Talk:2008 All-Pro Team

Separate team sections
The All-Pro teams, as mentioned in the article are used in the Official NFL encyclopedia, when it is published. Also, the other all-pro teams are verifiable, which is the rule for content on wikiBigmaninthebox (talk) 22:42, 18 January 2009 (UTC) There is room for compromise but simply reverting without discussion. The articles look good, and I intend to do this for all All-Pro teams. If you want a separate Associated Press All-Pro page, no one can stop you and though Barry Wilner of the Associated Press may object since you will be copying 100% of their material, not just portions. The AP releases those All-pro teams to paying customers (subscribing papers) and simple using one verbatim may be a copyvio.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:30, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I have no objection to the info being included. Simply put those teams in their own team listing.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 02:03, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * no, these are fine and within the scope of the article . . . if you revert again you will violate 3RR and subject to block.
 * I'll repair them later. I did discuss this with you more than one time here and on your talk page, so please don't claim I was reverting without discussion.  I would have preferred you to have broken them into separate team sections.  I'll do it though, since you don't want to do so.  I'll be sure that every bit of info you added is included.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 02:47, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I plan and doing these way back to the 1940s, so we should get a consensus before we start. I understand your point and I think you understand mine. Here is a standard format for 1968. This is essential the same as would be found in the Record and Fact book. WHy don't you like this? Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Go ahead and start adding the info. If someone wants to take the time to break them into separate sections, so be it.  I don't feel like screwing with it now.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 02:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Separate Sections
Bravo to the new format! I wish I had the time to do what you did, Stismail!-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It was awful. If there is going to be a discussion let's have it. That a horribile use of design, it was confusing. There are All-pro articles that go back to 1970 . . . let's keep them one format. If I get outvoted fine, but let's use some common sense.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 08:29, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The way I see it, the editor who did the changes would be in support if them by definition, and I have already voiced my support. The other way was a terrible mishmash of acronyms that made it really a pain to figure out who was on which teams.  The articles are vastly improved.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 23:02, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Your issue was that you have a view that the AP team is superior than the others. The way the 4-column format looks it elevates the AP second teams and puts them in front of the other teams. Having a AP 1st team, then AP 2nd team, then PFWA and then TSN makes no sense. What will you do when the 1960s are done, which I was planning on doing when there are other teams. Acronyms are used all the time in encyclopedia, there are abbreviations, which are appropriate. The terrible mishmash is what was done. However, if you insist on making this an issue, then there needs to be consensus and it cannot be three, I would suggest getting the NFL project invloved. Also, you need to read the statement that there are no official NFL awards teams according to the NFL. So, the AP All-Pro team is not official, nor are the others. There is however, an official NFL encyclopedia, called Total Football. In that encycplopedia the AP, PFWA, and TSn are co-equal, none are above the others in "importance" or "officialness". When using a table, as is done here, the simpler, the cleaner, the better. Adding more columns is plain confusing.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:37, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm the one who did it. Basically, I had two main reasons for changing it: (1) I wanted to avoid having to explain why some players are listed as first and second teamers, which is confusing. (2) While you are correct that the NFL does not make an official distinction between the awards, the public currently does. The vast majority of people don't even know that there are (still) other All-Pro awards; this is why I put the two AP teams together, rather than AP-PFWA-SN-AP2. The multi-column format makes clear, in a fairly logical—and often-used—way which players were selected to which teams. It also makes clear that there aren't "missing" names (e.g., did somebody forget to put the SN fullback award?).


 * That said, I did think about what would happen in some of the older awards. Personally, I think if there are four or fewer teams, one table is enough. If there are five or more, then the tables should be split among first and second teams. In any case, I have no qualms if the consensus is to move the second teams to the end in any case, but I think having columns like these makes more sense than the previous version. Samer (talk) 04:41, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I appreciate your efforts, however, I cannot agree and I think we all need to take this to the NFL project and get more input for more experienced editors. Three is just not enough. I disagree that the "vast majority" of people . . . with all due respect, there is no evidence for that claim. The fact that you have the AP second teams before the 1st teams of the Pro Football Writers team, and TSN, is the real problem. Also, since I was the one who did all the teams from 1970-2005 or so, maybe 2006, I did those with the understanding that the 1960s are going to be a problem so I did it in a way that would allow the 1960s to be consistent with the 1970-no and the 1940s-1950s.  If this way were adopted you are going to have to do second teams for NEA and PFWA, that will make too many columns and that is just for the 1990s, 1980s, and 1970s. So, your mind id made up, so his mine, so is Olympian. We need to take this to a bigger forum where other editors can have input. I cannot change your mind and you cannot change mine and Olympian has his mind made up.


 * Frankly, I cannot see the reason for this change. It is really unsightly and confusing. I also don't agree the public currently does. Again, with respect, how old are you and Olympian? So, finally, I think the way you are doing this and the way Olympian is supporting it simply means your agenda is to elevate the AP team above the others. You and AP essentially say that. While anyone is welcome to believe anything they wish, that does not make it true. As editors of wiki you need to step outside your bias and be objective. I think the way the teams are presented from 1970-2006 is accurate, atheistic, makes sense and us unbiased, it simply presents the situation. The only wau to do things the way you want is to delete the AP Second teams. If you don't want the second teams then your way could be presented as accurate. But since second teams (I think) are  important then your columns just don't present the info in a fair way, it favors the AP and is not desgiend well, it's too busy and really unsightly.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 01:58, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with Samer. And I never stated that the AP teams are superior to the others.  The Sporting News from what I understand, is what is listed at the Hall of Fame.  I do think, however, that when the term "All-Pro" is used by the media, it normally refers to the AP teams.  As for the older pages, just use the same format as these:  a column for each team, whichever teams were awarded that year.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think you have stated that the AP teams ar superior you said "THE" all-rpo team. This format sucks and we need to get more than three people. Until there is a consensus by more than the 3 editors.

If this way wins out, answer this, how are you going to format this: 1975 All-Pro Team? When yo uget around to changing all of the All-Pro articles (if your way wins out). Why not do a sandbox edit if this and let's put that before everyone. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:06, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Here's one way it could be done: (This is far worse, no use of white space, the names don't have room, terribleBigmaninthebox (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC))

nobody favors AP thats what the NFL goes by it doesnt refer to anybody else thats why its first and hows it confusing its way easier to read that without all the stuff in parentheses a 4th grader would understand it  AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:16, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * you say "nobody favors AP thats what the NFL goes by". I am sorry it is not true. The NFL's Greg Aiello stated there are no official awards for the NFL, not even the AP. So, with respect you are wrong.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * The AP All-Pro team is by far the most widely reported team each year. Go look at Pro-football-reference.com's All-Pro explanation page] for an example as to what I refer.


 * SO you admit you have a favorbale POV towards the AP team? Okay. Fair enough, I think that is why there is one editor who wants this changed, he thinks the AP team is more important. What may be needed is a more learned point of view, like from the Professional Football Researcher's Association book, "The ALL-PROS and The All-Pros: The Modern Years.. Those who will read that will understand the history and the time the AP All-Pro team was not even included in the NFL Record and Fact book, itwas the least respected. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:08, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * It's not "my" way; every editor but one is in favor of listing the teams separately.
 * Consensus can be reached by only three editors. If more chime in, then consensus can change.  As of right now, consensus from four editors is against using parentheses (3-1).  Please respect that.
 * Samer Aces gave a fine example of how that year could be formatted. It's not that difficult: whatever teams are used that year should be listed in its own column.
 * Asking the age of another editor is petty and uncivil.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 03:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Asking you age is uncivil? Wow. That's a new one. I simply thing younger views don't always have the benefit of experience. I wasn't asking you to offend you, I was asking to see if I could understand why you don't understand the way the teams have been done so I could better get it, because the way you are doing it doesn't fit the page, is confusing, and comes with a biased point of viewthat the AP team is better and more important. That seems to be the deal here. Especially when the new way is more tedious and confusing and more like Pro football reference.comBigmaninthebox (talk) 06:40, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it is. WP:CIVIL: "Comment on content, not on the contributor"; see also WP:APR.  It implies that one's age (either way) lends or detracts credibility from that editor's contributions.  And consensus as it stands on these pages is to have separate columns.  Three editors have voiced their opinion in favor of that format, with only you in opposition.  Please respect current consensus.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:58, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is not enough here to have a consensus because there will be plenty (and they may agree with you) that will want to get invloved. So, there is no consensus to respect. Look up consensus building, there is a process, right? I am sorry you were offended I asked you age, I was merely trying to get your view on the subject and see why you display a bias. Please understand, many people have bias views, their own POV but it is usually a good idea to check that at the door here on wiki. What it appears like is that you think the AP is "THE" all-pro team and you've mentioned it and now you may be trying to push it through. So, let's get this over to the NFL project and give it time for people to comment. Okay?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:05, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a minor point, that wasn't Aces, that was me. Samer (talk) 04:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it wasn't signed. Credit where it is deservedly due.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:27, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Proposal
Let's move this to the NFL Project talk page so more voices can be heard. That way, long-term people can comment, that's what I have had in mind for a long time. A consensus of five people on a subject that has ramifications to 30 or more articles is important. I think we'd all want to know that if the "new way" wins if there is a commintment to change all of them for consistency. I think it may be a couple of young guys who follow football today and don't really follow the 1970s or 1980s. So, with a wider group looking at it, we can get a better consensus than a guy bringing in a few others.

So, can we move this to NFL project? and invite all the editors so there is more than a handful, sound fair?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted a note there inviting comment at this talk page.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 07:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Question for all who have posted (please be honest)
Question: The AP is "THE" All-Pro team, the official All-Pro team or the "most prestigious" one. I would all of you to answer true or false, honestly. I will go firstBigmaninthebox (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * false Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * This question implies that the new format in some way prefers the AP team over the others. Samer deflated this inaccuracy above quite well.  It is also incredibly rude to go into someone else's comments and add facetious quotes and  notes.  Those notes are for articles, not other editor's comments on talk pages.  You have no right to edit anyone else's words in any way.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 07:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I thought that was the best way to communicate there were claims made that had no reference. I have not said "people think the AP team is given better treatment" I simply said that is how it looks to me and that there was at least two of the poster here who were like-minded. To understand that I asked you age, and you got offended. No one is trying to offend. I am trying to slow things down to get consensus building, not []. So, I think we should cool down. I have not been rude or uncivil, but I am sorry if it appeared that way to you, it was not my intention. Really. I take it your answer is the same . . . [] and that's fine, you an feel how you do. I was offering a different point of view, as one who went through this ansthe college football all-america teams, about 38 years of them.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:22, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Second question for those who have posted here (please be honest)
(1) Are you going to reformat the All-Pro teams back to 1970, (2) and do you have a committment to do the 1960s and 1950s and so on to complete the WIKI project like has been done with the college All-America teams?


 * (1) Yes.  (2) Yes. I have shown I have a commiment and would help again.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
 * As I told you when you first started adding the other teams, the information about the other teams was a welcome addition to the articles, and thank you again. But I also advised that the format may be, and probably should be, revised by other editors.  I expect that Samer is not any more willing than I am to put in the work changing the other articles until  this debate dies down.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 07:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * right, I would agree. That's why a real consensus, what WIKI calls real. WIki says, "consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense." I think here are are at the "thinnist sense" and that's why I don't respect this consensus because there has been consensus building. That is whay we need to begin now.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 07:25, 20 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You state, "I don't respect this consensus because there has been consensus building." That makes no sense.  Of course we are attempting to build consensus, hence the name of the section in WP:CON: Consensus building in talk pages.   (All following quotes from WP:CON)  "Consensus can change," but right now it is pretty clear.  Although "consensus is not in numbers," there has been no forum shopping.  You asked for WP:NFL to be notified, so I placed an "invitation ... phrased in a neutral way and addressed to a reasonably neutral group of people, e.g., ... posted at the message boards of the relevant wikiprojects."


 * This is not a complex issue of delicate article content. It is a straightforward format issue.  Should the various teams be presented in parenthetical or columnar format?  There has been a debate as to whether one format is biased in favor of one of the teams.  That claim has been addressed repeatedly by every editor who has weighed in, and currently the consensus, as it stands right now, is against your opinion that it does. Samer even offered to place the AP 2nd team after the other first teams to combat any perceived bias, and you have failed to address his offer.  Also, the same problem exists no matter whether the teams are listed in parenthetical or columnar format, some team has to be listed first.  Three other editors have expressed the opinion that the AP team is the most widely disseminated, and most prestigious of the teams, so if one has to be first, it should be that one.


 * Beyond that bias claim, which has been thoroughly discussed, your argument boils down to WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Again, I appreciate you effort in adding the other teams, yet I also appreciate Samer's effort in improving the format.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 03:28, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have to diasgree. My issue is we need to take more time, nothing more. I am concerned about the long-term affect and how the pre-2007 and 2008 years will be affected. I am sorry you are upset, but you've made it clear how you feel about the AP being "THE" All-pro team. So, my issue is ther consensus is thin and we need more editors to weight in before a permanant change. You've jumped the gun and once you've got someone to agree with you it you are saying that is some kind of consensus that is final. I happen to disagree. I agree with this, from WIKI: "consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense." It makes some good sense. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:44, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know how else to address the issue of perceived bias towards the AP team other than how I have several times already. Some team has to be listed first, and as I have stated, the press overwhelmingly covers the AP team each season, with very little mention of the other teams.  I have given you outside links to back up the assertion, and all you have to do is a Google search of the term "All-Pro Team" yet you consistently accuse me of editing based on personal bias.


 * Nor have I said anything about a "permanent change," or a "consensus that is final." I have repeatedly stated that consensus may change on the format of these articles, but as it is now, every editor who has chosen to express an opinion on this issue has done so in favor of the current format, except you.  If more editors express reasons to change it then the issue of course can be revisited.  Your rationale is that not enough editors have expressed themselves to change a format that only you support.  I'm sorry, that stands logic on its head.  It doesn't get any thinner than one editor.  The note has been up for a day now on WT:NFL, we'll see if any speak up, but until then, please respect consensus as it is now.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Further, the way it is now allows for many teams to be in a two-column format. In the 1960s there are going to be many "accredited teams" and if the whole page is columns it will be unreadable, as it is now, the way Samer has done it. THen, in the sample he did for 1975 it is even worse. Wiki is not a full-capability web-design thing, you cannot control fonts or columns in any real exacting way, so we have to work within the limits. The way the 1970-2006 teams are fits well, is readable. Maybe it is someone else who isn't liking something he has a bias against for months?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:48, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no reason that a single format has to be used for every single year. Besides, the 1960s are going to be weird in any case, because of the existence of two separate leagues. To be honest, my personal preference—although only very slightly above what I did—would be separate sections for each list (i.e., "AP All-Pro", "PFWA All-Pro", etc.). Samer (talk) 15:15, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That would be my personal preference as well, as it would permit wikilinks to specific teams as necessary.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I guess this is where we disagree and need others to voice their opinion. There is no law that things have to be a simgle format, but the NFL project has tried hard to keep formats the same for things, like article for players, the infoboxes, the rosters, the NFL Draft. If you click through the NFL Draft articles, they arethe same from year to year, it is seamless, except for the logo, etc. It is well done if you ask me. Try it, go to 2009 NFL Draft then back and back. I truly think the NFL All-Pro teams should be that way, too. I cannot think of a reason why 2007 and 2007 All-Pro teams should be any different than 1970 and 1971. What benefit is there to having different formats? If the NFL drafts were different year to year it would suck.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Over time, the other years would be converted to the preferred format. I am willing to do some of the necessary work once I know it isn't going to be reverted.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Reasons for keeping format the same
(1) Fewer columns are better. Wiki is not a full-capability web-design program, you cannot control fonts or columns in any real exacting way, so we have to work within the limits. Four or five or more columns does not accommodate the reality there there is limited horizontal space.

(2) The current format can accommodate more teams, like when they are need, in the 1960s and the 1950s and before. The new format does not do the same.

(3) The proposed format plays into a feeling by an editor(s) that the AP All-Pro teams is "THE" All-Pro team. While listing it first is fine, (there were done alphabetically) the AP second teams listed before the others does make the point one editor has been making that one All-Pro teams is "more All-Pro" than another,

(4) the current format is readable and has been used a several other NFL project sites without complaint. Having the first teams players on the left and the second-teams in the next columns makes sense in terms of importance. A 1st team selection for the Pro football writers association is more notable in prestige than a second-team AP selection who may have gotten one vote.

(5) The proposed format creates far more redundancies of typing names. Seeing Tom Brady's name four times is not necessary.

(6) Having one format for all the All-Pro teams is helpful for consistency.

(7) the proposed format seems very cluttered and is dopes not make good use of whitespace. Also, the center of the article is not he focus i the proposed article, it is on the very outside edges, where the AP 1st team and teh TSN 1st team lie. It's a graphic designers goal to makes things readable.

(8) the current format is readable. It is clearly a graphic--a table, and there are keys to read the abbreviations so as to save space. A common use of tables in newspaper and magazines does this.

(9) There is nothing wrong with the current format, it's just that a couple of people want it changed and they have displayed a desire to not even have PFWA and TSN All-Pro teams included, even though those teams are used in TOTAL Football II: The Official Encyclopedia of the NFL. They are as close to official as you can come and the AP has said there are no "official" awards and that the "AP are not the official awards".

(10) To do a format the favored the AP would be to show bias by editors who designed it. It would violate WP:NPOV.

(11) The current way is neutral point of view because the one who did all the work has said there is no one above the others. However, opponents of the current way think they are right and the AP and the editors of TOTAL FOOTBALL are in the wrong. Neutral is better. Bias is not better.

(12) If it ain't broke, why fix it? The current way may not be perfect. No table ever is, but given limitations the article is fair, neutral, sourced, and presents the information reasonably.

(13) If a change is need, there should be clear reasons and proof of those reasons and a consultation as many editors as who want to opine. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * While some of your points are valid, I'm not sure you understand the concept of "consensus." There is no "silent majority" on Wikipedia; it does not matter if everyone agrees with you if no one is willing to speak up, and so far, in the nearly three weeks since I made the changes, no one else has supported your argument. At the moment, there is a consensus here, however thin that may be, and that consensus is for changing the format, not for keeping the original format.


 * As to your specific statements:
 * Some of them come pretty darn close to violations of WP:OWN.
 * "If it ain't broke, why fix it" is not a valid argument; see WP:BOLD.
 * The question is not one of POV, but of how people would actually look for information. I would contend that more people would rather see the contents of each team separately—i.e., the multicolumn format—than know all the people who were selected to any of the teams.
 * Also, let's say, for the sake of argument, that it was PFWA that had the second team. I would have put the columns AP-PFW-PFW2-TSN. It's not AP-bias, but trying to keep related information as close together as possible whenever it is reasonable to do so.
 * Tables are not graphics, and "the center" has no special role.
 * You are either misconstruing or deliberately misrepresenting my statements above if you think I don't want the other information there. My point was that most people are not aware of the existence of other teams, no more and no less. Samer (talk) 15:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. I have been willing and still am willing to work together with everyone,but I think it is someone else who is trying to own and they are the one who does not like it.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * That was one of 13 things I wrote. But you've yet to say why many columns are better than two? Why?Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * My point is there is not enough room to do it your way in a readable way. Also, when we get to the 1960s it will be even harderBigmaninthebox (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You and Olympian have already demonstrated that you prefer the AP team and hold it higher. The bias is thereBigmaninthebox (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Diagree. A Table is a graphic, I am not an expert but I've always been taught a table is a graphic and graphic rules apply, that is why in wiki, tables will use shading, etc, to make it more readable, following graphics-type rules.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think "most" people are unaware, then an article, which is what this is might be a good thing, to inform, then.


 * If you guys suceed in this change for format, would you agree to eliminating the AP second teams (and all the other second teams?)Bigmaninthebox (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

you said if you got outvoted you go with whoever won youve gotten outvoted and your still fighting give up AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:39, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I said if there was true consensus building. It is my view there needs to be more input because, as I said, this affects all the All-Pro articles. I am not fighting, I made my points and still, when it comes to this magnitide of a dsicison, it may take weeks or more, you guys want to change it before the process is over. That's how i see it. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not up to you to judge what is a "true" consensus and what is not. If no one else gives their input, then what we have here is the consensus.  If more input changes that consensus tomorrow, next week, next month, then so be it.  But please respect the current consensus, and I will agree to do likewise.  I placed a note on WT:NFL, there's not much else to be done.  But please quit changing the format without consensus to do so, this is getting tiring.  There is no rule that says an article needs to stay the same until a certain period is over.  Only when there is heavy input and the course of the decision is likely to change wildly at teh outset is it advisable to hold off.  This is a minor change in format, with no change in content, that can be changed back easily if warranted in the future, in which very few editors are going to take an interest.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:55, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Bigman, you can't interlace your sentences into someone else's words, even if they are in bullet points, it is tantamount to editing their words. Once someone signs a statement, it is considered ended, and then you can insert a separate statement if you would like.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 06:01, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Interlacing ius done all the time . . . and I signed them. but if it bothers you I won't do it anymore. I was just responding. (Makes it kind of confusing, huh? like haveing a 2nd team going before a 1st team like in Samer's format???)LOL! Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:56, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, you cannot edit someone else's post. You signed each of your points, so another editor is free to interject a response after each one as they are considered individual entries.  Samer's was one single entry, so your responses needed to come after his signature.  I fixed it, no prob.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:48, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

As for the points you made and Samer made above:
 * 1) I agree with keeping the first and second teams together.
 * 2) "[T]hey have displayed a desire to not even have PFWA and TSN All-Pro teams included," and "the editors of TOTAL FOOTBALL are in the wrong." I do not think that the other teams do not belong on the article; I have consistently thanked you for adding them.
 * 3) I am completely opposed to removing any second teams, or any other verifiable, relevant information from the articles.
 * 4) I flat out do not see how Samer's format violates WP:NPOV.  All teams are included, and the article does not even attempt to compare any teams to each other.
 * 5) "The current way is neutral point of view because  the one who did all the work has said there is no one above the other" Because you fail to see the AP team as more noteworthy is irrelevant to whether the article is neutral.  I think that the Dallas Cowboys are the greatest team to grace God's green earth, but my personal beliefs are immaterial to whether my editing is neutral.  What matters is what is written, not by whom it is written.  See #4 for an evaluation of the text involved rather than of the editors involved.
 * 6) I would fully support separate sections for each team, that way in the players' infoboxes, we could hotlink to the exact team to which they were selected.


 * You ignore the imporatnce of readability and sustainability. This format won't even work when you do the 1990s and 1980s and 1970s or 1960s. Why have this format when the others will remain the old way? It makes no sense, really. Agenda is the only reason to change it. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

like i said before "bigman" you said if you got outvoted youd give up youve gotten outvoted 3 to 1 so far AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 03:02, 24 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The process is not over.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The vertical names
Can you guys not see the flaw in the name of the player on top of the team he played for, then another player then his team below that? Reading goes left to right, right? With your thing you have to see that team, the player, then then second team, then the PFWA, then the TSN, the the team. . . it really, really, makes little sense the way it is done.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 05:50, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

it makes complete sense how do you not get it AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 21:32, 25 May 2009 (UTC)


 * No, it does not make sense because in English we read left to right, then down, then left to right again. Not down, then right, then down, then to an other column with different level of information (2nd team is different than first team) which is in the middle of so-called co-equal information SO, you ask how I don't get it. I gave you an answer. Can I ask yo ua question AcesUpMaSleeve? What is the level of your education?. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:02, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, Bigman, see WP:APR. In any case, no, I don't see a fundamental flaw here. And, as I've noted before, it comes down to a question of what a person would use Wikipedia for. My argument is that people would rather know who's on a specific All-Pro team rather than who was voted to any All-Pro team. Samer (talk) 05:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, with the "old" way they know who was an each specific team, they are noted. This is not a question of the information. It is a question of style. Your new way is no better at delivering "specific" info than any other. However, with the design it is cluttered and gives a false impression to readers that the All-Pro second-team is above the first-teams of TSn and PFWA. That is why one of the guys here likes it. He thinks the Ap All-pro team is "THE" All-Pro team, which is false. Also, if your style were to prevail, there is not enough room to do all the All-Prto teams, both 1st and 2nd. When you get to the NEA All-pro team,s of 1993 and prior you will need an extra column. When you get to 1976 the there is a AP, NEA, and PFWA 1st and second teams you will need SIX columns.


 * The way it is now there are two, well-labeled columns that are readable. This is not about the info. It is about readability and the ability to make the All-pro articles the same. You cannot do an article in teh 1970s with SIX columns so why do one with for in the 2000s? It makes no sense and is unreadbale.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

ur basing a ton of stuff on age and other crap why does it matter 2 u r u so old old u cant think properly or understand the simplest of things AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:20, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

im 13 and i go 2 school y does it matter 2 u AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:24, 29 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I would have guessed you were at least 15.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 06:45, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

"Lack of consensus"
Bigman: You seem to misunderstand the comments on consensus. While "3 v. 1" may be a consensus "only in the thinnest sense," it nevertheless is a consensus. So far, to date, no one—despite efforts to get other people involved—has come forward to support your point of view. It may well be that you, I, Olympian, and Aces are the only ones who actually give a damn about the way the information is presented. And, at the moment, if that's the case, then thin consensus still beats no consensus. Samer (talk) 18:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You should know that this guy left a message on my talkpage. One of your "3" is the former DCsniper. Go ahead, align youself with himBigmaninthebox (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * "so it was you who thought my previous name DCsniper207 should be changed what was so bad about it AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 01:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)"


 * However, a thin consensus does not "beat" a no consensus. According to the rules, wiki is not a dmeocracy, right? I think you are a reasonable guy, unlike, Aces, who I think goes over the line. I just wish you'd look at how you've done this and see that does not work long-term. It if you do 3nd teams for NEA and PFWA there won't be enough room. So, I respectfully disagree. The chart way, with labels of who made what team is more reasonable. Also, you seemed concerned that people might want to know who was on what team, well, that's what the references are for. This is an article that shows all-pro teams. If you want the separation, then you should go vertical and list them below the chart. WHat you've done is make a chart so big and so that the teams they played for are underneath and on the PFWA and TSN teams you don't even list the teams they played for--if they were on the AP team. I am sorry, no one likes to be criticized and I can tell you are offended, but your way is not a tried and true way, you way is less readable and unsustainable. That doens't make you bad. Just because DCSniper (a troll) agrees with you and becasue Olumpian agrees with you (Olympian is proven to have an agenda) does not mean it is right.


 * What I care about is the article. I don't care about "winning" a edit war. I don't care about credit. I honestly think the old way has fewer problems than your way. I also don't think one guy with an agrenda and another who used the name DC Sniper really helps your cause, especially DC Sniper. All I ask is you think about it, especially on how you will do this in 1988 or 1976. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let me ask you this: would you be opposed to separate tables for each awarding organization? There's nothing inherently wrong with doing it that way (see: NFL rookies of the year page); WP specifically says size is, within reason, not a reason to favor one format over another. Samer (talk) 01:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I would think the previous version should be on top as a "consensus" All-Pro team, then below it, yeah, stacking the individual teams would be good. That way, they can go to the article and then scroll down to see the teams separated out. I think it is a LOT of work, but that would be a good way to do it, kill two birds with one stone, so to speak.  I think doing both would be good, separate tables below a consensus table. For lack of a better way to say it: the previous version with separate tables below. Cool.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree and like the 2004 All-Pro Team. It reminds me of the old NFL Almancs and how they did it. The 2008 version of the article looks like it will be tough to keep doing. So, bottom line: I vote for what is being called "previous version" That is my best preference. The new version look common compared to the previous version. Sorry, not trying toimake enemies. I like the old way better and I vote that way.Jturney (talk) 08:15, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I vote for Bigmaninthebox and Jturney, I use the allpor artilce for refernces some and I owuld like them to stay the same, the new ones are not coolNEPatriotsfan2008 (talk) 08:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Count me in. The formats should all be the same, and I made the 2006, 2007, 2008 the same as previous one. Since there is a concensus. I am with the majority wich does not but both the AP 1st and the 2nd teams first, it puts the first teams to the left and the AP second team to the right. In America we read left to right, then up and down, right?.67.142.166.23 (talk) 00:59, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Format
i think this way looks better it makes perfect sense and is easy to read Baller449 (talk) 02:18, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

4 to 1
yeah until a concensus is reached we leave it the way we want it- the way everybody else likes exept you AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 23:56, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, DC Sniper, I don't think the way you are handling yourself makes your cause look any better.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)


 * you know your funny you think your so reasonable and right all the time nobody agrees with and you think your right and how about you handle yourself your losing this pretty bad because you wont take a loss and whats my previous name got anything to do nobodys going to change their mind just because of what my name was before your the only one that complained about it you sore loser AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 00:03, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think your choice of "DC Sniper" for a username speaks volumns about your judgment.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * yeah but i changed it and i dont think anybody saw something else in my judgement AcesUpMaSleeve (talk) 02:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Aces handled himself admirably and promptly changed his username when the issue was brought to his attention. Again, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPA and cease the personal attacks. It is petty and shrill.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 09:48, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I like the previous version.
I think the current version is not a good way to do it. I prefer the way 2005 and prior are designed. If there were a poll, that's how I'd vote. McDanny74 (talk) 00:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I prefer the 2004 All-Pro Team "format" over 2008 All-Pro Team format. It looks more professional, more concise to me. Tampa David (talk) 06:37, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Note that until now, no one has made any personal invites to editors they know to come look at this issue. I simply posted the agreed-upon, neutral language at the Wikiproject talk page.  Bigman, personal invitations violate WP:CANVAS and usually result in that editors !vote being rejected.-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 09:55, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree. The older version is cleaner. I vote for that. The current 2008 All-pro team article is klunky, cluttered. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 22:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have look at this . . . the older, or previous ones are much more pleasing that the 2008 and 2007 . . . . I vote to return to previous format67.142.166.31 (talk) 00:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Reverted back to the consensus version. More votes for the older version than the one Oly2008 wants. In case of doubts consensus is the deciding factor. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 19:52, 3 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Again, reverted back to the consensus. The consensus currently prefers this. The way I read older posts is that consensus was the way things were supposed to happen.RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 06:27, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * This was the thinkingthis is the quote "then thin consensus still beats no consensus".  I am sure glad to have a consistent format from the seventies to ninties and beyond. Makes sense, and if the consensus is there, then, it ought to be honored. RussFrancisTE81 (talk) 06:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)


 * AgreedBigmaninthebox (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I also prefer the previous version. Sb26554 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * There are at least a half-dozen users, including an IP who prefer the previous version. Consensus is for the so-called previous version. There was never any reason to changed it and only a few people want the "new" way. Consensus is for the older version.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:17, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

current version
its easier without having all that info in one little box and the NFL goes by the AP they dnot mention any of the others this way it lists what the other sporting associations have for 1st team Baller449 (talk) 01:08, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The NFL does not "go by the AP". You are taking the position that Olympian took. The NFL spokesman said in January 2009 that the "NFL does not have official awards". Also, the informaiton fits in the bix, but the "new way" does not allow for the the listing of the teams a guy played for, they are stacked. SO, with respect, you are wrong on both counts, especially on what the NFL "goes by". The NFL said the opposite. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 02:05, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Please quit stating falsehoods about what my "position" is on these teams. Let me quote my above statement again: "...I never stated that the AP teams are superior to the others. The Sporting News from what I understand, is what is listed at the Hall of Fame. I do think, however, that when the term "All-Pro" is used by the media, it normally refers to the AP teams."-- 2008 Olym pian chit chat 09:50, 19 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Come on, man. Now you say "You see no reason given to change the format". Well, that's how other felt when it was changed. From 1970-2005 it is one way. From 2008-2008 you want it your way. It seems the onus should have been on you. Then, when your guys said there was consensus you were happy to abide by that. Now, "You see no reason". Perhaps you should have had that attitude when you advocated the change in teh first place. The default position is the consensus. IT says that they should all be the same, from 1970-2008. There is no reason, none whatsoever, to change 2006-2008. Consistency in the articles should say something to you.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)