User talk:Yankees10/Archive 5

Thanks
...for your additions of awards to Phillies player pages. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  20:43, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Courtney Lee
Just curious why you changed WKU back to Western Kentucky when the University has requested publicly to be referred to as WKU (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:06, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Reid Brignac
Hello, just wondering why you removed the external link I added to Reid Brignac's page?-Phil5329 (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox highlights
Is there some reason you're deleting everything but All-Star selections and World Series wins from the infoboxes? I realize that in some instances the noted highlights can get out of hand, but notation of records and peak performances seem to precisely meet the definition of "highlights". Besides, a lot of those items are certainly more notable for a player than being a minor member of a World Series or pennant winner. MisfitToys (talk) 23:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Baseball Newsletter
--  jj137   ( talk )  03:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Ken Griffey
why should this direct to Ken Griffey sr, there are two Ken Griffeys


 * Did you read my edit summary? I explained why.  Two-article disambiguation pages don't make sense.
 * In this case, no matter which Ken Griffey someone has in mind, he/she will fail to arrive at the desired article and have to click on a link to reach it.
 * If Ken Griffey redirects to Ken Griffey, Sr. (as it originally did), many of the people searching for "Ken Griffey" will immediately reach their desired article. For everyone else, the hatnote would ensure that the Ken Griffey, Jr. article still is one click away.  So some readers get to the intended article sooner, while the rest get there just as quickly as they would have with a disambiguation page.  (And given the close relationship between the two Ken Griffeys, there's a good chance that they'll want to read both articles anyway).
 * Do you understand? —David Levy 18:09, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * We should see what other people say about it at WP:Baseball, I'm betting most people agree with me--Yankees10 18:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * You haven't explained your position. Why do you believe that it makes more sense for everyone to have to follow a link than it does for only some readers to have to follow a link?  And do you seriously believe that someone seeking the Ken Griffey, Jr. article will be upset to reach the article about his father instead of a page about neither?
 * Note that this isn't a baseball-specific issue; it's equally applicable to articles on every subject, and there is consensus within the community that two-article disambiguation pages usually should be avoided. —David Levy 18:19, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I dont feel like wasting my time with this, even though I know i'm right, and there are other Jr, Sr. situations like this that are the same way, which I am not going to tell you about because you'll do the same thing to those--Yankees10 18:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Why do you feel that such a setup is superior? I'm asking you to explain your reasoning, and you just keep repeating that you're right and I'm wrong.  How, in your assessment, do we benefit from the disambiguation page?  —David Levy 18:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Because both of the players names are KEN GRIFFEY--Yankees10 18:35, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Right, so some of the users who type in "Ken Griffey" seek the Ken Griffey, Sr. article and others seek the Ken Griffey, Jr. article. How is it better for none of these people to immediately reach their desired article than it is for many of these people to immediately reach their desired article?  —David Levy 18:46, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Seriousley, just bring it to WP:baseball, see what other people say--Yankees10 18:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Again, this isn't a baseball-specific issue. It wouldn't matter if we were dealing with football players, authors, scientists, actors, or even inanimate entities.
 * I just want you to consider/explain how a two-article disambiguation page is to anyone's benefit and how a redirect is to anyone's detriment. Please give this some serious thought.  —David Levy 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * (ec) Sorry to butt in - this is an age-old question. I agree with David Levy 100%, esp. since I grew up with Ken Griffey, Sr. being just "Ken Griffey".  Ken Griffey, Jr. has always been "Ken Griffey, Jr." to the point where he's often just called "Junior".  But, in general, I also dislike two-article disambiguation pages for exactly the reasons David Levy is pointing out.  It punishes everyone instead of just a few - the few that try to get to "Ken Griffey, Jr.'s" page by typing just "Ken Griffey", which strikes me as incorrect anyway.  Unfortunately, I often find myself on the short end of those discussions.  People seem to love disambiguation pages, to the point of damaging the flow of the encyclopedia for readers IMHO.  —Wknight94 (talk) 18:57, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Can we just put this to rest, theres just no reason why Ken Griffey should go straight to Griffey Sr.--Yankees10 18:59, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How can you say that there's "just no reason"? I've explained the reason: it enables some readers to more easily reach their desired article while in no way hindering anyone else's efforts to do so.  I still await a counterargument beyond "because I'm right."  —David Levy 19:05, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * And "theres just no reason" is a bit strong. I just told you that I spent the first however many years of my life associating the words "Ken" and "Griffey" with Ken Griffey, Sr.  How is that not a reason?  —Wknight94 (talk) 19:08, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I wrote theres just no reason, before I saw your message by the way, and please dont leave any more messages regarding this issue on my page any more, because I dont care about it--Yankees10 19:10, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Okay, given the fact that you don't care about it, I assume that you no longer will be reverting.
 * For the record, because you seem to regard this as a baseball-related issue, I just spent a great deal of time searching for other cases in which father and son Major League Baseball players (and no one else with Wikipedia articles) share the same first and last name. I found a total of 22 examples, and here's the breakdown:


 * Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to a two-article disambiguation page
 * Sandy Alomar
 * Rubén Amaro
 * Jim Bagby
 * Jerry Hairston
 * Rankin Johnson
 * Chet Nichols
 * Mel Queen
 * Ed Sprague
 * Ozzie Virgil
 * TOTAL: 9 cases


 * Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to one of the players' articles (usually the father's)
 * Tony Armas
 * Earl Averill
 * Charlie Beamon
 * Pedro Borbón
 * José Cruz
 * Tony Gwynn
 * Gary Matthews
 * Tony Peña
 * Tim Raines
 * Cal Ripken
 * Pete Rose
 * Mel Stottlemyre
 * Ed Walsh
 * TOTAL: 13 cases
 * —David Levy 19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
 * —David Levy 19:55, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok I saw the list and noticed that the only players that dont have it the way you think it should be are all Hall of Famers or All-Stars--Yankees10 20:01, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I don't understand your point. —David Levy 20:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In the Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to one of the players' articles (usually the father's) section, it leads to the fathers because he is usually more known and were All-Stars and Hall of Famers, and in the Unqualified name (no "Sr." or "Jr.") leads to a two-article disambiguation page, they are both known the same and neither were better than the other--Yankees10 20:20, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * How is that distinction relevant to the issue of navigation? What is the advantage of reaching a two-article disambiguation page instead of one of the two players' articles (with a link to the other at the top)?
 * You do realize, I hope, that in most instances in which two notable persons share the same first and last name, they're unrelated to each other and have different professions.
 * Of course, I posted the above only because it took me a while to compile it and I thought that you might be interested. You've stated that "don't care about" the issue any longer, so I'm not trying to force you to debate it.  —David Levy 20:33, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm still just not seeing the point in having it go to Griffey, yes I have read you and Wknight94's reasons, but I'm just still not convinced, I mean havnt you heard people call Ken Griffey, Jr, Ken Griffey, hes still a Ken Griffey--Yankees10 20:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * I've heard him referred to as "Griffey" but I have to say almost every time I've heard the full "Ken Griffey", it's always followed by "Jr." Maybe that's changed lately, I don't know.  —Wknight94 (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Indeed, I don't recall hearing Ken Griffey, Jr. referred to as "Ken Griffey" (without the "Jr."). I definitely have heard his father called that, though.  —David Levy 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is to have many people immediately reach their desired article instead of no one immediately reaching their desired article.
 * What's the point of sending everyone to a page other than the one that they seek (when we can just as easily send many readers to the correct article, with absolutely no disadvantage for the others)? —David Levy 20:51, 23 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's a tenth. Lew Krausse--Wehwalt (talk) 20:27, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

David Wells
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. - DigitalC (talk) 05:14, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Phillies articles
I've noticed on my watchlist that you have removed stub templates from several Phillies articles over a long period of time, which I would assume you are doing to many other teams' articles too. I don't mind this happening; however, the articles are still marked as stubs on their talk pages. If you want to remove those stubs, please update the talk pages as well, if you believe the articles to be Start-class instead of stubs. Thank you. KV5 •  Squawk box  •  Fight on!  00:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Griffey
Are you watching and reading ESPN, it is offical

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3512365 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bes2224 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Date autoformatting
Hi, I noticed that you reverted my removal of the DA from Ozzie Smith, asking "why?". I wonder whether you read the posting at the talk page? Please let me know what you think—the move (which is optional) has increasing popular support. Tony  (talk)  09:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Dexter Fowler
Regardless of whether or not a minor league baseball player has ever played in the majors at all, they are usually given a infobox. What is the basis for your opinion that they are ONLY for major leaguers?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 11:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I did check other minor leaguers. I haven't found any who DON'T have one.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 19:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

How about everyone else on this list. --Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Hello, half of them have played in the majors--Yankees10 02:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and the other half have them also. Deolis Guerra never played in the majors. There are others. In Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball, heading #4 is "Minor Leaguer Info Box." Please read it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

re:Minnie Minoso
Thanks for fixing the image I added .... I tried putting it in the infobox, put could not figure out how to caption it. LonelyBeacon (talk) 04:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Re: Stafon Johnson
Hi. I think recruiting an interesting situation where you have more recent players, in this day of much more intense and highly publicized (ESPN, Scout, Rivals, etc) recruiting, having many stages of the college recruiting process happen in high school with heavy publicity. Older players didn't have that so we simply jump from high school to college with little fanfare in those articles. With that said, I think some articles, like Terrelle Pryor perhaps go a bit overboard. As for the personal section: if he keeps performing at the same level and producing material, he'll soon balance out the personal section, which also explains his "Big Dad" eye blacks in the photo. I actually have another good photo of him from just last week, but I'm planning to wait until the article is long enough to add it. --Bobak (talk) 19:14, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Jim "Pud" Galvin
Please do not revert again on Template:Pitchers in the Baseball Hall of Fame. As I explained in my most recent edit summary, the names displayed in the template are the names under which each player is listed on the Hall of Fame's website and is how they are noted at the Hall. Yes, I recognize that Jim Galvin was best known as "Pud," but the source for the template lists him by his legal name. --Winger84 (talk) 20:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Official website of the Hall of Fame. Search by the last name, see the result...  --Winger84 (talk) 20:33, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * So let me see if I understand you... you're saying that ESPN and the other sites that you noted on my talk page... are more reliable than the official website of the Hall of Fame itself? --Winger84 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I believe you may have missed the point of my previous post here. I'm not saying that ESPN is not a reliable source, because it and its associated website(s) usually is typically accurate.  What I am saying is that, in this case, there is a better source.. an "authoritative" source on the subject. --74.95.135.46 (talk) 22:16, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
 * (Note - The above IP contribution is me. My session timed out when I walked away from my desk at work for a brief time. --Winger84 (talk) 22:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC))

HOF templates
Yes, I plan to do a template for each position and have already started working on them in an external editor. However, since I live in the southeast U.S., I'm having to spend a lot of time paying attention to Fay and will only have to do more of that in the next couple days. I knocked out the pitchers' template today because I don't expect to have a lot of time to dedicate to WP until at least Sunday evening. --Winger84 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Lou Montanez
Hi there, I noticed that you erased what I wrote about Lou Montanez playing in the Orioles/White Sox make up game, and marked it wrong. I'm wondering what exactly was wrong about it. Thanks, Scott.--User:buckyboy28 (talk) 2:20, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Neftali Feliz
I have nominated Neftali Feliz, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Neftali Feliz. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Please do not remove the AfD notice from the article. Doing so will not stop the deletion discussion.  If you do not agree with the nomination, please add your opinion to the AfD discussion page. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Jarrett Bush
Please explain to me why Jarrett Bush's blog isn't an appropriate external link from the article on Jarrett Bush? I've noted dozens of similar links to a subject's blog on their articles.Gateman1997 (talk) 23:14, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * So you deem them unimportant is the reason you removed it? Gateman1997 (talk) 23:21, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have any policy that would back that view up however or one that states a players blog wouldn't be a viable External Link (note external links are not in the article itself). Also you claim their websites are ok, how is their blog that different from their website? Gateman1997 (talk) 23:23, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Alvin Davis
Do those spaces do something within the template? -Dewelar (talk) 02:14, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess I was just wondering why you bothered to edit the page to put them back in. I'm an old-time programmer, so sometimes getting rid of unnecessary spaces is just something I do automatically, and this was the first time someone I'd seen anyone take the time to undo it. -Dewelar (talk) 04:28, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Darren Sharper
It isn't "supercategorizing" when there is a category for the sport team he played for and the school itself. Just because Darren Sharper is in the W&M Tribe football players category doesn't mean he can't be in the alumni category as well. By removing the alumni category you're short changing the entire category itself. Any W&M students notable enough for Wikipedia should have an alumni category status, regardless of possible sport affiliation. -Jrcla2 (talk)(contribs) 00:36, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

Dexter Fowler
Nothing... It's still there. As an Olympian and Minor league ball player, it made more sense to me that the picture of him with the president at the Olympics would go in his Olympics player box. You disagree with that?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 18:58, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

The "by" template...
Hi. I saw that you reverted an edit of mine to Rusty Staub that re-added all the "by" templates that I had removed. I respect your decision. The reason I did this was because I saw an edit to Joe Girardi on one of my lists which had the edit summary of "(beartrap links to [year] in something are frowned upon". I admittedly did not check the reliability of the user who posted that (the user might be reliable) but I took it as meaning that it was an official stance.  I apologize if I'm removing the template rather rashly.

There is a section of WP:Overlink which states that:


 * "Piped links to pages that are more focused on a topic than stand-alone chronological pages (1999) are possible (1997), but have the disadvantage that readers do not, prima facie, recognize that the link is piped. If an explicit link is provided, preferably in the lead, it alone can be the gateway for the reader to access the available sibling articles for other years (e.g., 1998), making multiple links throughout the article unnecessary."

From that, I can't tell if "by" links are frowned upon or not. I guess they can be used...I don't know.

I used to like using the template but ever since I started noticing articles being cited for overlinking (related to the Girardi edit but not put so bluntly as that), I've started not to like it. But I understand that others will. I don't want to get into an edit war over this so I'll just leave the templates on Rusty's page as they were unless there's ample evidence that "by" shouldn't be used.

That's all. Bye. -- Transaspie (talk) 01:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Links to NPB within player infoboxes
Actually, when I started adding NPB teams to the infoboxes, I was doing it without the link to NPB. Jackal4 asked me to start adding it, so I did. It doesn't really bother me either way, I guess. -Dewelar (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sure, if a discussion starts up, by all means point me to it. -Dewelar (talk) 04:30, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

All-Pro
Please stop undoing my edits to players' infoboxes. I have read the debate about what All-Pro means, and you really need to go read the article at All-Pro. I disagree that someone who is 2nd team all-pro is what one considers when one says a player was an "All-Pro." If you insist on having 1st and 2nd team placements both count as times someone is "All-Pro," then I won't have that fight with you, but I don't see how you can disagree with having them listed separately.

The consensus of the earlier discussion was overwhelmingly to separate the 1st and 2nd team All-Pro listings in the infobox. As a matter of fact, you said that you agreed with chrisjnelson immediately after he made that exact point: that all team selections could be considered an All-Pro selection, but that he had no problem with splitting the 1st and 2nd team selections up in the infoboxes. More information is generally considered more encyclopedic. And someone who is All-conference is definitely not all-pro, it is much more akin to being a pro bowl player. Being all-conference at WR in 2007 in the AFC, for example, wouldn't have made that player 1st team all-pro. ALl-Pro is considered something above being a Pro Bowl player, not equivalent. The Pro Bowl is the two teams of the best players from each conference, whereas All-Pro is the best team from all players in the whole league. It is the Same as being All-NBA v. NBA All-Star: there are only five All-NBA players each year, and ten All-Star starters.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:24, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You need to go back and read the consensus. Consensus clearly was that first and second team All-Pro notations cold be separated.  If we need to take this somewhere else and get other eyes on what was the overwhelming consensus. I am more than happy to do so.  You even agrees to it yourself.  And when I come into this discussion doesn't matter, consensus can always be reopened, but here I am the one who is trying to follow the overwhelming consensus.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Please show me where nfl.com was agrees to and I will. PFR is also in the template and is more informative. --User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:29, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Wow, you are going to make me quote everybody who just weighed in on this. Ok, hold on.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 22:30, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, if I am inconsistent, then I apologize and would like to work that out. Ok, as to only the question of whether to split 1st and 2nd team All-Pro selections in the infoboxes, here it is:

Condensed from the consensus discussion


 * 1 vote for either way:

The phrase "All-Pro selection" does not convey first- or second-team, they are just selections. I'm aware they are different, and I have no problem with breaking them up in the infobox. Chris NelsonHolla! 00:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 1 vote for no:

another thing is what is a website that lists the players 2nd team, because when I am going to make infoboxes I am no way going to waste my time trying to find all the players 2nd teams on a million different websites, at least with PFR all the All-Pro's are there--Yankees10 23:49, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * 6 votes for at least splitting them up: (including my vote)

72~ and I think that they don't need to be combined, and we believe that this way is "fact". Ksy92003(talk) 02:35, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Combining is misleading. 72.0.36.36 (talk) (72 was initially with my view that All-Pro means only 1st team All-Pro, but he changed to arguing a compromise of at least splitting them up into separate designations)

My vote would be for showing first- and second-team all-pros are separate things. i vote for keeping them as pure as possible.Jturney (talk) 23:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Combining the FIRST and SECOND teams mahttp://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Yankees10&action=editke little sense. Let's go back to how it was last week, thing were looking very good.Howdythere (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I'd agree with separating them. Maybe something like "10 all-pro selections (four first-team)". —Wknight94 (talk) 14:11, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I got this from from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_National_Football_League/Archive_4, the consensus discussion we have been talking about that you seemed to know so well when I mentioned it earlier. The point is you were the only one who was completely against the idea of splitting them up, even Chrisjnelson was in favor of doing it sometimes. Everybody else was in favor of splitting it up, and 72~ didn't even want to put the 2nd team in at all, but he compromised to having both in there.

I know you aren't claiming Chrisjnelson is a sock, you agreed with him right after he made the above statement. Ksy92003 and Chris Nelson have a history, it seems, of animosity between them to some degree. Wknight94 has been around since 2005 at least. JTurney and Howdythere might be, especially JTurney. The only way to know for sure is send them to WP:RFCU, and I think until we have info othewise, we are supposed to assume good faith.

But even of we do take them out, that's 4 editors for splitting it up, (I will include myself here, please check me out I have not had anything to do with any of these editors before, and I have worked on varied topics other than ProjectNFL pages, although that's where I've been lately b/c it is football season and I started all of the NFL Expansion Draft pages), one who is ambivalent about whether to do it, and only you are completely opposed.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 23:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I start doing it from now on, but I'm not going back through them just to add a hyphen to the ones I've done already. User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 23:41, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL
Watch your tongue kid, you have been blocked twice for edit warring before, you don't want to end up blocked for trash talking in the internet as well. That last part of the comment was a joke, hence the emoticon, Bugs knows what I meant. I'm not going to respond to the rest of your rant, but don't go judging people that you meet in the internet randomly, I may be even younger than you for all you know. -  Ca ri bb e a  n ~ H. Q.  05:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

USC Photos
Thanks! Yeah, I actually take them all myself... a lot of the in-game and "walking to the stadium" photos come from me snapping a bunch of pictures and then going back to re-examine and crop out any players that happened to look photogenic (I'd say I take something like 5-8 photos before I get one where I like how someone looks). Since I use a basic point-and-click I also rely on fairly uncontrollable things like available light. For the posed photos, like Aaron Corp, I just went to one of USC's open practices (which are almost all of them) and started asking people on their way out if I could take their photo --that worked surprisingly well; heck, they're all just out of high school and flattered people want their photo (and I imagine a photo is far less grating that all the people asking for autographs, etc). I've noticed, from looking at other photos on Wikipedia, that some people have been going to NFL practices to snap pictures. [Incidentally, I have a growing archive on my HD of players who don't have articles yet --some may not pan out as good articles, but if they do I can often quickly "strike" and add a photo] --Bobak (talk) 22:26, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Whitey Ford vandal
I suspect the recent activity is due to the return of a very persistent individual. I dropped a note at User talk:Wknight94, who's been involved in this since it started a year ago. Or was it two? *sigh* --Ebyabe (talk) 02:28, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

RE: categories
alphabetical. Is that not correct? Is there a specific order in which they are supposed to be in? Didn't mean to cause confusion, just thought it was better alphabetically. Jwalte04 (talk) 03:01, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I just think alphabetical is better just because you dont have to remember a specific sequence, rather just have to know the alphabet, you know what I'm saying? I think there should be a place where there can be a group consensus on this. Jwalte04 (talk) 15:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Just wanted to keep you updated:

How is it not common when most of the Featured Article categories are in Alphabetical order? Jwalte04 (talk) 00:54, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Do you have a link to a policy on this?►Chris NelsonHolla! 00:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Nah I dont, I just noticed it (and it may be wrong, but from the featured articles I have seen I think its for the most part right). I just feel like alphabetical order is the way to go because a first-time editor can understand the ordering process instead of figuring out the chronological order, as well as anyone wanting to add a cateogry can easily put it in properly. Let me know your thoughts (also wanted to have Yankees10 read this). It there a more appropriate place for me to bring this up? Jwalte04 (talk) 00:59, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * You might be right.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:00, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will stop doing the different order for now until this gets resolved. But I would like it resolved soon, because I am going through my complete watchlist and doing edits to all of my pages then getting rid of the ones I dont care about. Thanks.Jwalte04 (talk) 01:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I really don't know where you should take it.►Chris NelsonHolla! 01:03, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Should we bring this up to Pats1 or JustAGal too and other NFL bigwigs? Jwalte04 (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisjnelson"

Infoboxes (again)
Why do you keep reverting any infobox edits I make? Whitespace-only edits aren't useful. If the debut-year and last-year are desired to be wlinked, then that should be done so in the template, not as input to the template. If you can show a policy or WP:MLB guideline that says otherwise, then I'll gladly go along with it. We can also take it to the project if you want. Also, edit summaries such as "how'd I know this was coming" are not useful at all. See WP:ES. — X96lee15 (talk) 12:39, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Overlinking
I removed the extra links due to this from Maual of Style for one of two reasons.

1. Some were general links to months, days, or years: "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true: Low added-value items are linked without reason—such as 1995, 1980s, and 20th century." I also took advice from this directive, "Stand-alone chronological links should generally not be linked, unless they are demonstrably likely to deepen readers' understanding of a topic" to remove geeral links to dates such as 15 August etc.

2. "An article may be overlinked if any of the following is true:"A link for any single term is excessively repeated in the same article. "Excessive" typically means more than once for the same term in an article. So I removed multiple instances of links.

3. Chrisjnelson adives me that the links to the years played in the infoboxes was against the infobox standards, so I removed them. I left the links to Pro Bowl years and All-Pro teams.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 17:35, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Personally, I'd rather have them in there, so from now on, I will only removed duplicate wikilinks in the main article, that is, I won't mess with the links in the infoboxes or remove dupes that are once in the infobox and only once in the article, I will only remove those that are repeated more than once in the article itself or are useless date links.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 18:02, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it was too much. New toy, sorry. I''ll go back through those articles and put back the infobox links to birthplaces and birthdates.  But the way the MoS reads, if a term had already been linked in an article, that's all it gets.  For example, Barry Sanders has Detroit Lions linked 3-4 times, so I'll bring it down to the first one.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 06:03, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Colors on stat lists
Look it shows that only two out of the seven have made the Hall of Fame. It is consistent with the other list pages and draft pages. When one looks at the 100 sack list, one would assume that there wouldn't be anyone on that list who wasn't in the Pro Bowl, but one finds that there actually is someone who never made the Pro Bowl and very few have made the Hall of Fame. There is no reason not to be consistent, and no reason the list can't be colored.--User:2008Olympianchitchatseemywork 18:46, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Orlando Cepeda
Yankees10, how are you doing? I came to discuss the Orlando Cepeda article with you when I noticed in your user page that you and I are fans of the same teams. Even though I was raised in N.Y. and my mother worked close to the Yankee Stadium, I was never able to go to a game. That changed last year when my son and I were touring the East Coast and I finally got to go to a game. In our collection of autographed baseballs, we have every great Yankee from Joe DiMaggio to A-Rod.

What I found out about the situation going on with the Orlando Cepeda article is that User: Caribbean is taking it up to "GA" status and that is why he has expanded the introduction. Normally this is expected from those who will determine if an article is "GA" material. I know that the subjects minor league information is in the appropriate section of the article, but as long as it is briefly mentioned in the intro. the article is enriched and no harm is done increasing the possibilities of the article to be promoted. I expect that a fellow Yankee fan such as yourself will understand. Tony the Marine (talk) 03:21, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Reply from Iceflow
Whether I watch it or not, is not the issue. However, I don't, since I live in the UK... The guidelines we have for his notability as an athlete are strict and have been round for a while. He must either be professional, or have played at the highest level (such as a professional national league) for him to be included. I will review the other article you mentioned on Michael Crabtree and deal with that one as I see fit. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:49, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * The rules are there for a reason, and even if most others ignore them, I go by the book. Let an admin handle it! Thor Malmjursson (talk) 03:53, 9 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yankee, another admin removed the speedy tag from the article, just beating me to it. you are right that any indication of notability is enough. Whether he's notable, is something for afd. You might however add something about his 08 performance to date. DGG (talk) 04:41, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Dez Bryant
I have nominated Dez Bryant, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Dez Bryant. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. Thor Malmjursson (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Question
Yo, Yankees10, just to quench my curiosity, could you explain this edit of yours please? Thanks.  K im  u  04:47, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * replied on my talk.  K im  u  14:28, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Profane edit summary
Please do not add profane edit summaries as you did here. This is considered an attack and is not tolerated. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 02:22, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * See, this is why I leave things stand on my page, until they gather dust, and then I ark-hive them. If you were to add back Wknight94's complaint about the same diff, you would have a matched set. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 02:26, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * You're on thin "Ice" yourself, so you had best not be lecturing others about their behavior. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 05:19, 15 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Yankees10, if you want, I can delete that edit so the edit summary disappears. Let me know. —Wknight94 (talk) 04:33, 15 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Gone. —Wknight94 (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Matt McCoy
Where did you see the Bucs re-signed him?► Chris Nelson Holla! 03:20, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

IceFrappe
Why does he keep reverting edits about players who even though they haven't said they retired, they are techinally retired since no one wants to sign them. --Iamawesome800 (talk) 03:40, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Retired infoboxes
Why are you just linking the years in retired infoboxes? From what I've seen, their still arguing over datelinks and haven't reached a consensus. I think just linking the years looks worse than both of them linked or both unlinked. What do you think? both linked? neither linked? don't care? Jackal4 (talk) 23:43, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd rather leave things how they are and set a timelimit for when to retire players. I liked the 1 season suggestion, if they have major surgery and miss an entire season it's usually mentioned in the article anyway, so I don't see that being a problem. Jackal4 (talk) 23:51, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll vote. Jackal4 (talk) 23:59, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

MLB infobox
Would you prefer if that box with "Player information" was not there when it wasn't used? Or it said something else? —Borgardetalk 05:21, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fairly easily update, I'll post a request in a minute. —Borgardetalk 05:28, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :). —Borgardetalk 05:35, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Hey Yankees. I'm wondering if you could tell me what you think of this template I have created, Template:Infobox baseball biography (it's based on the MLB one). I'm finding it's becoming increasing used that NPB players that play in the United States are being treated as solely MLB players for example Daisuke Matsuzaka and Ichiro Suzuki, the latter who is part of the Japanese Baseball Hall of Fame. I have it being used on Dice-K right now. I think it looks a bit cleaner as well... —Borgardetalk 16:08, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

AP POY templates
I don't understand why you disagree with adding more info to articles, and now, templates. There is nothing wrong with denoting the number of times a player has received the award. It is impressive, it fits just fine on the infobox, and it is info that is easy to miss. I even missed one when I was adding the numbers. If you look at this diff it will show you two things:

1. That I missed the info at first glance, which is some evidence others might as well. 2. That another editor saw the changes I made, and instead of reverting and calling them unnecessary, he actually approved the changes and added the one I missed.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 03:05, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

That's not the point. It's not unnecessary. Why not have the info? I gve you two reasons above why it should be there.-- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 03:12, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

I met you halfway on the NFL players lists: I removed the Pro Bowl designations and just left the HOF designations, except the Sack leaders, where Jim Jeffcoat was never a Pro Bowler. -- 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 03:15, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of National Football League players with 100 career receiving touchdowns
I have nominated List of National Football League players with 100 career receiving touchdowns, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of National Football League players with 100 career receiving touchdowns. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. 20 08 Ol ymp ian chitchat 03:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

RE: request
sure. I was just trying tosave space on pages. Didn't know it was causing trouble. Let me know about anything else. So far I got: don't move }}, and don't alphabetize categories. Jwalte04 (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:20/20 club
Template:20/20 club has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. 2008 Olym pian chit chat 05:42, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: move request
No, not after they just finished the process. You'd have to take it up through the category move process too.  Pats 1  T / C  17:05, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

Joe Gordon
It is not a question of being a crystal ball, it is a question of what the facts are. The reality is that he is not a member until induction. So, this summer when there are dozens of stories saying that Joe Gordon just became a member of the Hall of Fame, people will be wondering why the morons at Wikipedia thought he has been a member since December. People will be watching his induction and wonder "why are they inducting this guy twice? According to Wikipedia, he's been a member since December." I guess if enough Wikipedians agree that up is down and down is up then they can alter reality by consensus. I will continue to make edits to reflect reality. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Fakhir Brown
Why is "at the Clemson State University" more accurate than "for the Clemson State University Tigers"? Why is a link to the school better than a link to the athletic program article?

Is "the Clemson State University" the way the university refers to itself? I though that was just "The Ohio State University". --DAW0001 (talk) 01:13, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas


 Iamawesome  800  is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding to their talk page with a friendly message.

Peter Jackson
Discussion has been opened at Talk:Tintin (film). I see no reason to limit filmmaker templates to just directions. :) Alientraveller (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Let's talk about it at Template talk:Peter Jackson... surely we can work out something that everyone can agree to. — Erik (talk • contrib) 17:12, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Olson
Ask another admin (i.e. Wknight94) - I forgot how to fix cut and pasters and don't feel like looking it up, or screwing it up.  Pats 1  T / C  21:54, 31 December 2008 (UTC)