Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:57, 7 May 2008

• WP:NFLD
• WT:NFL

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Selectivity on All-Pros

Drew Pearson (American football) is a perfect example. His "honors" were perfectly listed. However, for some reason, the "combining" did not take place with him. If the Alan Page "11 All-pro" model were to be followed then Pearson would be a 5-time All-Pro, but even after and update, he is listed as All-pro in 1975, 75, 77. That is 3 times. So, for him, the "new" and flawed rules don't apply, but for others (who some editors may like) they get their All-pro resumes puffed up. Like was mention potential synthesis 72.0.36.36 (talk)

ALl-Pros 2

As I predicted, all that changing of the All-pros two editors did now needs to be reversed. The wesbite they used for verification has changed its date to reflect accurately the All-Pros. Ted Hendricks is not an 11-time All-Pro. Is there going to be control of editors who are out-of-control? 72.0.36.36 (talk) 03:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Super Bowl XLVI

I've been working on a draft article, here, when would be an okay time to turn it into an official article? Thanks for any input, I don't want to start this up too soon. HoosierState 22:42, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

• I think it's a bit too early. i think you aught to wait bought a year. | 23:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I think it is also too early, and you should have waited before publishing it on to the mainspace.--~SRS~ 03:13, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Some help

could someone help me find some images to use in the article for Trey Lewis. Pretty much every image i've managed to come up with has been shot down by a certian wikipedian who's really stiff on image rules. | 23:09, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Team Mascots

I recently re-wrote the article on Steely McBeam, including pretty much everything that I thought was notable (and maybe a few things that were not, such as the arrest). It's still pretty short, as are most mascot articles. Would it be reasonable to merge all team mascots into the team's main article? After looking down the List of National Football League mascots it would seem most of the article's are shorter than the team infobox at the bottom. The mascot's are notable, but maybe not notable enough to have their own article. Blackngold29 15:47, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Drafted or Originally Drafted

A mediation case has been started on how strictly NFL player articles should be standardized. Some feel all articles should say a person was "originally drafted by..." while others feel they should just say the player was drafted by such and such team unless they've moved on to another team. Please see Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) for more discussion on this subject. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I do not think the word "originally" should be included. I see no reason as to why it should be. Simply saying "Bob Smith was drafted by Buffalo" is suffice. Saying "Bob Smith was originally drafted by Buffalo", seems to imply that he was drafted by Buffalo first (origianlly), but then another team came along and drafted him again (which is impossible as far as I know). Even if the player is traded it sounds fine to say "Bob Smith was drafted by Buffalo, then traded to Arizona." Unless a good reason is given as to why the word "originally" should be included I see it as making the sentence too wordy, and no need to discuss the topic further. (Can I also state this on the mediation page, as I was not invited?) Blackngold29 04:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally refers to the year, not the team.►Chris Nelson 04:10, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It makes no difference "Bob was drafted in 1989" makes complete sense. Blackngold29 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I think it should say Originally, sounds better--Star QB (talk) 04:14, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How so? It makes complete sense to say "Bob was drated by the Bengals." Part of proper english is concise writing. Blackngold29 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Originally is entirely redundant, except for like 2-3 cases (Bo Jackson, and um, Bo Jackson, and maybe Bo Jackson too) where a player was drafted twice, players are only drafted ONCE. Thus, since there is no need to differentiate between separate drafts, there is no need to use the word originally. A player may have originally PLAYED for a different team, but he was only drafted once, thus originally is nonsensical in that context. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:20, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Wrong.►Chris Nelson 04:27, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How is that wrong? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:28, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Because it's not what the sentence is saying or implying.►Chris Nelson 04:29, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly what it implies to me, and I'm obviously not alone. Blackngold29 04:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The word "originally" is an adverb that modifies the verb "drafted". When there is only one draft that is relevent, why does it need to be modified? What two different drafts do we need to differentiate in order to use a modifier like the adverb "orginally"? --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:32, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, you guys are still wrong. Think about it this way. I'm doing about to do a video for my Miami Dolphins blog on the acquisition of Akin Ayodele. I will probably say something like "He was originally drafted by the Jaguars in 2002 and played for seasons with the team. He played the previous two seasons in Dallas." Imagine that being said aloud. It does not imply he was drafted more than once at all - it's simply a way of saying that while it's not 2008 and he's a Dolphin, he originally entered the NFL as a third-round pick of the Jaguars in 2002.►Chris Nelson 04:37, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

How about excluding the word "originally"? It still makes sense; does it not? Also, proper writing and speaking can differ. Blackngold29 04:41, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, the word "originally" still makes no sense. If you said he originally PLAYED for the Jaguars, you'd be right. But it makes no sense with the word drafted. You could just say he was drafted by the Jaguars, but that he now plays for Dallas. You can say "he originally entered the NFL as a draft pick of the Jaguars" because originally is the modifier for the word "entered". Once you make it the modifier of the word "drafted" it makes no sense... --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:42, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Scratch that. Originally entered makes no sense either. Its redundant too. You can only enter once in this context. The only phrasing that makes sense with the word "orginally" is "originally played". --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:45, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Still wrong.

And Blackngold - I'm not saying it wouldn't make sense without the word - it would. But I feel this is better writing so I'm going to add it until forced to do otherwise.►Chris Nelson 04:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

So if it makes sense without it, why add it? If an english major is called into the discussion, and he says it's incorrect to add the word "originally" would you stop with no complaints? Blackngold29 04:47, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

My fiancee has a journalism degree from the University of Minnesota and has been an editor at a publishing company for several years now. She's sleeping now but when I get a chance (probably will be tomorrow night) I'll ask her about the grammar of it. Even if she says the grammar is wrong to add "originally" on every single article I don't think it'll matter though. He's too stubborn and has too much emotionally invested in this now. 67.137.0.28 (talk) 06:01, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I add it because I feel it is a better-written sentence with it. If an actual expert could prove me wrong and explain why my phrasing is invalid, then I guess I'd cease adding it. But I'm pretty confident I'm not wrong here. Writing is what I do. And considering Jayron just showed he didn't know what he was talking about by initially offering what he thought correct alternative that proved to be identical to my phrasing, we are currently without such an expert.►Chris Nelson 04:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need an expert. You just need someone that payed attention in 9th grade English class. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 04:54, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Oh good, I did. So I guess I win right?►Chris Nelson 04:56, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

No offense, but simply because something is your occupation does not mean you are good at it. I also paid attention in 9th grade english, and I would assume Jayron who was a Master's degree did also. Simply stating that he is incorrect because it doesn't sound right is not a very good rebuttal. As I stated above good speech =/= good writing. It is redundant, it makes sense without originally, and I still hold that is should not be included. Blackngold29 05:00, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Stating he is incorrect is just a fact.►Chris Nelson 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

It is an opinion at this point. Either you are correct or we are; possibly both but I doubt it. Unless some evidence is presented that it is proper english to use the word originally is presented; Yes I feel you must present the evidence as you are the one who started the debate (by added originally); then I feel no further need to discuss this. Blackngold29 05:06, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Seriously why is this such a big deal now, me and Chris have been doing this for a while and no one has complained or removed it before--Yankees10 22:31, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Had it been brought to my attention, I would have complained. I'm still waiting for evidence that it is proper english; if none can be presented soon there is no reason to keep this up. Blackngold29 00:33, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey, Black and GOld go here: Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) So you can contribute to the discussion there, it would be helpful, Jayron32 you, too.72.0.36.36 (talk) 00:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

What a coincidence, because I'm waiting for evidence that it isn't proper english, and if none can be presented soon there is no reason to remove it.►Chris Nelson 00:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayron already gave evidence, but you refuse to acknowlege it or present a mature rebuttal. Blackngold29 01:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

That Misplaced Pages:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-05-05 Tyrell Johnson (American football) is a bunch of crap, the IP 67.137.0.28 went to all the users that agreed with not using originally, meaning everyone that goes there agrees with him, so what is going to be solved, when other users that agree with me and Chris dont see it--Yankees10 02:13, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

So because there are people who disagree with you, it should be thrown out? Blackngold29 02:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Jayron didn't prove jack shit.►Chris Nelson 02:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

As far as I'm concerned neither have you. If you are indeed correct would that not mean that you should have no trouble proving your argument? Blackngold29 02:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Love it.. I take a fairly decent-length hiatus from Misplaced Pages.. and this is the first thing on my watchlist. If it's not too much to ask, could everybody all just think about this short question: is the word "originally" really worth a huge debate? Ksy92003 (talk) 03:14, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

No, it isn't. But I refuse to stand aside while people impliment improper english into Misplaced Pages. Blackngold29 03:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Good thing that's not an issue here.►Chris Nelson 03:57, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

• WikiProject National Football League
• WikiProjects task lists
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists