and try and be a peace keeper.  An admin titled this section - and it's a pretty uncivil statement, and yet - we're going on here.  Talk about the content if you want - but keep it in one place and stop with this crap.  This page is littered with crap.... stop it...just take one or two issues (or even three or four) - have some well founded discussions that don't accuse people of doing this or that - and we'll be fine.  But for the love of all things - don't comment on things where you don't want to put the effort in to see what's already there.  This talk page is how many kbs? How much of it is me saying "let's talk about the content"?  How much is saying - okay stop attacking - and move on.  Have i been perfect - NO - but I am trying to discuss these topics.  Come on people - it's not hard - leave the peanut comments out.  I will say that I think we can safely archive this entire talk page and i will be glad to chime in (or stay out when i don't have anything to add) to some content related discussions.  Stop with this crap!.  Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:49, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jmfangio, do you not see how unreasonable you are being? You know my edits are in good faith, and I'd like to implement them now or at least begin discussions on them. If you don't want to discuss it, that's fine. But that does NOT give you the right to tell others not to discuss it (this "slow down" nonsense) and revert edits without reason. You can bring up other comments I've made, you can bring up my personal attacks on you, you can bring up the Pro Bowl dispute, you can bring up the RFC. But NONE of that is relevant here. It doesn't matter if I worship Satan and eat babies. Nothing else has ANYTHING to do with this edit to this template. If you refuse to discuss it, you have absolutely no right to revert it. How do you not see this?►Chris Nelson 23:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I want to discuss my edit. That's it. I don't care about any other issues right now and I don't care where you archive the talk page discussions. I want to discuss THIS issue with the infobox. You don't have to, and if you don't want to that's fine. But just realize that if you flat-out REFUSE to discuss it at present time, which you have done up until now, you have no right to revert my edits and cite "lack of discussion" as the reason. You are not allowed to prevent edits from being done in this way. So either discuss it, or don't revert. Nothing else matters here.►Chris Nelson 00:04, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Okay chris - let's give the other editors a few moments to respond (i'd say an hour or two if that's acceptable).  If we can get some agreement on this - i'd recommend (at the top of page) - "The current page is being maintained due to outstanding disagreements.  In the meantime, a new page has been started here to foster further content related discusions."  Does that seem reasonable enough?  It may seem a bit tedious but i'm pretty sure this is being done "outside the norm". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * How about "he's a lunatic" or "he's mentally unstable".  Did you go look at the RFC.  Come on now - stop talking about who did what to whom.  Chris and I have a dispute - everyone and their mother's knows about it.  Talk about the edits, not about the editor  Are you okay with me setting up a new talk page so we can stop this back and forth. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:21, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm okay with DISCUSSING THE TOPIC THIS PAGE IS FOR AND THIS SECTION I CREATED IS FOR. Why are we even talking about this other crap? This is the talk page for content discussion, this is the section I created to talk about Undrafted free agents. Do whatever you want, no one cares about archiving right now. Either discuss my edit tonight if you object or I'm adding it back. You've yet to give reason to rever it.►Chris Nelson 00:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (EC*4) How about instead we archive this entire page and start fresh with new topic headers for whatever the outstanding template-related discussions there are? Maybe we can keep all meta "he attacked me" or "he won't discuss" off of here and on the RFC. --B 00:24, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: * Doing it now. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: This is five minutes of my life I will never have back