Jump to content

User talk:FutureNJGov/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CfD

[edit]

Re:How do I...

[edit]

Hi Kris, you commented that I wanted to delete the Category:Carolina Panther players, but I didn't quite follow protocol. Could you explain to me how to add it to CFD? I know how to add the thing within the page, but I'm not sure how to make it appear on the page itself. If you could leave me a message on my usertalk, I'd appreciate it. BTW, where in Jersey are you from (I'm Union County myself)? Anthony

  • Ok, here's how you get it listed. Go to WP:CFD, and scroll down to today's date. Click on "edit" all the way to the right. That way you're just editing that day. I usually copy one of the other listings and plug in the information I want to add. That way, if it's not right, at least I'm not the only one.  :) Click Save page and you're done. Not sure if you know about transclusion (if not you can read about it here: Wikipedia:Transclusion costs and benefits ) Transclusion is why you can't just click on "Edit this page" for CFD. Each day's worth of nominations is actually a transcluded subpage. I hope that didn't totally confuse you. --Kbdank71 13:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • I've lived in Jersey all my life, moving all over. Right now I'm in West Milford, in Passaic County. --Kbdank71 13:25, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

re: pro bowl by year categories

[edit]

Hi - I saw your comment on the categories for deletion page about the pro bowl by year categories. Can you please explain what you don't like about using a list instead? This kind of thing has come up before and I really don't understand the "do or die" preference for a category. Compare, for example, Category:Best_Supporting_Actor_Oscar_Nominee_(film) and List of Best Supporting Actor nominees (films). The list has the same (and more) information content. Couldn't the same idea apply to the pro bowl categories? For example, in a category you can't (easily) include starter vs. non-starter, alternates who didn't actually play, team the player was playing for at the time, whether the team was a divisional or conference champion, stats related to the pro bowl game, etc., let alone players who don't (yet) have wikipedia articles. If the information is in a list or even a full fledged article about each pro bowl you or anyone else could add whatever they'd like (and, wouldn't it be easier to do it this way anyway?). I would think each player article should probably include a link to the pro bowl lists (or articles) they played in. I would certainly agree that if baseball should have these categories so should football, and there isn't a guideline or policy that prohibits such categories, but what about creating this content as categories is so appealing? I truly would like to understand. I'm not being snide or flip, and I probably won't vote on the CFD listing either way. If you'd like, I'd be happy to help create an example 19xx NFL Pro Bowl list/article. Thanks very much. -- Rick Block (talk) 21:41, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

I see you're back. What would you think about working on pro bowl by year articles together? Please let me know. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 12:26, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)
Very cool! Have you looked at the Oscar list I referred to above? This was pretty easy since the data was already in wikipedia. Where were you thinking about getting the data from? I've poked around the nfl.com site a little and can't seem to find anything other than the current year's pro bowl roster. (please respond here so the thread is intact). -- Rick Block (talk) 15:14, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
I've started a page at 2005 Pro Bowl. I think we should probably agree on a basic format before populating all the data. Let me know what you think. If we're going to be playing with the table format, it wouldn't be hard to stick the table intro into a template (which would make updates to the format apply to all uses). -- Rick Block (talk) 16:50, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
It looks pretty good. Thing is, I'm still fairly new at this. It's easy for me to go to an individual football player's page and talk about their career, stick a few categories in there, and be done with it. But something like this is far beyond anything I'd thought about. (Maybe that's why I was pushing for categories; it's easier that way.) Anyway, I know nothing about templates, tables, hell, I don't even know HTML beyond real basic "start bold, type text, end bold" type stuff. So if we're gonna work together on this (which I think is a good idea), I suggest that you stick to the HTML and formatting part of it, and let me do the data and other legwork on it. This way, we work with what we're good at. Because if you expect me to do HTML work, it's gonna look like shite, lol. BTW, is there a simpler way to include your page tag at the bottom other than manually typing out User name, user talk page, time, date, and UTC (whatever the hell that is?) Cuz it's a pain in the arse to have to do all that stuff manually. When you respond, I'll give you my full input on the page (which is a great start, btw).-- FutureNJGov (talk) 13:16, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
This sounds exactly like what I had in mind as well. The simple way to sign a talk page comment is to type ~~~~ (four ~ characters). The wiki software expands this. I've been around quite a while, know templates and HTML. BTW - I'm very glad you decided not to give up on wikipedia. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:15, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)
Missed the UTC question - UTC is Coordinated Universal Time which is basically the same as GMT (Greenwich Mean Time). You can look it up at UTC. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:18, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)

2005 pro bowl

[edit]

Hi - I added a table with the score by quarter. We might want to use the articles about the super bowl games (e.g. Super_Bowl_XXXIII) for inspiration. They include a table with attendance, who sang the national anthem, halftime show info, and info about the US broadcast. If we could find the refs that'd be cool as well. I noticed you added category:Pro Bowl. -- Rick Block (talk) 00:09, Jun 13, 2005 (UTC)

How's it going? I'd really like your feedback on the article. One thought I've had is that maybe this isn't the right way to go. The actual Pro Bowl game is relatively incidental (more like a meaningless exhibition game than a serious contest). Maybe a simple list for each year (like List of Best Supporting Actress nominees) might be better. In any event, please let me know what you think. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 01:10, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)
OK, here goes w/ the feedback on the article: I like the table setup, though the players should be organized differently, I was thinking something like Quarterbacks, Running Backs, Wide Receivers, Tight Ends, Centers, Guards, Tackles (that's going down the line, with the starters first and reserves second... starters should be in bold, rather than having (reserve) next to the name... it looks nicer IMHO), as far as defense organization, it should be Defensive Ends, Defensive Tackles, Middle Linebackers, Outside Linebackers, Cornerbacks, Free Safeties, Strong Safeties; Special Teams: Kicker, Punter, Kick Returner, Special Teamers, Long Snappers. I did the work on the offense to give you an idea of what it would look like... do you think I should add links to the team names througout the entire list, even if they've already been added before? I think the current format should stay, as I don't think a list would be able to fully convey as much information as a full-fledged article. Granted it'll take some legwork to get all the data, but I'm game for it. I've been thinking of going to the local Barnes & Noble and seeing if I can find a book on football history and facts, one that will have all the rosters & stats for all the Pro Bowls since the beginning. I'm willing to do most of the work on getting the data & sending it to you if you're willing to do the HTML work (which, once we set up a template, will just be a matter of entering the data... plug & chug works fine with me). BTW, to answer the question you & Kbdank71 have been having as to my gender, I'm a guy, lol. I appreciate your concern that I might have left Wiki, but it was just frustration and getting insulted that something that I thought was a good idea was getting shot down before it was 1/10th of the way done. This is too much fun to walk away from, so I'll be here for awhile. And thanks for telling me how to tag the thing. Hope to hear from you soon. Anthony 22:24, Jun 14, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback.

  1. I'm fine with the ordering in the table as suggested (in case it wasn't obvious, I was thinking alphabetical to make it easier to look up a specific player - but I'm good either way).
  2. Starters should be in bold (I thought of this as well, but hadn't gotten around to doing it).
  3. Since it's not sorted by team name (hmmm, maybe we should add a summary of pro bowl players per team, maybe in the team articles?), I think the team names should be a link throughout.
  4. There's a guy on the web (http://www.pro-football-reference.com) who has at least most of the data, but since it's not nfl.com (which is where I got the 2005 data) I don't think it can be considered an "authoritative" source (a book would be better - either way there should be a reference to where the data comes from).
  5. Do you think it's worth keeping the per-player game stats?
  6. I figured you're a guy, but I try pretty hard not to make assumptions about stuff like that (if you care, I'm a guy).

I really am glad you're sticking around. There have been a number of instances lately where new folks have gotten burned (in fairly similar fashion) and simply left. I find it pretty inexcusable. I've asked the baseball guy (yeah, he's got to be a guy, too) to convert his all-star categories but he hasn't responded yet. Somebody threatened to nominate his categories for deletion as well (which I think we shouldn't do until talking it out with him). I'm with you - it's not even remotely fair. If you stick around for a while, you'll likely find that there isn't a tremendous amount of consistency here which I view as an opportunity to fix (it's definitely a forever project). And, in case you haven't gathered, I've been around long enough to know how most things work so if you ever have any questions feel free to ask. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:01, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I finished the AFC side... I'd like to include players who were voted onto the team but couldn't play because of injury (Ray Lewis, Corey Dillon, etc.), but I wasn't sure where to put it. And then how do we save it as a template so we can use it for the other years (plus the NFC side on the 2005 year)? Get back to me whenever you can. Anthony 19:30, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

Looks good. I agree the injured folks should be listed, perhaps in yet another font (italics?). Saving as a template won't be overly pretty. We could take a relatively finished article and copy it someplace (perhaps as a subpage off your user page if you're going to be doing most of this), zap the names, and then use this copy as the starting copy for the rest of the articles. Wikipedia has a template mechanism, but it is not well suited for variable numbers of lines of output. Does a copy/paste template sound reasonable enough? I assume you got most of the data for 2005 from nfl.com. We should cite it as a reference (and any other sources as well). Good work so far! -- Rick Block (talk) 05:40, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
A couple of thoughts regarding the template - I could make a blanked version of the roster with a word like player (in square brackets) for the player name (with the appropriate number for each position pre-bolded for the starter indication). The team names are kind of a drag, but this is fixable using the subst notation for a template. How this would work is in the template, the team for each player would appear as the string {{subst:nfl team/city}} (or something like this) and when filling out the table all you'd need to do is replace the string city with the team's city (e.g. Denver, KC, etc.) and when you save the article this reference would be replaced with a link to the appropriate NFL team. I'm not sure there's a way to save an article with a subst that would later be expanded, so this might take slightly more than just changing the city (the template might say, for example, {{subst-nfl team/city}} and you'd have to change the dash to a colon. Let me know what you think about this. I don't know what browser or OS you typically use when editing, but I think we should work out a template that's easy to use (from your perspective). -- Rick Block (talk) 18:34, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
... and any progress on finding an authoritative source for the data? Sure seems like it should be at nfl.com someplace. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:37, Jun 23, 2005 (UTC)
... I made a cut at a "template" (this is NOT what is called a template in wikipedia-speak), currently in user:Rick Block/probowl. Take a look and let me know what you think. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:31, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

Cardinals categories

[edit]

Anthony, I'm not very confident in my knowledge of Cardinals history, especially pre-Phoenix. However, this site may help: Cardinals Roster By Season. According to Arizona Cardinals, anything before 1960 is "Chicago" (although the team was know as the "Racine Cardinals" until 1922, when a team from Racine, Wisconsin joined the NFL), and anything from then until 1987 is "St. Louis". After fishing around on the Cards site, I found that the team was the "Phoenix" Cardinals until 1994, and has been the Arizona Cardinals since. Good luck! zellin 22:45, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

You may also want to know that I created a Category:Arizona Cardinals coaches which includes coaches from all stages of the team. zellin 23:35, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I've since added a Category:Arizona Cardinals franchise, of which all the "*** Cardinals players" are a part of. I think this is a good solution, and might be something that could be considered for all the other NFL franchise with multiple names. zellin 01:36, Jun 27, 2005 (UTC)

Cfr vote on Category:Chicagoans

[edit]

Hi, just wanted to let you know that I added the remaining sub-cats to this Cfr. Just in case you want to examine, and then keep or change your vote. Here is the new listing: Cfd listing Thanks. <>Who?¿? 05:40, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

how's it going?

[edit]

Hi - I haven't heard from you in a while. How's it going? I haven't noticed any other pro bowl articles pop out yet. Are you still planning to create them? I also don't think you've commented on my pattern article yet (user:Rick Block/probowl). Anyway, just thought I'd drop by and say hi. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:26, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

  • Hey, it's goin' alright, I've just been crazy busy with work and stuff. I've been updating when I can, little things here & there. There's a new WikiProject on NFL that's going pretty strong, there's a lot of people working on articles and such. The pattern's good. I'm trying to figure out how to do an infobox like the Super Bowl, but without as much information (since I don't think we could get all that info for a Pro Bowl). Anyway, if you wanna join the project, ga'head, and I'll try to do what I can. I wanna finish working on the '05 Pro Bowl before moving on to the next one, since we could use the '05 model as a template for all of the other ones. Anthony 21:00, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

question at Village Pump

[edit]

Hi Anthony, Do you think you might be able to respond to this question at the Village Pump? Seems like it might be right up your alley. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 03:29, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks! -- Rick Block (talk) 14:33, August 16, 2005 (UTC)
No probalo. Anthony 14:46, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

SOTE

[edit]

Because it is not a movie or a TV series. By the way, "R2D2: Beneath the Dome" should not be there either... Copperchair 02:12, 17 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

SOTE is a film-esque production, it has the ideas of a film. That is all it needs to be classified as a film to me. That's my reasoning, and no, ti's not childish, just a different way of looking at the idea of a film. Adamwankenobi 16:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Football League players

[edit]

Hi, you reverted my edit on Randy Fasani when I removed Category:National Football League players. I was astonished to find that none of the team player categories are subcategories of NFL players. Given the pattern in other sports (see Category:NBA players and Category:Major league baseball players by team), shouldn't the NFL follow the same pattern? Otherwise, this category is going to be so huge that it's essentially worthless. I know it's a huge task to go through and recategorize all the people, but it's doable (I'm going through Category:People from California now and User:Mayumashu did Category:NBA players -- all the NBA players used to be in that single category like it is for NFL now). Anyway, since I'm not involved with any NFL player articles, it's no skin off my back if you don't agree. Just a thought. Regards, howcheng [ t &#149; c &#149; w &#149; e ] 20:08, 30 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

College players

[edit]

Anthony, Mike Selinker and I are discussing whether we should do anything to keep track of players from small-time college programs (like these) on User_talk:Meegs#Hawaii. Skip down to the Dec. 20 entries. ×Meegs 03:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:FutureNJGov/archive1&oldid=1080336123"