No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
<!-- beginning of header --> |
<!-- beginning of header --> |
||
{| style="position:absolute; top:0; width:100%; height: 75px; background:#f8fcff;" valign="middle" |
{| style="position:absolute; top:0; width:100%; height: 75px; background:#f8fcff;" valign="middle" |
||
Line 145: | Line 144: | ||
::Got a reply today. He's not interested in helping us. [[User:Bole2|Buc]] ([[User talk:Bole2|talk]]) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
::Got a reply today. He's not interested in helping us. [[User:Bole2|Buc]] ([[User talk:Bole2|talk]]) 17:52, 3 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
:::Ok I've had an idea of how this issue could be resolved. [http://www.profootballhof.com/history/general/draft/1967.jsp this] site says what team the pick was aquired from so if the footnote are re-phared to say something like "aquired from x details unknown" we could use this as a sourse. [[User:Bole2|Buc]] ([[User talk:Bole2|talk]]) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
:::Ok I've had an idea of how this issue could be resolved. [http://www.profootballhof.com/history/general/draft/1967.jsp this] site says what team the pick was aquired from so if the footnote are re-phared to say something like "aquired from x details unknown" we could use this as a sourse. [[User:Bole2|Buc]] ([[User talk:Bole2|talk]]) 10:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC) |
||
== Image:Fring htc.jpg == |
|||
Gonzo - this image is being used in an article I am preparing about [[fring]] for wikipedia. |
|||
The image is not copyrighted as i took the picture i control the copyright and have released it under creative commons. I have also been in contact with the copyright owner who has given permission for the image and its use on wikipedia and anywhere else on the internet. |
|||
Please put the image back where it belongs. |
|||
regards |
|||
Simon |
Revision as of 16:32, 8 January 2008
Gonzo fan2007 (talk) |
Click to show talk page info and guidelines
Randy MossI thought Jerry Rice's record was 21 touchdown instead of 22. Thanks for correcting it. --Phbasketball6 (talk) 03:24, 30 December 2007 (UTC) ReplyIt's really not that big of a deal, I've done that a few times. Basically, if an FLC has three supports but no opposition and has been there for 15 days, and I think it meets the conditions, I'll support it solely so that it can be passed. As for your closures, both had recent comments, and I try to give nominators a few days to address those comments before I close it, because the FL process is supposed to make a list as good as possible, and if there are concerns then we should give them a chance to be addressed. In fact, based on a few recent comments, I'm likely going to start being a bit of a harder judge when I close FLCs, and I will likely start failing them even if they only have 1 oppose "vote". -- Scorpion0422 21:51, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Early closuresEarly closures of FLCs are a HUGE no no. You closed List of works by William Monahan when it had one day left, and you closed List of ammonites when it also had one day left. And even if opposition isn't being addressed, generally such FLCs should be given a few MORE days, not a few less. -- Scorpion0422 13:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) Indy Colts seasonsWhat happens next? Does it just wait for an admin or somebody to approve or what? Sorry I'm new at FL/FAs. HoosierState 22:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
McGill UniversityPlease do not interfere if you do not know what you are talking about. The accusation to Snowfire is not absurd or baseless as you claim it is. Read the history for this article dated December 31, 2007 (21:23). You will see there that Snowfire offered a compromise (which he now denies) and that he offered to put the college rankings on the lead paragraph itself (which he now does not want to discuss). So what is absurd there except your note? Thanks.Editorhwaller (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Thanks for your help with my talk page. Snowfire51 (talk) 02:06, 7 January 2008 (UTC) New NFL TemplateI fixed/merged the new templates that Fruminous created. I think combining the two leagues would be ok since they are seperate. I fixed the links the best I could, check it out now and see if it is any better. HoosierState 03:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
Hi Gonzo fan -- It's a confusing situation. I've been working on the Steelers' seasons, putting the NFL templates that I created at the bottom of the pages. I've really been stuck as to what to do for 1969 and before. I created the first template using the "season" moniker, but realized that it wasn't the proper title, because truly the two leagues were playing two "seasons." Not being an administrator, I couldn't delete the first template. That said, from the 1966 season to the 1969 season, the two leagues were definitely separate, but did play a world championship in the Super Bowl. I created the template believing that, even though there were two different leagues, any visitor would be interested in what was going on in both of them. I can certainly understand an argument that we should create two templates, one for the AFL and the other for the NFL. This would make sense especially for the pre-1966 seasons. Call it a personal preference, but I'd rather see something along the lines of combining the two leagues, as their fates were intertwined. What's important to me is that we, as a community, create a strategy to deal with the seasons by team between 1960 and 1970. If that means creating separate templates, so be it. If it means creating a combined template, that's fine by me too. Fruminous (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Hi Gonzo fan-- Your templates look good. I cannot help but think, however, that if I were coming to these pages, I would want some way to navigate to what was happening in the opposing league. Basically, we have three periods that we have to cover:
We have the third case covered, so no problem there. Your solution works for the first solution -- so again, no problem. I propose that we put (maybe in italics) a link to the other league's season page for the 1966 to 1969 seasons. During that period, the two leagues weren't quite like Major League Baseball, in which they were administered by the same commissioner, but neither were they like MLB and Japan's professional leagues, who only play exhibitions against one another. Beginning in 1966, their fates were definitely intertwined. I'll take your 1969 NFL template and put it on my sandbox to illustrate my idea. Thanks for your ideas. Fruminous (talk) 23:53, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Gonzo fan-- Take a look at case 4. Let me know what you think. It's my favorite right now. Fruminous (talk) 00:08, 8 January 2008 (UTC) Brilliant!- This is a much better solution. 'Twas good working with you. I'll make the edits. Fruminous (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
It's all an interesting point similar to what we discussed earlier today and one that we need to vet with the larger community. The AFL/NFL merger does introduce some complexities! Anyway... I've managed to do what I said that I wouldn't and went ahead and created all of the templates back to 1960. I'll spend a final few minutes adding them to the team season pages. Take a look at them, if you would, and let me know if you see anything that I've missed. I'm sure that there's a year here and there that needs to be corrected. Fruminous (talk) 04:46, 8 January 2008 (UTC) New Orleans Saints picks FLCSeems a bit unfair to Oppose just because I don't agree with your advice. Buc (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
All I could find was this: [1] Buc (talk) 21:52, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Fring htc.jpgGonzo - this image is being used in an article I am preparing about fring for wikipedia. The image is not copyrighted as i took the picture i control the copyright and have released it under creative commons. I have also been in contact with the copyright owner who has given permission for the image and its use on wikipedia and anywhere else on the internet. Please put the image back where it belongs. regards Simon |