Chrisjnelson (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 131: | Line 131: | ||
:::::Yes, there are some problems with the infobox. DatabaseFootball links, no jersey numbers, lack of accommodation for undrafted guys. But you aren't fixing the things that were broken. You're fixing things that weren't. The Pro Bowl representation wasn't broken and was widely accepted and unchallenged. But you're changing it. I was looking for someone to help me create the template I envisioned so that I may propose it to the NFL project. I was not looking to completely change everything. You'll notice both of my requests for this template were just things carried over from the old one. These are things that don't need changing.►'''[[User:Chrisjnelson|<span style="color: #005e6a">Chris </span><span style="color: #005e6a">Nelson</span>]]''' 01:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
:::::Yes, there are some problems with the infobox. DatabaseFootball links, no jersey numbers, lack of accommodation for undrafted guys. But you aren't fixing the things that were broken. You're fixing things that weren't. The Pro Bowl representation wasn't broken and was widely accepted and unchallenged. But you're changing it. I was looking for someone to help me create the template I envisioned so that I may propose it to the NFL project. I was not looking to completely change everything. You'll notice both of my requests for this template were just things carried over from the old one. These are things that don't need changing.►'''[[User:Chrisjnelson|<span style="color: #005e6a">Chris </span><span style="color: #005e6a">Nelson</span>]]''' 01:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
||
Per my suggestion, perhaps you should create your own template. <small><span style="border:1px solid #0000ff;padding:1px;">[[User:Jmfangio|<b>Jmfangio</b>]]|[[User_talk:Jmfangio|<font style="color:#accC10;background:#0000fa;"> ►Chat </font>]]</span></small> 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 01:14, 23 July 2007
Okay so I see you made the sandbox page. Now the thing is, I don't know how to edit these templates at all without screwing them up, so can I just tell you exactly how I envision this thing and you edit it accordingly?►Chris Nelson 06:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yeah, we can try ... of if you can point to other examples. The coding for this is somewhat dated, so i'll try and fix that at the same time. Jmfangio ► Talk 06:03, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- Okay, so here is what I'd like to see. We can fix anything else once we get the basics down. I'm gonna start at the top of the MLB infobox going down, telling you the changes I see:
- The name, picture, caption, team/number and position sections are fine as they are.
- I'd like to see the Bats: and Throws: become Height: and Weight:, also make sure to add the wikilinks for feet, inches, pounds, like in the NFL template.
- Below that, but still in the same section (NO color bar above this) I'd like to see everything from the NFL template from Date of Birth to AFL Draft. Obviously this excludes height, weight and position as these have already been covered.
- Next section of the infobox, I'd like to see it called Career highlights and awards, and have all the stuff from the NFL infobox (CFL All-Star through Records)
- Next section, called Selected career statistics. The options to add or remove stat categories and values. Basically, make this identical to the MLB infobox, where we can change each entry's stat and add more if we want.
- Finally, the Teams section. I prefer the NFL Infobox method (years THEN teams) in that regard, so I'd keep it the way it is.
- That's it for now. Once this is done and I get a visual we can make tweaks as needed. Thanks for all your help! ►Chris Nelson 06:13, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- It's cool. Definitely no hurry. Thanks for your help on this one. ►Chris Nelson 06:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
- No problemo, I made databasefootball optional on [[tl|NFLretired}} so that if don't use pfr you can use dbf
I'm going to start working on this now. We'll see what we can come up with. Jmfangio| ►Chat 00:46, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, I can't wait to see what it looks like. I appreciate your help.►Chris Nelson 00:53, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean?►Chris Nelson 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The time sensitive nature of statistics in sports is not ideal for infoboxes. List of leaders and things of that nature is one thing, but it is impractical to rely on wiki for reliable statistic information. With the proliferation of stats, and the various wiki guidelines that speak to using "current event" information, we're best off just providing a link to a stats site. Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- What do you mean?►Chris Nelson 01:09, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
It's looking great man. A couple of things I've noticed:
- We need a thing for birthplace, prefer right with or below the birth date.
- Past teams should just be teams. Yes, the current team is prominently listed near the top, but it doesn't say how long they've been with that team, and in this regard we need to go with the MLB Infobox approach, just having it as Teams.
- Also, how can I paste this somewhere, like my sandbox, so I can fill one out and see how it looks?►Chris Nelson 04:48, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- You can click on the link that says test (which takes you to here) - or you can just use {{User:Jmfangio/Template:NFLactive}} on your subpage. It's not done yet either. Jmfangio| ►Chat 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Cool, it's looking good. We still need the links for feet, inches and pounds in the height and weight, although I know you aren't done, and I think for the birthplace we could just put Born: February 12, 1974 in Atlanta, Georgia on that one like or something.►Chris Nelson 05:11, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Ht & Wt. are on my todo list. Ft. & Lbs. are not widely used so there will be a translation piece. As for birth location, i think it's superfulous information that doesn't add a lot to the box. Most infoboxes leave that out see: Mikhail Gorbachev for example. Jmfangio| ►Chat 05:23, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
A couple of things I did:
- Removed the link from the current team near top, at least for me the my active link color conflicted with the infobox color. The team doesn't need to be linked there anyway.
- Made the position bar plain white rather than the primary color the the same reason above.
- We also need to add the player name to the top of the infobox.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisjnelson (talk • contribs)
- Oh okay, sorry. That was about the extent of my template-editing capabilities.►Chris Nelson 05:47, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Looks like Tom Brady has been updated with new infobox. Things I've noticed so far (haven't read the discussion above yet):
- The debut should probably be removed
- Pro Bowls/Awards should probably be listed by year like before. Just remember that this format: 2006 - as the 2007 Pro Bowl was played for the 2006 season. Pats1 21:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Why would you remove the debut? Many players have not appeared the first year after they were eligible. Willis McGahee is a good example, as is Tom Harmon. What is the benefit of listing out each year a player made the Pro Bowl? I can understand it if the player makes one or two pro bowls, but in the case of someone like Anthony Munoz or Peyton Manning, the list can get really long. Jmfangio| ►Chat 21:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- The data isn't as easily accessible as it is in the MLB. There's also active and inactive players on gamedays. Do we give their debut for when the player is on the 53-man roster? When the player is on the roster for a game? When the player is active for a game? When a player plays in a game? This information is very difficult to find for NFL players - it often takes snooping around NFL gamebooks and such. It's just too much of a hassle. Now, as far as just using the year goes, the same argument can probably apply. What if a player is on the 53-man roster for an entire season but isn't active for any of the 16 games? What if a player is active for all 16 games but never actually sees the field in any of them? How do we deal with the 3rd QB rule? And as far as Pro Bowls go, that's where linebreaks come in (see: Junior Seau). But I think listing all the years is more specific and gives better information that usually isn't found in the article. Pats1 21:56, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Think we're over copmlicating the issue a bit. That being said, I think this is something we can discuss. I think you treat this like they do in the MLB. When a player appears in a game, he has debuted in the nfl. I'll go ahead and make this an optional field to cover players who have not debuted yet. The job of an infobox is to standardize information and summarize the content of the article. If the article fails to address the pro bowl, then the article needs to be enhanced. I don't think we want to get in the habbit of listing every year for every award as that will get to be tedious AND make the infoboxes excessively long. Jmfangio| ►Chat 22:38, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
- Again, that information isn't as easily accessible as it is in the MLB. There's websites like Baseball Reference and Baseball Alamanc that give that information, but Football Reference or JTSW doesn't. It simply is a pain in the ass to find, especially for lesser players who are inactive every other game. It's way too much of a hassle to deal with when adding this template to 1,500+ articles. Pats1 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Leaving out debut dates is the best strategy. This isn't baseball where there are levels of minor leagues to get through, if you're drafted you'll probably play fairly soon if you make the team. The years located in the Teams section are sufficient, and if people want specifics they can: a) read the article; or b) visit a stats link likely to be found in the article.►Chris Nelson 04:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Also, we really don't need the two sets of colors. Every title of each section should just be the same scheme, not reverse or otherwise.►Chris Nelson 04:17, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I don't agree with you at all about the debut dates. Again, I have pointed to two athletes who did not debut until well after they were drafted. Both of them are fairly notable and Harmon in fact, was out of football for 5 years before he suited up. There are more NFL players where this applies. McGahee should be listed as a member of the bills from 2003-2006, but he did not debut until 2004. I don't think it's a problem to make it optional, but I'm not inclined to remove it at this time. I welcome more input on this, but I don't see how the minor league argument applies here. Also, as for color schemes, I'm actually inclined to remove colors all together right now. I think that will eliminate any NPOV arguments that could popup and would be more inline with most other infoboxes on wiki. You can view Ronaldinho or David Beckham for football/soccer, Kevin Garnett for basketball, John F. Kennedy for world figures. Jmfangio| ►Chat 07:24, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're still missing the point. What if McGahee was inactive for all 16 games in 2004? Would you list his debut date/year as 2004? What if he was active for 1 game but was a DNP for it? Would you list his debut date/year as 2004? Here's another question: What year/date did, say, Stephen Neal debut? This information isn't easily accessible - I only know it because I'm a PatsFan. Imagine the amount of research that would have to go into getting debut years/dates for 1,600 or so players in the NFL. Pats1 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with you. If McGahee didn't play in a game, then he would not debut that year. A player debuts when he appears in a game. As for Neal, I was able to do a google search for him and the first result i got was this. It's pretty clear his debut was in 2002. Jmfangio| ►Chat 13:12, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- And how is there any guarantee that you're going to find that information for half of the NFL players, nevermind all of them? Digging through 1,500+ player biographies, especially for lesser players which may not have one is something I can guarantee Chris isn't up to doing. Just leave it out - it's something much, much easier to do for the MLB than it is for the NFL. Again, we're only copying template style here, not every little detail of the MLB template. Pats1 00:44, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I think you're still missing the point. What if McGahee was inactive for all 16 games in 2004? Would you list his debut date/year as 2004? What if he was active for 1 game but was a DNP for it? Would you list his debut date/year as 2004? Here's another question: What year/date did, say, Stephen Neal debut? This information isn't easily accessible - I only know it because I'm a PatsFan. Imagine the amount of research that would have to go into getting debut years/dates for 1,600 or so players in the NFL. Pats1 13:04, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- 1. There is no debate over color schemes since they are current players.
- 2. Debut year is not needed because the info should be in the article anyway.
- I gotta say I really wasn't expecting for any debates about this, I just needed someone to help me create the infobox I envisioned.►Chris Nelson 15:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not exactly sure why you would open a discussion on things and then ignore other's comments. Pats1 has an opinion about the colors and it should be heard. It would appear that all three of us had different opinions. By an extension of your latest argument, no infobox is needed because the that info should be in the article. Many players are drafted in the nfl but don't see action until a later year. Many players are signed to NFL contracts, but don't get into games until much later. Stephen Neal, mentioned previously, is just one example. Jmfangio| ►Chat 22:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
It seems to me that Pats1 and I are in agreement on this.►Chris Nelson 22:28, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- He mentioned that only one color scheme be used throughout. Please move this template to one of your user pages and you are welcome to do what you want with it. To assist you, here is the link to the last version you seem to like. You might want to look at addressing the article titles with a full on discussion, not subversively through the infobox. Jmfangio| ►Chat 22:38, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- You lost me. I think Pats and I are in agreement on all things from what I can tell. But what are you talking about?►Chris Nelson 22:40, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- For the record, I mentioned at WP:NFL (or someone's talk page - I forget) that I thought there should be a rather neutral color scheme, like there was before with LightSteelBlue with black text.
Name
Dude, please stop undoing my edit. My edit is the ONLY way it can be. Taking the name from the title is simply not logical. If we do that, some articles won't just have the name in the title of the infobox. Some will be Jason Taylor (American football player) or Steve Smith (Carolina Panthers). You know as well as I do this is not the way it should be. Having a field for the name corrects this, and it is why the current NFL and MLB infoboxes do this. There should no debate about this.►Chris Nelson 22:43, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Well I didn't see it on the thing you copy and paste, so I was unaware. A few other things:
- When I go through and update all the infoboxes once the season begins, I plan on listing pro bowl years and things like that.
- We REALLY need to stop the alternating colors things. Some color schemes won't work reversed or with secondary colors, so there is no point in doing it for some and not others. When I go through them, I will keep the colors the same. So I'm just saying it's pointless to keep it this way now.
- Please write present rather than current when listing the current team in the section. Think of the years in parentheses as a time line, in which case present is more appropriate. Whether we italicize it or not is another issue, but present fits better.
- ►Chris Nelson 23:02, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Undrafted free agents
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)
- 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)
Present vs. current
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)
- 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)
Okay fine. settled. Please use present from now on, since it is more grammatically correct.►Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Next issue...
Listing out highlights/awards
I am in favor if listing out Pro Bowl and things of that sort rather than just putting (x3) or whatever. You obviously are not. I feel even the most accomplished of players won't have an infobox unnecessarily long just by listing these out, and I for one prefer this info near the top when I visit an article. So what do you we do since this is split? Take a poll somewhere?►Chris Nelson 23:55, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
- Please review WP:STRAW for how polls can be run. It is not merely an issue of pro bowls, it is an issue of all awards. Specifically regarding pro bowls, there is a general problem with how they are displayed. Whether you agree with [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]] or the [[2007 Pro Bowl|2007]], you might see how this issue will continue to cause problems. The easiest way to satisfy both sides is to compromise by simply listing the quantity. Order of awards listed is really like splitting hairs. There is just no way to satisfy everyone. As a good practice, focus on making sure the content that is important is included. Focusing more on that and less on specifics will allow everyone to get along a lot better. Jmfangio| ►Chat 00:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- There's no debate over how to present Pro Bowls and their years. If a guy makes the Pro Bowl for his performance in 2006, everyone, the national media, the team itself, refers to it as a Pro Bowl selection in 2006. It doesn't matter if it's in 2007. Putting 2006</nowiki> is actually not confusing at all, because it gives one the impression that a guy was voted to the Pro Bowl for his performance in 2006 (which is correct) and clicking on the wikilink takes them to the appropriate game. There should be no issue here.►Chris Nelson 00:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- It is very confusing. You have to understand that not everyone has the familiarity you and i have with the topic. You might want to view WP:NOT as a way to see how others might view the topic. Let's assume that a player was an MVP of the Pro Bowl that was held in 2007. Should we say 2006 in the infobox? I would find that a) incorrect and b) confusing. If a player made the pro bowl in "2006", but was mvp in 2007 - most people are going to be very confused by that. This argument can also extend to how bowl games are dealt with. That will cause the same kind of problems. Jmfangio| ►Chat 00:17, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- No one ever complained about the current infobox. Isn't that enough to keep things the way they have been for the most part? I mean really, if it was THAT bad a policy, to list Pro Bowl years out, don't you think you'd see tons of complaints on the WP:NFL or infobox talk pages? I almost just want to scrap this whole idea. I appreciate your effort, but I think I should have gotten someone with no real interest in football, because all I was looking for was someone to help me create the template I was envisioning. This has become much more problematic than I expected.►Chris Nelson 00:26, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- It isn't necessary to cite WP pages - both Chris and I have been around here long enough to understand the guidelines and policies of Wikipedia. But more importantly, I disagree with you here. First of all, what do bowl games have to do with the NFL? That's entirely college football, something that isn't going to be discussed here. There hasn't been any problem with listing Super Bowl championships - by their roman numeral, as seen in Category:National Football League team templates - so there's no need to fix it if it isn't broken. Secondly, what do you mean by "Pro Bowl in 2006, MVP in 2007?" The NFL MVP for 2007 won't be announced for another 6 or so months. Honestly, I haven't and I still don't see any problem with [[2007 Pro Bowl|2006]]. This is clearly demonstrative on the front-end that a player made the Pro Bowl for his achievements during the 2006 NFL season (note: it's not called the 2006-07 NFL season). Jmfangio - there's really no need to reinvent the wheel with this new template. The last one was fine in many aspects, but needed a bit of an organizational boost from the MLB template. That doesn't mean we have to follow any guidelines whatsoever set forth by the MLB project team. Pats1 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see any problem with using the format from before. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 95% of the players in the NFL don't have any awards to speak of, nevermind Pro Bowl appearances. And why use (x3) when you can be more specific without adding anything unneeded to the page? Pro Bowls are a significant mark of achievement for a player. For example, listing [[Pro Bowl 2001|2000]], [[Pro Bowl 2007|2006]] (guess what player that comes from...) is much more informative than Pro Bowl (x2). In this case, Adalius Thomas (whoops, gave it away), went to two Pro Bowls over the course of 6 seasons. "x2" would only tell a reader that Thomas went to 2 Pro Bowls in his 7-year career. But did he go to both of those back in 2000 and 2001 and is washed up now? Or did he go both of these in 2005 and 2006 and is a rising star? In Thomas' case it's neither - further proving my point. Pro Bowls (and other awards) can tell a great deal about a player's career and his times of successes. Pats1 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Pats1 I said Pro Bowl MVP. While you say it isn't necessary to review various wiki guidelines and policies, these are crucial aspects of constructive discourse. What you take away from an infobox is not going to be the same as what others take away from an infobox. Awards do tell a great deal about a player. But there is no way to universally communicate what that is in an infobox. Chris' I am sorry you find this process frustrating to you. If you would like to create your own template, please do so.
- I am not sure why you guys are as so frustrated by this. If you like how the current infobox is, then why discuss a new one? Additionally, {{tl:Infobox NFL player}} was created back in late 2005 ([1]). Things have changed since its' inception and I think the template is "broken". The best way to be able to create a template that exists as you want it to is to do it yourself. I hope that if you do so, you consider outside input from people who are fresh to the topic. Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:04, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- I honestly don't see any problem with using the format from before. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." 95% of the players in the NFL don't have any awards to speak of, nevermind Pro Bowl appearances. And why use (x3) when you can be more specific without adding anything unneeded to the page? Pro Bowls are a significant mark of achievement for a player. For example, listing [[Pro Bowl 2001|2000]], [[Pro Bowl 2007|2006]] (guess what player that comes from...) is much more informative than Pro Bowl (x2). In this case, Adalius Thomas (whoops, gave it away), went to two Pro Bowls over the course of 6 seasons. "x2" would only tell a reader that Thomas went to 2 Pro Bowls in his 7-year career. But did he go to both of those back in 2000 and 2001 and is washed up now? Or did he go both of these in 2005 and 2006 and is a rising star? In Thomas' case it's neither - further proving my point. Pro Bowls (and other awards) can tell a great deal about a player's career and his times of successes. Pats1 00:31, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
- Yes, there are some problems with the infobox. DatabaseFootball links, no jersey numbers, lack of accommodation for undrafted guys. But you aren't fixing the things that were broken. You're fixing things that weren't. The Pro Bowl representation wasn't broken and was widely accepted and unchallenged. But you're changing it. I was looking for someone to help me create the template I envisioned so that I may propose it to the NFL project. I was not looking to completely change everything. You'll notice both of my requests for this template were just things carried over from the old one. These are things that don't need changing.►Chris Nelson 01:10, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Per my suggestion, perhaps you should create your own template. Jmfangio| ►Chat 01:14, 23 July 2007 (UTC)