Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 01:01, 1 July 2009

This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries. Please leave a message, or, for more urgent issues, e-mail me.

Archive 1: 25 March – 10 August 2005
Archive 2: 10 August 2005 – 31 December 2006
Archive 3: 2007
Archive 4: January – June 2008
Archive 5: July – December 2008

Happy New Year!

		Happy New Year!
		Hey there, DoubleBlue! Happy new Gregorian year. All the best for the new year, both towards you and your family and friends too. I know that I am the only person lonely enough to be running this thing as the new year is ushered in, but meh, what are you going to do. I like to keep my templated messages in a satisfactorily melancholy tone. ;) Congratulations to Coren, Wizardman, Vassyana, Carcharoth, Jayvdb, Casliber, Risker, Roger Davies, Cool Hand Luke and Rlevse, who were all appointed to the Arbitration Committee after the ArbCom elections. I am sure I am but a voice of many when I say I trust the aforementioned users to improve the committee, each in their own way, as listed within their respective election statements. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to update the 2009 article, heh. Best wishes, neuro 00:44, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

CFL or NFL Infoboxes

Do you or other member of the CFL project care whether the CFL infoboxes or the NFL infoboxes are used, because the CFL teams work in the NFL infobox.--Giants58 21:42, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. I do indeed care. I notice that there have been improvements made to the NFLactive template to better account for CFL players but I still believe that it is inadequate and not as well designed. Of course, those things could be worked out and improved but above all my major concern about the NFL templates is the number/use of them. It is preposterous, in my opinion, to have an infobox for a player that is "active", then upon retirement, one must remove that infobox and start a completely new "retired" infobox (and of course, revert should the player return). If the player becomes a coach or other responsibility in the organisation, again a different infobox is required. Template:Infobox Gridiron football person is best because of its great flexibility for use amongst different gridiron leagues, active and inactive players, and coaches and other football responsibilities. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Okay, glad I asked before I changed a lot of templates :), as the only reason I asked was because when Cliff Washburn was signed by the Houston Texans, it was a huge thing to change it to the NFLactive template, which although I like I agree it doesn't appropiately support all football leagues and can be stupid when changing it to retired.--Iamawesome800 02:05, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree about the "huge thing to change". What do you like about NFLactive? DoubleBlue (talk) 03:08, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally like the team section as it's much easier to type as compared to having to type in all the breaks for each year and team.--Iamawesome800 03:10, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Forgot to add that I like how the infobox comes right out and says who the team is and doesn't make you read through part of the article to find out what team they play for.--Iamawesome800 03:14, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Good points. I can see how the playing years entering is easier. Though the result looks a little less neat, it actually might be a good change to make for accessibility reasons as well. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:17, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh yeah sure give him one but not me, I know how it is.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 20:54, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Your edits

Why are you removing the city-state and lifetime templates from articles? Both are more efficient ways of providing info that the way you're doing it. I really can't figure out why you'd remove them and your edit summaries didn't make much sense to me.►Chris Nelson 14:21, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

See this thread on my talk page.--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 14:24, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

The City-state template should only be used if the city article is located at CITY, STATE. If the city has it's own article with no state in the title, then link both separately. However, with U.S. states on Misplaced Pages, most of the city articles are located at CITY, STATE. Meaning the City-state template correctly links both the city and the state to their respective articles. If we want Atlanta to link to Atlanta, Georgia but Georgia to link to Georgia, we can either write:

• ], ]

-or-

• {{city-state|Atlanta|Georgia}}

Both accomplish the exact same thing, but the latter is much easier to type and read when editing. You'll notice I ONLY do it if the template doesn't cause re-directs. For example, I did not do it at Kerry Carter.

Now, the Lifetime template. Once again, this template is simply more efficient because it adds the two categories of Living people and birth year (or birth year and death year) without taking up two lines in the editing box.

As far as I can see, when used in the right situations, both templates are only more efficient and haven no drawbacks.►Chris Nelson 14:32, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

As you say, there is no difference between the direct link and the template so I don't see why you care if it's simplified to the direct link. I can conceive that you may find it easier to enter the info via a template but that's not the intended use of templates. Templates are for style boxes that permit common updates and boilerplate messages that may either be updated or are used via subst. I don't believe the wiki syntax should be hidden behind templates when it is not needed. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:15, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I note as well that I only substituted the templates in combination with other improvements to the article and left instances where there were no other changes to be made to the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I just don't see the downside, only benefits.►Chris Nelson 18:39, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

It obfuscates the wiki syntax which is harmful especially to new editors as it confuses how to mark-up pages. It also requires the templates to be rendered as well as the article each time the page is called, which is a waste of resources and is a tempting target for vandals to take advantage of a single edit that can affect many articles. The only benefit is a questionable ease of entering for the editor who adds it. DoubleBlue (talk) 18:43, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I don't understand any of that.►Chris Nelson 18:44, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

wiki insertion

Hi doubleblue,

I would like to have our business entered into Wiki - if i can. I see you've been active with the page I've put up, (search metriq), and appreciate your comments and feedback - hence this email. Being new to Wiki, may i ask if there is scope to add an entry for this business (perhaps under notable organizations) if links from the page point to journals, newspapers etc? I've read what's allowed and what's not, but i find that this doesn't always seem consistent to me. For example 'datacom' doesn't show a wiki page of datacom.nz, and yet there's a hyperlink from Wiki. Your advise on this topic would be most welcome.

Nice name by the way, does it have meaning other than perhaps 2 blue eyes?

Thanks for your time, nile (nile@metriq.biz)

Anguspickton (talk) 07:25, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Perfect!

And thanks for the biz alternative.

Best,

Angst.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anguspickton (talk • contribs) 09:53, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

Dear DoubleBlue: User GroundZero is now harassing me on my talk page. He or she called me a vandal and wants me to "justify" myself. I tried to calm his/her moods but I think this is getting personal for he or she. I think he/she is gonna be searching for some excuse to block me. Should I take some action on this matter? Thanks. --Againme (talk) 06:42, 7 February 2009 (UTC)--Againme (talk) 06:38, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Update: he's also saying that I did thing that I never did, for example this. Please let me know how to protect myself from more experienced users who may want to damage me. Thanks. --Againme (talk) 06:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Any interest

Hey, do you have any interest in helping me create the rest of the CFL player articles cause currently there are 87 articles to create and if you break it down by team:

• 17 for the Eskimos
• 17 for the Roughriders
• 2 for the Blue Bombers
• 23 for the Tiger-Cats
• 28 for the Alouettes

The rest are done, so any interest in helping me create these?--Iamawesome800 Talk to Me 21:29, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and by the way I changed my username.--Giants27 02:46, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, since you expressed interest I'll give you an update (as I have nothing better to do):

• 1 for the Stampeders (not currently on website)
• 17 for the Eskimos
• 4 for the Roughriders (not currently on website)
• 25 for the Tiger-Cats
• 28 for the Alouettes
• 4 for the Blue Bombers (not currently on website)

The other two are done for now ;-).--Giants27 TC 03:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Good work; it never ends. I have done a couple but I have little interest in creating an article for new players who may never play a game and I take too much of an interest in active players to just leave it as a stub to come back to later and instead find myself with endless browser tabs of research and CFL Facts and Figures books open to try and sort through. Of course, I will do what I can when I can. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:34, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Once again I will give you an update:

• 20 for the Eskimos
• 4 for the Roughriders
• 28 for the Tiger-Cats
• 14 for the Alouettes (slowly decreasing everyday)
• 12 for the Bombers (why don't they just create the bios when they sign them, cause a few weeks ago all done then they go out, sign these 12 guys and don't create bios for them).

Okay so 68 total (if my math is correct), and the Lions, Stampeders and Argonauts are done, and will stay that way since thank god they create bios, the day they sign them, unlike some people (that's two links).--Giants27 /C 02:59, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi!

The matter appears to be solved now. Yes, I'm refraining. Regards! Thank you! --Againme (talk) 22:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Dani Pacheco (2nd nomination)

Hi DoubleBlue. Well, this whole endeavour was more frustrating than I ever would have anticipated. I wanted to let you know that I admired the calmness in your contributions, your attempts to keep the discussion firmly rooted in policy. I thank you! As for me, I'm going to stick to music articles for a while. :) Paul Erik 14:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Just wanted to say thanks for the recognition! Danlaycock (talk) 23:00, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

List of school districts in Ontario

Hi Double Blue,

I don't think we're dealing with a language variation here. All the provinces across Canada have school districts (the geographical portions of their respective province delineated by borders with other districts) which are governed by school boards (groups of people who are in charge of education within their district). Because each district is matched with exactly one board, it would be redundant to have a list of school districts in a particular province as well as a list of school boards. In most cases, the name of the board is formed by simply appending the term "school board" to the name of the district anyway. Whether we have lists of school boards or lists of school districts is not important, but it is important to be consistent. All the lists for provinces in Canada now use the title format "List of school districts in x", just as the titles for lists corresponding to American states are formatted. I hope this answers your question. Please don't hesitate to contact me if you desire more clarification or discussion.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 12:57, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Double Blue,

You are correct in asserting that the individuals who serve on the board are trustees, and I agree that the board is the organization which holds authority. You state that the board holds "authority over schools in an area". The area to which you are referring is called the school district, as is made apparent by the names of the boards, which refer explicitly to the school district over which they hold authority. Taking the first item on the list, "Airy and Sabine District" is a geographical area, a school district, which is governed by the "Airy and Sabine District School Board", an organization comprised by group of trustees. This is not a regional variation in dialect; these are the terms employed across all the provinces.

Neelix (talk) 18:38, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Double Blue,

This article by Lynn Olson states that Ontario has 72 school districts. The following reliable sources also employ the term "school districts" when referring to geographically-delineated areas in Ontario: Leadership for Parent and Community Involvement: Lessons from Recent Research in Ontario, Ontario Music Educators' Association, Ontario Ministry of Education: Literacy and Numeracy Strategy. If you would like further citations, I am quite willing to provide them.

Neelix (talk) 04:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Double Blue,

I'm glad we've come to somewhat of an agreement. As to the question of multiple school boards in the same district, I believe that this only occurs where there is a division based on separate and public schools or English and French schools. A proper list of school districts would note their respective board distinctions, therefore having separate lists for boards and districts would be redundant. Of course, if you feel that the issue requires broader discussion, RFC is always an option.

Happy editing,

Neelix (talk) 15:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Double Blue,

I believe I understand what you are saying, however your explanation is not consistent with the assertion that there are no district boundaries. According to what you have stated, the public school boards have divided the province into different districts than have other special school authorities; surely a comprehensive list of the school districts in Ontario would explain these varying ways in dividing up the province into districts, and the districts from each schema would be listed separately, as they already are.

Neelix (talk) 16:06, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Double Blue,

I have not invented anything, and the citations and explanations I have already provided demonstrate that. If these do not convince you, feel free to commence a RFC as previously discussed.

Neelix (talk) 16:33, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

AWB

Wow, you're really loading up my watchlist with your changes. ;-)--Giants27 TC 23:28, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I've seen your activities on my watchlists seemingly every day. Turn about is fair play, so they say. :-) I'm playing with this tool that I've been reluctant to use in the past. It may occasionally be a productive and useful program. DoubleBlue (talk) 06:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

AWB can be a pain in the keester sometimes...but when it's useful, I find it absolutely indispensable. It's honestly the one and only thing keeping me from going all-Linux. Bearcat (talk) 03:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Dales and Boreham

Two questions:

1. Where did you see Burke Dales signed with Winnipeg, I already looked on TSN and CFL.ca, but I believe you since I saw in a story last night that he was close to a deal with them.

2. On Jamie Boreham's article it says his high school was Vancouver College, how is that possible?

--Giants27 TC 17:04, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Just found the Dales deal, so nevermind on that question.--Giants27 TC 17:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, thanks, and just to let you know, I have your talkpage on my watchlist so you can just comment here if I leave you a message.--Giants27 TC 17:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Cool. DoubleBlue (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh and make sure to do this, when updating roster templates.--Giants27 TC 23:18, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That is a real annoyance. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:20, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Category:Canadian Football League free agents

The NFL has one of these in Category:National Football League free agents and the category is automatically added to any players page with free agent in the currentteam section. What are your thoughts on this?--Giants27 TC 03:00, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I suppose we could have one. There are enough for a category and it's a useful collection. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:16, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Okay, cool, now I have no idea how to add the trigger to Template:Infobox Gridiron football person, so yeah. I'll go create the category.--Giants27 TC 03:36, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm in the middle of an expansion to Noel Prefontaine so I'll work on the template trigger after I've completed it. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 03:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Since you did most of the tougher stuff I'll go change and NFLactive infobox's to Gridiron football person.--Giants27 TC 14:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yeah. I meant to reply when I was done to let you know but I got tired and forgot. :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 21:53, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

What teams did you do last night? I already did the Argonauts, TigerCats and Roughriders.--Giants27 TC 22:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

I believe I did all the free agents listed at http://www.cfl.ca/page/2009-free-agent-tracker but only those that already had Infobox Gridiron football person. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Ken(ny) Johnson

Hi, I'm just wondering why you moved Kenny Johnson (American football) to Kenny Johnson (football player) when there are clearly two different football players who go by extremely similar names. Besides, your move violates consensus with American football players, as established in the NFL WikiProject and verified in WP:QUALIFIER. Tavix (talk) 00:13, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Bernard Williams

I agree that the article should be named Bernard Williams (football player) instead of Bernard Williams (Canadian football) due to the fact that he has also played in America's NFL, AFL and XFL leagues and not only the CFL, which he is no longer apart of, but what is to be done now? Beast from da East (talk) 07:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

It ought to be a simple revert to the original title of (football player) but it now requires admin assistance. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Anon User is Trolling me

Could you help me to get this user blocked or registered ? I know that all of the IPs originate from 69.159, though the last five digits may change. It is similar to the problem that I had with User:AverageGuy; they are always WP:Hounding me and make wholesale revert because of a minor fact tag, while doing nothing else constructive. GoldDragon (talk) 18:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions ! GoldDragon (talk) 17:52, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Request

As I have just warned Tavix, I have a request for you also. Please don't move any of these pages for the time being. It would better to either leave them when they are for a while, or wait for someone else to move them. It takes two to edit war you know, and it would be better if you could become less involved with this I think. Regards, Martin 15:10, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Article names

Tavix is dead on in how he is naming these articles. "American, Canadian, etc. football" distinguishes the articles from what "football" is known as in 90% of the world: soccer. This has been how the player articles have been named at WP:NFL for a long time.--2008Olympian 00:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

WP:QUALIFIER states pretty clearly that

It is generally preferred to use a noun that describes the person, rather than an activity, genre, or affiliation (chemist, not chemistry). However, this can sometimes lead to awkward or overly-long disambiguations, in which case a shorter but still clear term should be used (baseball, not baseball player and coach).

No. I am afraid that is quite untrue. The rule for disambiguation is to choose the most general descriptive dab possible. The reason for this becomes clear for these people who play multiple codes of football. There is no reason to disambiguate the code of football until there is a clash of names of two people with the same name who are both notable for playing football. The default dab for football players should be (football player) and WP:QUALIFIER makes that clear. The dab describes the person not the sport. DoubleBlue (talk) 00:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

A football player plays soccer. I opened a discussion at WT:NFL#Naming conventions to see if we can quit naming our articles as if they are about soccer players. I think that at least three editors have spoken out against the way DoubleBlue is naming these articles, yet he persists. Please come weigh in.--2008Olympian 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC) --2008Olympian 00:46, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Of course you are wrong. Football is an umbrella term that is quite useful as a general dab. I've responded there but if this is to be serious, it will need to go to WT:NCP. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

This has gone far enough. I think it's time that you and all the other editors interested in these page titles had a long discussion and decided once and for all a naming policy for these pages. While this discussion is taking place I will ask everyone to refrain from moving pages, wherever they are currently. My question to you, is where you think the most appropriate place for this discussion is. My suggestion, since this applies to all sports and not only football, might be Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Sports, although we will obviously advertise the discussion in other places. It's time we ended this lame edit warring. What do you think? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

You are editing against consensus

I am building consensus, and I've only edited these pages once. Four other editors (me, Tavix, Giants27, and Chrisjnelson) have told you that you are wrong, yet you persist. You are the one that is violating consensus here. I am just fleshing that out with the current discussion.--2008Olympian 01:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Quit what? DoubleBlue (talk) 01:23, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

See the title of the section. Focus on the edits, not the summaries.--2008Olympian 01:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Other editors and guide lines tell me that I have the consensus of the community. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:13, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

• Before we get too involved here, I do see your points and have read them so I am not deaf. However, because of WP:NPOV, we can't use "football" as every other country besides Canada and the United States uses "football" for soccer. Since Misplaced Pages is a worldwide collaboration, we can't do that. So, we must move on to a more suitable dab. Obviously (Canadian football player) is much too long of a dab and because of WP:QUALIFIER, we must use a simpler, and more general dab exactly what you say so we shorten it to (Canadian football). There shouldn't be a problem if a person played both codes, so you would use (gridiron football). Tavix (talk) 03:49, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

First, no. football is not exclusive to soccer. It is an umbrella term that encompasses many forms of ball sports. A neutral point of view recognises that it not owned by any particular code but is rather a general non-specific word. Secondly, I don't buy that Canadian football player is too long of a dab. I don't actually have a big problem with the term "gridiron" but there are more preferable steps before resorting to that one. DoubleBlue (talk) 03:54, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I never said football was exclusive to football. Conversely, it isn't exclusive to "gridiron" football either. Honestly, just stop moving the articles and we won't have an issue.Tavix (talk) 04:02, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

"My Name Is Earl" - "The List"

I see that you removed the list section/page from Misplaced Pages, and while I understand why, I think that it was more encyclopedic than fanatic. The same as the episode guide... there is no chit-chat about the series, but it does provide a substantial, sortable, encyclopedic archive of Earl's list, which is the focal point of the show. I request that this article be restored, or at the very least, sent to me so that I can view and manage it and you wouldn't have to worry about Misplaced Pages's standards.

This was one of the most informative pages that I have seen on Misplaced Pages, and it is a real shame that it was removed last August as part of an arbitrary clean-up.

ShinyHubCaps (talk) 03:22, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Wow, thanks for warning me, I didnt know that was something you werent allowed to do--Yankees10 23:09, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Huh?

Since this is my first year following the CFL, is it normal for no QB prospects being available for the draft because I've been creating articles for players listed here.--Giants27 /C 00:52, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it is precisely normal. This is a perennial discussion on something that needs to be improved in the CFL. With quarterbacks exempt from the import ratio, Canadians are rarely considered at all and those who do play quarterback sign up to try out at receiver or running back instead to have a chance to play. Keep in mind, too, that this is just the short list of those who will be working out at the Evaluation Camp this weekend. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....that's weird then who's throwing the balls to the receivers.:-) And yeah I know, but I figure that there are 61 players listed and 48 picks so odds are those are going to be the guys taken but guys like Tim Hightower who didn't go the NFL Combine and guys like Bernard Morris (I know that's a redlink, I created that article like 5 times, speedied 4 times, afd'd the fifth and final time) who did have no career. So although it's not the end all end all it's better than having like 20 redlinks in all the CFL Draft articles.--Giants27 /C 01:51, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
		For helping me with images and Flickr upload boat! Thanks! Giants27 /C 23:35, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for that. It is much appreciated. :-) DoubleBlue (talk) 03:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely random, but you think he's gonna go #1?--Giants27 /C 19:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

First round I would say but I understand that the TiCats are not looking for a Canadian running back. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Completely agree so who do you think will?--Giants27 /C 20:39, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

It's looking like Simeon Rottier. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:42, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the TiCats need a lot of help on the o-line and from what I heard Rottier did really well at the E-Camp this weekend.--Giants27 /C 20:46, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

He did get beat in some one-on-ones http://www.cfl.ca/media/videoCFL/id/6185 but apparently towered and out-weighed the other linemen by far. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:55, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah he's probably not the best prospect available, but the TiCats need o-line help so I tend to agree with you in that they're probably going to take him.--Giants27 /C 21:00, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

By the way, you were joking about who would be throwing the balls when there are no QBs invited to the workouts. Turns out all three Argos quarterbacks were there throwing. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I was joking. But I seriosly didn't know about who was throwing to the receivers and running backs until I read about how Cody Pickett overthrew a ball to James Green and Green ran into a coach. --Giants27 /C 21:14, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

You think you're up for it?--Giants27 /C 01:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll honestly have to sleep on that but I appreciate your confidence. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:04, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Take your time, no rush.--Giants27 /C 02:05, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to read this.--Giants27 /C 02:07, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Any suggestions, for Abraham Morlu (who if you don't know is a former Olympian), do we have the Olympic infobox and the regular one or do we just add olympic info to Template:Infobox Gridiron football person?--Giants27 /C 02:24, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

No, I hadn't got around to looking too much at his bio though he sounds interesting. I think that he is most notable for his football since he is currently with a pro team and he didn't win any medals (as far as I know) so we could just add any Olympic achievements to his highlights section and detail it in the article. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I figured, but just wanted to check. I'll create the article tomorrow, unless you feel like creating it. Here's an article seems like you're right that he didn't win a medal.--Giants27 /C 02:34, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Where's your head at, adminship wise?--Giants27 /C 22:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Anything? See above question.--Giants27 /C 22:11, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I missed the earlier question. I think that I will probably go for it in the future because I do like to help out but I don't currently have the time/interest in answering the questionnaire and talking about myself. I'll let you know DoubleBlue (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

No problem, oh and read this if you've got the time, I didn't write it but it's amusing.--Giants27 /C 22:08, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I would wait until you are ready. There is no advantage in rushing into it! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:15, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, but I just want to be on the look for it don't want to many of those "Beat the noms" :-)--Giants27 /C 22:22, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Re: Huh?

I have no idea, I think I may have accidentally clicked on rollback in my watchlist. ~Richmond96 t • c 22:06, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Edit summaries

Why do I have to search through the documentation of {{birth-date and age}} and {{death-date and age}}, finding little explanation, and then your talk page responses in order to find out the reason for this change? DoubleBlue (talk) 21:04, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Is it correct that these templates work equally well with the parameters that the old templates used and therefore you could have simply proposed replacing the coding of these templates over those rather than forking date templates? DoubleBlue (talk) 21:07, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for dropping the summary, most of these changes have summaries. No, the new templates accept dates only in their natural form. It doesn't accept numeric values. Certainly, folks can go on using the old templates if they feel comfortable with them. If I thought a lot of people really cared about what the recommended best practice was, I would go to great lengths to document the change. Actually, the topic has been discussed at length on MOSNUM. The old numerically oriented templates do not work equally well, although for the case of football, some of the deficiencies of the old template are irrelevant. If you feel that the old numeric way of declaring death date and age is more clear (see example for golf above), or there are other reasons to recommend the numeric templates, then feel free to revert the change. I personally disagree, but if you think there is some compelling reason to keep on going with the arcane syntax, then I won't contest it. But if it is just inertia, I don't see why we should keep on perpetuating this error. -J JMesserly (talk) 21:54, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Sorry that was probably a little harsh and I should have assumed good faith. The mouse does occasionally slip to "Save" accidentally before one has a chance to type the explanation. I like the idea of natural form date entry but I am not clear enough about the dispute between you and Andy on the metadata within. I am very concerned about having two sets of templates that do basically the same thing and concerned about two templates with confusingly similar names that take data in different ways. A decision should be made which set to use and replace the others. Thanks. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:11, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Microformat metadata is emitted as with the old template. Actually, the old death date templates don't emit death date at all. If you are interested in verifying this, I can give you some pointers to an easy to install toolbar that will allow you to verify this. When you start to dig into it, you will find that the old template is in point of fact deficient with respect to microformat encoding. Anyway, Andy made his case at MOSNUM and the concensus minus Andy was that the new template is preferred. Certainly, what folks at MOSNUM think is not necessarily what is best for all domains, and so I am progressively touching all affected groups to surface any issues not covered by the current template and proposal. It is a slow but methodical process. Unless this fails to reach consensus, I see the old template being deprecated, and a bot switchover to the new format. I think it is inevitable we will switch over, the only question is how long it will take. -J JMesserly (talk) 22:23, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

I already have the tool and already tested the output. :-) I got tired of the debates at MOSNUM and stopped following the discussion there. Obviously, it is better to have a single set of templates for the same purpose. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:30, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

←Structured data is useful and to be fair, natural dates weren't even possible last year. Splarka I think put in the #time parser function, and it did have some problems at first. Anyway, it basically leverages a rather robust date/time function call in php5.0. You can do stuff like "next Thursday" after a date, as well as specify timezone by location- handling daylight savings time adjustments correctly. The natural language date templates basically wraps the #time function and relies on it for everything, including doing the date arithmetic needed for the dtend calculation, which the old end date template doesn't do at all. To be fair, earlier template developers were aware of the #time function, but ran into some of its earlier limitations that have since been fixed, for instance. So now it works much better and as for templates using dates, the wikitext will be a lot clearer for novice contributors to understand. -J JMesserly (talk) 23:03, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Israel Idonije

I see that you're apparently watching this page, so I'd like to take this opportunity to stop babysitting it. I got dragged into watching it after a run-in with the same user whose edit you just reverted (though it was under a different sock account), and frankly, I'm tired of dealing with this idiot. Since I see you're up for adminship, this will be a good test of your patience! While your reason for the revert was perfectly valid, and one I mentioned to him before (the 2004 season appearing twice in the infobox), it's not the half of it: it's flat-out false information. Idonije appeared in 15 games for the Bears in '04, so he couldn't have been "practice squad only" as specified by the asterisk. Upon digging further, I found that he wasn't on the PS at all - he signed a 2-year deal with the Bears prior to the season and was not subsequently released - a prerequisite to being signed to the practice squad. Anyway, that's all I know about this, and now leave the matter in your capable hands. Majorclanger (talk) 00:30, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Actually correction (I love doing this), DoubleBlue is not yet up for adminship, pending his acceptance.--Giants27 /C 00:35, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Point taken! But it's still a job for a more patient man than I. Majorclanger (talk) 00:57, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I was kidding....--Giants27 /C 01:06, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I know... but I hate emoticons and refuse to use them! Majorclanger (talk)

I will definitely keep an eye on it and I appreciate getting your background info. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 01:10, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure - I'm glad to be rid of it! Watch out for new socks, as I just reported this latest one to the admin who blocked the others. Won't be hard to spot, as this guy apparently doesn't have a drop of subtlety in his body. Majorclanger (talk) 01:16, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh and you do know the sockpuppeter User:Chicagobears94 has not been blocked, right?--Giants27 /C 01:39, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed that he has been editing under that account as well today but I thought I'd await the repercussions of Majorclanger's report. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed too, but just wanted to see if I was the only one aware.--Giants27 /C 01:43, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm surprised that he doesn't appear to have been blocked before. DoubleBlue (talk) 01:46, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Sorry and Thanks!

Blame it on my aging eyes - you of course were right, and I failed to see the repeated "was" in the Albert Johnson article. Very courteously handled as well - too rare on Wiki! regards, Sensei48 (talk) 19:15, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Not a problem. In fact, one might just as well put the blame on the idiot who doubled the was in the first place. for those who don't check the link, that "idiot" was me. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank You

Hello DoubleBlue,

Thank you for the nice welcome to Misplaced Pages, and the tips you left for me. At present, family demands and school don't leave me much time to contribute. I've always been a stickler for accuracy and odd tidbits of trivia, so when I see something out of place I'll fix it up. One day (perhaps at retirement) I will have more time to make my contribution and to study all the tips and rules etc. Thanks again for the welcome!

Archangel-22

--G. Michael Hall 23:29, 14 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Archangel-22 (talk • contribs)

For the or Currently with

To me using "for the TEAM of the LEAGUE" is better because is sums it up more and "currently with TEAM of the LEAGUE" is more for practice roster players.--Giants27 /C 01:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Doesn't bother me greatly either way. You probably seen that I've been trying to improve on the wording on that critical first sentence. As per WP:LEAD, it should state pretty clearly and simply who he is and why he's notable; i.e., he's a professional (Canadian) football player. The current status is, of course, also part of who he is. I've decided to abandon the "currently playing for" wording as it's not really true out of season or if the person is on the practice or injury roster. I was thinking "is a professional Canadian football POSITION currently with TEAM of the LEAGUE" was a fairly universal and descriptive wording. I suppose one could just as well say he is a "professional Canadian football POSITION for the TEAM of the LEAGUE"; it just felt to me that the emphasis was more on the person being a pro football player in the first wording, and more on being a position on the team in the second wording. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:12, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm....never thought of it that way it does sound like he's the cornerback for the team (which he is but he isn't in a weird way) hmmm....yeah.--Giants27 /C 02:24, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

reply from Schmidtmandaddy

Hi DoubleBlue,

Thanks very much for your welcome and for your comments. They’re much appreciated.

I do work for the CBC, specifically for the CBC Digital Archives site. As the site's media encoder, I'm responsible for posting historic audio and video content to the web. Once I do so, I tend to check the Internet to see what else is out there on the specific subject.

From time to time, I come across a Misplaced Pages page - particularly on very specific subject in Canadian history - which I think could benefit from the audiovisual content available only on our site. If there are no similar links available in the External Links area, I sometimes add a link to our new content.

By way of background, the CBC Digital Archives site is a commercial-free, educational resource of more than 12,000 historic radio and television clips, plus hundreds of lesson plans. Teachers tell us these clips are firsthand documents their students find helpful when researching aspects of Canadian history.

The content on our site is primarily copyrighted AV clips that I can't contribute to Misplaced Pages, but I do think they can help verify and build on what is already there. (Our team does occasionally add facts or fix factual errors as we come across them.)

It's my understanding that this is the sort of linking encouraged by various Misplaced Pages policies. I've spent some time going through the various policies you mentioned (thank you!) to refresh my understanding, and I don't believe I'm violating any of them - though if you disagree, please let me know!

A couple of guideline-specific comments:

• Policy on neutral point of view

All content on the CBC Digital Archives site is rigorously researched and edited for neutrality by trained journalists.

• Guideline on spam

- CBC owns the copyright of the content I link to - It is audio and video content, not text that could be added to the Misplaced Pages page - The site is non-commercial, with no ads or products for sale - the links are added by me, by hand, only on pages for which external sources are lacking, and the CBC content is exactly focused - I add all my links to the bottom of the list

• Guideline on external links

I believe the links I'm adding fit this description of "What should be linked":

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Misplaced Pages article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

- Copyright is being respected - Source isn't blacklisted or whitelisted - Content is accessible - Links only to proper related content, useful, tasteful etc. - Links are permanent

• Guideline on conflict of interest

- I'm adding this content solely as a service to people interested in the subject matter - I have nothing to gain from it, and as an ad-free site, neither does the CBC Digital Archives. - I do this out of personal interest; I don't get paid to do it. - The content is neutral and held to the highest editorial standards

Whew! That's a lot of policy, but I do think I'm respecting the guidelines. But please let me know if I'm missing something. And do tell me if you think I should post from a CBC account, or suggest links on a Talk page first, or something.

If I've added a link that you think is poorly targeted, or where the reader would be better off without a link to audiovisual materials I'm linking to, I'm happy to remove those links.

I should also mention that I'm hoping to contribute non-link content to Misplaced Pages as well. Though I work for a media-based site, we do sometimes have text that Wiki doesn't. And in some cases CBC has photos for Wiki pages that don't have one (I just need to get permission first.)

Thanks again for bringing this up. Much appreciated!

Erich Schmidt —Preceding unsigned comment added by Schmidtmandaddy (talk • contribs) 20:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Bob Cunningham

My name is April Lintz. I am the curator of The Bob Cunningham Collection. I am creating an article about Bob Cunningham the aviation artist. I would like for the Bob Cunningham page to be a disambiguation page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aklamers (talk • contribs) 22:16, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a talk page stalker or anything but the article you are creating has been marked for deletion as a copyright violation, so it's going to be deleted really soon.--Giants27 /C 22:19, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. If an article can be created from WP:RS that stays, then I would be glad to make it a dab but there is no need if there are no other Bob Cunningham articles. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:23, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I have already sent an e-mail to demonstrate that I am the copyright holder. Here is a link to the page I have been working on. Please add him to a Bob Cunningham dab page.

--Aklamers (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

For now, I have placed a hat note on Bob Cunningham. DoubleBlue (talk) 23:51, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Encouragement is appreciated.

Thank you very much! Ronaldomundo (talk) 20:54, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Something you might be interested in

This, more CFL stuff on the NFL infobox.--Giants27 /C 19:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Temporary injunction and your use of my monobook script

Hi DoubleBlue,

I am pleased to see that you have used my monobook script in the past; I hope you've found it useful.

I have to let you know on your talk page that ArbCom has announced a temporary injunction against the "mass delinking of dates". You can still delink dates on an occasional basis; however, you may wish to be cautious and use the script only for its non-date functions until the issue is resolved by an RFC poll. I oppose autoformatting and hope people will vote to end it. You may wish to express your view on autoformatting and date linking in the RFC at: Misplaced Pages:Date_formatting_and_linking_poll.

Regards Lightmouse (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Townships in Ontario (not Gwillimbury)

Hey DoubleBlue; recalling some discussions we've had in the past, do you know if King Township was created from a merger of two townships, or if the historical maps (here and here) simply split the township into north and south for convenience? I was uner the impression of the latter, until I saw this and this (see Township column). It could also be that the County Atlas project is taking some liberties structuring their data. Any ideas? I'll dig around some more in the meantime. Mindmatrix 17:44, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

I believe that you are absolutely correct. That appears to be a cartographical rather than political division. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I didn't find anything else about this online, but I'll be sure to check it on my next visit to one of the Archives in the region. Mindmatrix 15:54, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

For your edification, I was browsing through a few old texts, and found that the "Old Survey" of King was represented by that boundary. The northern chunk was split off from West Gwillimbury at some point in time (I have yet to determine when), and became part of King. Similarly, Aurora was once part of King, as were Oak Ridges and Armitage/Newmarket. So, the old map is correct, but they were nonetheless never distinct entities. Mindmatrix 16:17, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Jermaine Mays

What do you think of the changes I've made to it?--Giants27 /C 02:28, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

It's very good. Why did you remove him playing for the Berlin Thunder from the infobox, though? DoubleBlue (talk) 20:21, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Because usually, if a guy was playing for a team (Vikings and Colts in this case) and was assigned to Europe then he was still a member of the Colts or whoever since he's under contract for them not Berlin. However if he played for the Thunder and was not assigned by an NFL team, then it should be listed see Huey Whittaker.--Giants27 /C 20:42, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

He may have been signed to an NFL contract at the time but he was playing for the Thunder and should be listed as such. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Of course, that's why it's mentioned in the body of the article. PS- Does this mean you're back?--Giants27 /C 22:01, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm pre-occupied at the moment but check in now and then.

I think that the infobox should have a simple and clear list of the teams the person played for in chronological order. The text of the article can go into details of contracts and assignments. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair point, go ahead and put it in if you want, I won't object although I tend disagree.--Giants27 /C 23:19, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks like Jamall Lee signed with the Carolina Panthers so there goes my idea. haha PS did you see that Jermaine Mays made it onto the main page pretty cool since it was a one liner last week.--Giants27 /C 15:52, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Nice. I hadn't seen your report before. Well thought out though I still thought and think TiCats weren't interested in Lee. He seemed most likely to go back to his home province of BC to me. He may still get picked in a later round in case he doesn't catch on in the NFL. Check out http://www.ridleyscouting.com/CFL09mockdraft.pdf and http://en.montrealalouettes.com/article/bedell-cfl-canadian-draft-preview for some competing opinions though, sadly, without the accompanying logic. I am also sadly going to miss the televised CFL Draft as I'm working at that time so if you're thinking of working on 2009 CFL Draft live, it's likely all yours until that evening when I will be anxious to look it all over. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 21:45, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Does TSN update their draft order live? Cause' I have zero canadian stuff down here.--Giants27 /C 21:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it will be updated live on TSN.ca and CFL.ca. Last year there was also a live feed on TSN.ca of the first two rounds, which will be televised this year and I suspect still broadcast on the net as well. Jared Zabransky just signed with Esks. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:10, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks I'll make sure to follow it and just did it, where'd you hear/see it?--Giants27 /C 22:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Dwaine Wilson 1985.JPG listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Dwaine Wilson 1985.JPG, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MBisanz 00:46, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I really think that using a sports card to identify a player who is now deceased and little hope of a free-use photo becoming available is fair-use but I'm not willing to fight for it at this time. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

AfDs

Hey if you get a chance can you check out: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Bear Pascoe, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Nick Schommer, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Justin Rascati, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Matt Sherry, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Chris Denney, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Lee Robinson (American football) and then the prod on Bernard Morris. And finally there's a discussionhere on the notability of sports people mainly if you have to play to be notable (relevant AfDs: Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/James Wyche, Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Jaymar Johnson) and if you are drafted does that mean you are inherently notable because of that (relevant AfDs are currently open) and if drafted from a small school are you notable or not notable (relevant AfD Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/John Nalbone). I know you're busy but can you please check these out if you get a chance. Thanks!--Giants27 /C 18:19, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I commented on the proposal at User talk:Grsz11/Notability of sportspeople. I don't currently have the time or energy to research the articles. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem and I've got a question does the CFL have mass UDFA signings like the NFL or no?--Giants27 /C 00:57, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with the NFL's mass UDFA signings but I would say no, there's not really mass signings. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Will at least some get signed?--Giants27 /C 20:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Of course but camp opens in only a few weeks now! :-). DoubleBlue (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Carlson

I know he's signed but has he officially been drafted by the TiCats yet?--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 19:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Whoops nevermind just realized he was drafted, I've got to read it better. haha--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 20:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry. I usually link to a source for confirmation but there was none posted on the internet at the time even though it had been announced at 2pm EDT. DoubleBlue (talk) 22:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Portal:Current events/Canada

Hi there, I'd be interested in adopting this portal, but I would need someone to explain it to me. Could you help me out, or refer me to someone? Please reply here. Thanks, MacMed (talk) 22:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice! MacMed (talk) 22:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

File:Jim Thomas (Canadian football).jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Jim Thomas (Canadian football).jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. MBisanz 02:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Raymond Fontaine

Y Done Feel free to check it over before I nom it.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks great! I don't really have time at the moment but it's hard to resist coming by here anyway during all the roster moves at training camp. DoubleBlue (talk) 21:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I hear that when training camp rolls around it always brings daily moves from each team.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 22:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. Quite a few moves in the first few days, then lots of cuts in the end. DoubleBlue (talk) 02:58, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I hate when players use different names with different teams.--Giants27 (t|c|r|s) 00:28, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I see someones' been busy today, haha, great pictures!--Giants27 (t|c) 02:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Not perfect but they're better than the nothing that we had! DoubleBlue (talk) 04:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I echo Giants27's sentiments on the pics! Great stuff! I, too, was @ Argo Fan Day, & attempted to take a head shot of Adam Rita for his page! Unfortunately, all the pics I took on that day were mysteriously erased! :o( Amchow78 04:06, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. That's too bad about your photos! I saw you at Fan Day and on the field after the game but decided to lay low. I think I'll say Hi next time I see you at the game anyway. Cheers! DoubleBlue (talk) 21:15, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

You gotta identify yourself one of these days! Fellow Argo wikipedians unite! ;o) BTW, those pics that I thought disappeared from my digital camera's memory card mysteriously re-appeared today! Thus, with a huge sigh of relief, I now have Adam Rita's head shot which I just uploaded onto Misplaced Pages & included onto his Misplaced Pages page. Amchow78 00:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:TheHappyGang-display CBCMuseum.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:TheHappyGang-display CBCMuseum.jpg, has been listed at Misplaced Pages:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Mosmof (talk) 00:29, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Tyrell Fenroy

What would you do with that situation? (You'll see what I'm talking about, on the article)--Giants27 (c|s) 22:30, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

This reminds me a little of the Burke Dales contract situation last February. I don't think he's actually "signed" with either team but just "agreed to terms" with Calgary and drafted by UFL. I would say report what the papers say but leave the teams out of the infobox till he actually appears on a transaction wire or team roster. DoubleBlue (talk) 04:58, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey are you interested in expanding Richie Hall, because I was thinking of getting a three article DYK for July 1st along with Tumbo Abanikanda and Mark Restelli.--Giants27 (c|s) 19:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, that's nice. I'll see what I can manage. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:24, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I noticed you removed Lowber from the navbox, geez I really wish I hadn't just readded him. :)--Giants27 (c|s) 20:25, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Argos are usually pretty good about keeping these things public and up to date but I wonder if they were feeling a little coy about releasing a guy that was knocked into last week trying to return a kick to make the team. Anyway, after I made some inquiries about it, they quietly removed him from the rosters. DoubleBlue (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't blame them whenever a guy suffers that kind of injury with the hopes of making the roster and you cut him then that doesn't show well for you but they handled the situation the best they could.--Giants27 (c|s) 20:43, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

So, what do you think?--Giants27 (c|s) 18:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

So...

...What — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tlyne (talk • contribs) 03:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Bellefeuille formatting

On my screen, the word recievers was appearing on a separate line. My newest edit should rectify this problem. --Hirolovesswords (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

BLP

Agreed. Consider it killed. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport

Just thought I'd let you know that I've removed the above mentioned template again from the articles that you've added it to in recent days. The template (like any other current event template) isn't supposed to be used on each and every article that can be considered a "current event". Instead, the purpose of these templates is to warn our readers of rapid change and/or massive editing. Therefore, if none is ongoing, there is no reason to warn our readers. --Conti|✉ 09:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Of course I hadn't noticed that you had changed the documentation guidelines two months ago to match the warning style of Current that it is changing rapidly. It was formerly an info box that the article was about an ongoing sport and necessarily incomplete. I don't particularly object in that the lead paragraph should probably sufficiently state that it is an ongoing sport event but you have pretty much made the template useless and a duplicate of Current. It's also not such a bad thing to have info boxes. DoubleBlue (talk) 15:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I always thought that all the "current" templates (those that you can find at Category:Temporal templates) are basically a more specific copy of Template:Current, and that, therefore, the same guidelines should apply. If you disagree, then I'm more than willing to discuss this with you, of course. But, to be honest, I don't see the point in Template:Current sport at all if it is not in some way used the way Template:Current is used. Practically all of our articles will never be complete, and, as you say, an article should make it obvious enough that something is ongoing when that is the case. Additionally, these articles (like 2009 Saskatchewan Roughriders season) already have infoboxes. Maybe those could be used instead to indicate that a season is currently ongoing. --Conti|✉ 15:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't seen the the Current sport template as an exact subset of Current. To me, the presence of the box indicated that this article was different from most articles on Misplaced Pages in that the story is ongoing — You should expect that there are missing and empty sections; that the playoff brackets may have empty boxes and that the statistics section is missing, for instance. Rather than plaster the article with silly and useless expand, update, and other tags, a Current sport tag noted the fact that this is an ongoing sport event with information changing as it unfolds: expect missing and to be completed sections. Of course all Misplaced Pages articles are unfinished in terms of editing but these current sport articles are different in that they are about events starting and finishing in a fixed time period that, at times, coincide with editing periods. DoubleBlue (talk) 16:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And here's where I disagree with you, I think. First of all, we have quite a lot of articles that are different in that way, and if we would use such templates on all of them.. well, I'm pretty sure that would be thousands of articles, if not more. But that's not really my main point. If an article makes it obvious that it is about something currently ongoing (as it should), all the things that you've mentioned above should be obvious to our readers as well. No one who knows that an article is about a current sports season will ask himself where the final statistics are, for instance, or why not all brackets have been filled yet. We don't need a box telling our readers just that. I agree that we might if it is not already obivous, but, as I said, it should be obvious in all articles. I don't see any need for other cleanup boxes for similar reasons, either. There's no need for an expand tag on statistics until those statistics are actually available, for example. --Conti|✉ 19:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

And, as I said before, I don't particularly object to losing the Current sport template since the lead paragraph could probably be sufficient to state that but, at the same time, I also don't think an infobox for the purpose is such a bad thing either. DoubleBlue (talk) 19:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Barnstar

The Silver Maple Leaf Award For your yearly efforts with WP:CFL and Canada in general, I have to say I'm surprised you haven't gotten one of these yet.--Giants27 (c