User talk:Chrisjnelson/Archive 19

Template help

{{helpme}}

I am looking for help creating a template from someone that is familiar with all the code and how that all works. In the past, I remember there being a place where they have a list of users who are knowledgeable about this but I can't remember where it is. I need to either find that list of editors, or get help from a user that is knowledgeable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I am fairly good with templates. Explain your question, and if I cannot answer it I will find someone who can- L'Aquatique[talk] 02:47, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Take a look at Template:Atlanta Hawks roster. It is the standard template used for NBA rosters, created with Template:NBA roster header and Template:NBA roster footer. I want to create an NFL version very similar to the NBA roster template, only I need help creating it because I'm not great with all the code. I can envision how I want it to be, I just need help. Essentially, I need help making NFL versions of the roster and header templates, for use in roster templates.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:54, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I can help you do that, but something's come up and I have to go out for a couple of hours. You can either remove the helpme template and wait for my return (about three hours, I'd think) or you can keep it up and see if someone else comes along I'll check this as soon as I get back. Thanks-- L'Aquatique[talk] 02:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No rush. If you could help, that'd be fantastic.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 03:00, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Miami Dolphins roster

Players

Coaches

Pos. No. Name Height Weight DOB From RB 23 Brown, Ronnie 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) 230 lb (104 kg) 42 Auburn Active G / C 60 Byrne, Mike 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m) 300 lb (136 kg) 38 Delaware Active WR 19 Ginn, Jr., Ted 5 ft 11 in (1.8 m) 180 lb (82 kg) 39 Ohio State Active CB 22 Lehan, Michael  6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) 200 lb (91 kg) 44 Minnesota Active/PUP TE 88 Martin, David 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) 265 lb (120 kg) 45 Tennessee Active FB 45 Mauia, Reagan 6 ft 0 in (1.83 m) 260 lb (118 kg) 40 Hawaiʻi Active QB 4 McCown, Josh 6 ft 4 in (1.93 m) 215 lb (98 kg) 45 Sam Houston State Active OLB 74 Moses, Quentin 6 ft 5 in (1.96 m) 260 lb (118 kg) 41 Georgia Active WR -- Perry, Tab  6 ft 3 in (1.91 m) 215 lb (98 kg) 42 UCLA IR

Head coach Tony Sparano Legend (DP) Unsigned draft pick (FA) Free agent (S) Suspended Injured Roster Last transaction: 2008-08-05

All right, this is what I've got so far. The templature is essentially identical to the NBA one, with a few minor tweaks such as positions. I still have to figure out why it isn't showing the name... L'Aquatique[talk] 07:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's looking fantastic. A couple of comments/requests:

• Can we do away with the nationality column? I'm pretty sure it violated WP:FLAG and it's not as relevant in football since most players are American.
• Can we change the "From" column to "College"?
• Also, when looking at Template:Atlanta Hawks roster, how does the disambiguation work for colleges. I don't understand how what you type in the template gets you to the right page but also displays the right thing on the template. For example on the Hawks template, how does typing "Oak Hill Academy" get directed to "Oak Hill Academy (Virginia)"?

We also already have color template set up so that the right team colors are added. You can use Template:NFLPrimaryColor and Template:NFLSecondaryColor for the top bar (first one background, second text), and Template:NFLAltPrimaryColor and Template:NFLAltSecondaryColor for the second row of bars.

You know, I'm just not entirely sure. I spent last night mulling it over and I don't really know why I can't get the name to work. I'm going to hand you over to someone with more templating experience than me, mmkay? L'Aquatique[talk] 06:52, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

That's it for now, I'll have more once it's updated. Thanks so much for your help!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:02, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, no problem. I appreciate you trying to help.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 07:38, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It uses Template:player2 and Template:College to do the piping. But don't you think a template with this amount of info for NFL players would be, um, ginormous? Pats1 ^T/C 20:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be, but if there was only one per team page I don't see it as an issue, and it'd have a lot of good info.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

L'Aquatique, I tweaked the arguments a bit and now it works (see above change). Seems odd, no? —Wknight94 (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, but you're looking for "last, first"? Hold please... —Wknight94 (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Here ya go (see above). This is what they do on Template:Atlanta Hawks roster. They only use the arguments that are necessary. I don't know why unnecessary arguments breaks stuff but I guess it doesn't matter if removing them works. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

So Wknight, can you help be complete the template?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Uh-oh, what did I get myself into?!  :) Later tonight I probably can – if no one else has taken a stab first. —Wknight94 (talk) 21:01, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Bwahahaha... Consider the buck passed! L'Aquatique[talk] 00:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmph. Well don't go too far. I do a lot of programming in RL but haven't done much of this template stuff. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I fixed the number column and got the colors working correctly I think (see above). What's next? —Wknight94 (talk) 01:30, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Good point, Pats1. I reduced the line-height a little to reduce the vertical massiveness but it's still quite long. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you think it's too long, even if there's only one on every team page?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure who you're asking but it's fine by me... You'll probably have spacing issues if you try to go to two columns of players with all that information per player. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah I wasn't going to try to have the same info in the right column. I think we should put practice squad players over there, the legend and then external roster, depth chart, transaction links like we have in the current templates.

So why is it so bunched together right now?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:45, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

You mean top-to-bottom? I did that on purpose with this edit – it can be undone by just removing the "line-height: normal;" —Wknight94 (talk) 18:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

No I mean horizontally. It barely goes more than halfway across my screen.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:58, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, be careful. What resolution are you running at? I usually design for 1024x768. On my monitor, at that resolution, the template ran into the TOC on the right and everything wrapped to the next line and looked hideous. You might also want to change the names from Joe Blow to something longer like T. J. Houshmandzadeh or something. —Wknight94 (talk) 19:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well how come Template:Atlanta Hawks roster is spread out horizontally and takes up the whole page?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oooo, yuck. I just made that happen with this edit. You may want to undo that... —Wknight94 (talk) 19:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I think it will look better that way once it's all filled in. Plus, I'd like to add another column or two. Addressing one thing at a time: can we add a new column (between weight and college) that displays the birth date and age template? (So essentially on the template it looks like "August 22, 1987 (age 20)"? To do this, I think we'd need to add fields of birth day (to type in August 22) and birth year (to add 1987) to the /player template. Can we do that?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:57, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, you must be using Internet Explorer. From my Firefox browser, this looks unbelievably nasty where your archive box and the template morph together into a jumbled mess. Anyway, I can look into the new columns sometime tonight... —Wknight94 (talk) 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Hellz naw, Firefox all the way. And it beautiful.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Really? I'm on Firefox 2.0.0.16 on Vista and was earlier on some version on XP and they both looked ridiculous. Anyway, what's the latest? Still having problems? —Wknight94 (talk) 22:32, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

How about this for birth date and age? Maybe break it into two columns? —Wknight94 (talk) 23:06, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I've on the newest version of Firefox 3 and Vista, this is what I see. Looks great to me. Also, I think I've pretty much got it all figured out (amazingly) as I've added a column for status and one for age that works fine. I've already created the appropriate templates at Template:NFL roster header, Template:NFL roster footer and Template:NFLplayer. The only thing I need to figure out now is how to make the v-d-e thing in the right corner take on the font color that the title has.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I thought you wanted birth date in there too. I've tried fighting with those v-d-e things in the past. I don't remember if I ever solved it. I can look into it too. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I did at first, but then I realized it wouldn't sort right (or at least not without things getting complicated) so I used the age template and now it just displays that, which is easily sortable and really all the necessary info anyway.

Yeah I know there is a way, I just forget how.

Also, I opened the template up in IE and it came up clean too, so it looks fine in Firefox and IE for me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:22, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually there is one thing that would be good. Would there be a way to make a field in the player template that would say "rookie = yes" and if you put yes it'd italicize the player's name?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:25, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it looks fine on IE for me too. It only looked bad on Firefox on your talk page above because it clashed with the archive box. It looks fine standalone. I can take a crack at the italicizing. —Wknight94 (talk) 23:29, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See above. Byrne is italicized. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I see the problem with the v-d-e things. Template:NFLPrimaryColor returns a string like "color:white" instead of simply "white". Do you have a template that will return just a color without the "color:" tag? —Wknight94 (talk) 03:23, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't understand your question. Thanks for the help with the rookie thing, by the way. Can you add the appropriate edit to the template in Template:NFLplayer?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 06:56, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the v-d-e font problem. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

That's huge... Pats1 ^T/C 13:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Hugely informative!  :) —Wknight94 (talk) 13:46, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it's a ton of info to maintain, and something that can be found – and probably more accurately – using the "roster" link on the template. This is pretty much the same argument that was used when we nixed the depth chart templates last year. Pats1 ^T/C 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(BTW, I had to unfix the v-d-e problem. Macro substitution is just stupid here.) —Wknight94 (talk) 15:10, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

(Sorry, late-breaking bulletin – the v-d-e problem is re-fixed. Macro substitution is still stupid.) —Wknight94 (talk) 01:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Don't forget the Reserve/Left Camp and Exempt list labels too. Pats1 ^T/C 01:42, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

...I still think it's too much information being presented. The sortability is nice, but I can go to any team website and do the same sorting – and they're the ones filling out all that info, not me or Chris. Right now it's very difficult to follow as an 80+ alphabetical list of names; it's a lot easier to pick out certain positions and a quick look at reserve lists with the old template. Sometimes simpler is better and much clearer. I agree that this style template is good for small rosters like in the NBA – but once you get above 20 or 25 players, nevermind 53 – it's just a shitload of numbers and info filling up the entire page, and then some. Pats1 ^T/C 16:45, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing difficult about maintaining the templates.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it is. It's not just their name and number, now it's their college, age, height, weight. Essentially it's now just a copy of the exact roster we're linking to in the template itself. Especially in a formatting sense. The old template wasn't a list like this one is, it was much more of a sorted "chart," and much easier to follow by the user. Pats1 ^T/C 16:52, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes it's more info, but the added info doesn't change. His height, weight, college, etc. will possibly not need to be edited ever again. It takes 10 seconds to add when doing a transaction, you're never adding/deleting more than a few players at a time, and the only stuff that changes is their presence on the roster, their number, status and possibly position, just like the current templates. There is a minuscule amount of extra work in adding players, but no extra work in maintaining them.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:01, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Say if the Dolphins sign Simeon Rice today. It's unlikely that he's going to be listed on the Dolphins.com roster until tonight or tomorrow, so in the meantime, you only have his old height and weight to deal with. Then you have to check back to Dolphins.com not only for his number, but to see if his height and weight are different when the team roster is listed. Then, which height and weight do you take? NFL.com or the official team roster? And what if NFL.com updates their height and weight for the player in the offseason (actually, they usually do it during the season), but the official team website doesn't update theirs? And then in the offseason, along with updating the free agency status and such, you'll need to update the heights and weights. ...It's just a lot of info to keep accurate and dig up each time a player is signed or moved. But my other point is that the template is a lot less visually easy to follow. I can't remember too many templates that you need to scroll down through just to get the info you wanted. The old chart style cuts out all the less important bio/info/stats that you can find on any major website, and retains the essential roster skeleton. Pats1 ^T/C 17:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Further, the fact that you can click on any player's name/article to get all of his stats/bio/info, it makes it rather unnecessary to jam all that information into the template. Pats1 ^T/C 17:20, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The heights and weights are irrelevant to you, because I'll handle it all. Plus, I always use the official websites for the heights and weights on player articles for consistency, so they always come from the same place. But like I said, that is stuff i will handle (and already do with the player articles) so it doesn't affect you.

Furthermore, the template offers things the player articles or rosters on official sites do not. They offer a sortability the individual player articles obviously do not, and they offer sortability on more complete, detailed and accurate rosters than the official sites usually have, as you well know. The advantages of this template are clear, while your only arguments against it are either untrue (extra work) or insignificant (length).►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

For the one time that I want to sort the roster by college or weight or height, I can do so by going to the team website rosters, almost all of which are now sortable. The new template is akin to a giant excel chart that you can sort through jammed with numbers and notations that can certainly be overwhelming to the common user. There's nothing that says our roster templates have to be like the official website ones (or even provide as much information). That is where I think the problem lies – we're essentially creating and maintaining a mirror of the official website rosters (albeit with more timely and accurate rosters), which has the potential to be a colossal waste of time. I'd much prefer the basic setup we have now, where the template is informative yet not paralyzing with numbers sprawled from corner to corner of the screen (and past, hence the scrolling). Better yet, the chart-style of the old template presents the positional groupings (the most vital player info nugget) in a much easier to follow fashion than even the new template sorted by positions. The old style is unique in that it's almost a blending of a roster and depth chart; it provides the alphabetical/factual aspect of a roster with the "solitaire" layout of a depth chart. Pats1 ^T/C 20:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I actually agree with Pats1 on one point. I like the "sorted chart" (as Pats put it) look/feel of the current roster templates. Much easier to quickly look and identify players in their positional groups. This new one seems like a monster. Bjewiki (Talk) 18:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

The pros still far outweigh the cons (which are almost nonexistent).►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I was looking at the Dolphins roster today and came across this huge template. I also agree that the old one was much better because it could be seen on one page. I don't feel like the height and weight of each player need to be included (even though they obviously are on all website pages) because they are not essential to the roster, the focus of the template. The way it is sorted by position then alphabetically in the old style is good enough for me, and this new one does look like a monster. -- bmitchelf•T•F 23:13, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah it's big. Harmfully so? Not really. It'll be 27 players shorter in September.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I was thinking that it will be interesting to see it again when rosters are finalized. I do think it is a little cumbersome in terms of length, though. -- bmitchelf•T•F 23:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, so far 3 seperate people seem to think this new version w/ the height, weight, etc is too big/cumbersome, etc... Bjewiki (Talk) 01:31, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But it's not harmful and is quite informative and useful, so I'd say they just need to get used to it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's sort of the argument 72.0.36.36 uses... Pats1 ^T/C 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

The situations are not comparable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:29, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, but you know how 72.0.36.36 always says that it's no against the rules so it must stay... Pats1 ^T/C 20:38, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Right now the roster template provides a nice, single-screen snapshot of the teams roster. I can quickly look at it and all the players, neatly categorized by their positions. With the new version, even sorting by position doesn't give you the same easy to discern view. Plus the fact that only ~32 players appear to fit on the screen at one time (atleast on my screen) as opposed to the old view, where I could see everything at one. Bjewiki (Talk) 20:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is a good point, becuase even my screen resolution is bigger than most others. I can't imagine what a 800x600 would look like. Pats1 ^T/C 20:39, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'm running 1152x864. Even on 1280x1024 no more than ~40 players can be seen at one time. Bjewiki (Talk) 20:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh well.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:14, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If humans could read more than one thing at once, I'd consider the size an issue. Whew!►Chris Nelson^Holla! 22:06, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

C'mon Chris, I think there's a noticeable difference in clarity between a list of names and attributes that fills the whole screen and a smaller organized, categorized chart. Pats1 ^T/C 23:05, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Not enough to make this template not ridiculously awesome.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:08, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

A significant number of users disagree (including me, and I've warned against the excessive size since the beginning). Look, I know you spent a lot of time working on it, but sometimes it just doesn't work out in the end. I'm not opposed to upgrading the existing template, but I think the way this alternative went about doing that went too far. For now, and to prevent transactions from following through the cracks (and for consistency), I'm going to bring back the old template to the two rosters it has been applied to until we can work out an amicable solution. I think it's obvious there's a good amount of opposition to the new template, and you need to accept that. Just because the template works and looks nicely for NBA doesn't mean it can be given the fast track to use for NFL rosters. Pats1 ^T/C 01:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No one has any good reasons. These templates are far more informative and useful, even more so than the official rosters. The "this kind of stuff is available from the roster link" excuse is weak, because then Wikipedia could just be a collection of links. This template will not die and will not change.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

This is bullshit, by the way. So the fuck what if you have to scroll a tiny bit, that doesn't mean the template shouldn't be used. Why don't we keep every article short enough that one can view it without scrolling.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Because this isn't an article (big wink). Pats1 ^T/C 02:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The fact is there has yet to be a legitimate reason why these templates cannot be on Wikipedia.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

To you, that is. Pats1 ^T/C 11:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I like the new template. The fact is when I went to the Buffalo Bills page, it was a bitch to load. It took at least a minute. Same with the edit page links on my watchlist.

I think this may be a good regular season roster, but not now. The current template is perfect for Training Camp, especially when a good chunk of those players will never play in the NFL (well, except maybe on my Bills who had 17 players on IR last year). Jc121383 (talk) 04:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I think that's potentially a very good idea. So, what about this

• My new template is used during the regular season, and in the offseason with use the old ones. I will maintain my new template for every team elsewhere so that once the regular season rolls around, they will be a snap to re-implement. With 30 less players than they have now, the length really should not be an issue. Will this work?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 04:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Using it just during the regular season doesn't help the problem with the whole roster not fitting on the screen at one time. During the past couple of years, wikipedia has been my destination of choice for a quick glance at the NFL rosters (over NFL.com, ESPN.com, or even the team sites). The wiki rosters have always been both lighter and easier to quickly look at. If I wanted to see a huge eye chart with height, weight, college, etc, I could look at any of the other sites. The wiki rosters were unique in that they loaded quickly, and provided a logically grouped view of the positions. As Pats1 said before, that roster template is fine when you're using it for a baskebtall team, because there are only 12 guys. But it's too much of a monster for a 53+ man football team. Heck, we dont' even use it for baseball rosters. Bjewiki (Talk) 14:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes but you're exaggerating the problem, and it's not even so much of a problem as it is a personal preference. The template is still very easy to sort, very easy to view, yet far more informative and useful. If you want to look at players by position, it's not going to take you any more time to do so, unless you're missing your right arm for controlling the mouse.

Also, the best feature about these roster templates has always been their accuracy. Pats1 and I keep them 100% accurate, which is more than can be said for just about every official website roster. True that most offer a similar sorting ability as my template, but they do not offer sorting on rosters that are as accurate as the ones here. Hence the reason this template is more useful than any official websites roster – because it offers the sorting ability on a complete roster the official website lacks.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you see the template used for NBA rosters and essentially use the same thing for the NFL rosters? Well, it doesn't have to be like that, unless we're trying to create some standard template across all major sports. It's not new template in its entirety or bust, nor is it old template until death. They're just a bunch of code. It's kind of foolish to say "Oh, I found this NBA template that looks great, so we need to change a few titles on it but make sure it's preserved point-by-point, because it's so awesome" -- just as it's foolish to say "the current template is perfect and doesn't need any tweaking whatsoever."

However, each template does have a general, identifying theme. That's what we're arguing here (it's not necessarily old template vs. new template, but a list-style template vs. a chart-style template). The goal is to get a template (perhaps we should stop using that term, as these roster "templates" are really more like single-use tables) that presents the roster in a clear manner (i.e. we're not going to arrange the names in a christmas tree shape and color-code them with christmas-themed colors) – I think we can all agree on that. The crux of all of this is that an NFL roster, unlike most other sports, is exceptionally large – upwards of 80 players in the offseason and at least 61 in the regular season, plus reserve lists. An NFL roster, like baseball and unlike basketball and hockey, also has pretty clear cut position designations, nevermind more positions altogether. There needs to be a balance struck between offering information about each player and keeping the template concise and very easy to follow (or in my case, scan).

The upside of a chart-style template is that, while it is not setup to accommodate vital stats on a player, can organize player names solitaire-style while still offering a good deal of info on each player (name, position, number, if rookie, reserve list status, etc.). Think of it as a coach's play-calling sheet with all the play names categorized in neat, color-coded sections. Compare that to a list-style template, where all of that coach's plays are given in a single list, one per row, and each row contains the play's cadence, routes, motions, etc. Sure, that coach and print out one sheet sorted by name, another sheet sorted by cadence, and another sheet sorted by suggested down+distance. But all that extra information and bulk is probably going to slow down the play-calling process, paralyzing the coach with a significantly less clear presentation of information. Pats1 ^T/C 00:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not trying to create a standard, I adopted the NBA template because I think it'd be useful as an NFL template. It will, and that's why I'm going to keep it on Wikipedia somewhere. You can have your player lists if you want, but the rosters like this will stay because it's all good info and will definitely be useful. I know I'll use it all the time and I know others will too. This is not comparable to the Chris Long IP user situation, by the way, because his content was not relevant when it came to the encyclopedia, while the content in the roster template is.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

The simple fact is this is a very good, informative template and you cannot come up with good reasons that it should be excluded altogether. Perhaps the old style does have its uses, but so does this one and to be so against such a template even being on Wikipedia is wrong. That is why I will make sure it stays somewhere in this encyclopedia. No way in hell you can keep it out completely just because it doesn't have certain perks of something else. It has plenty of its own perks, and would add good info to the team articles. It's not going anywhere.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:53, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Yet many disagree, therefore you can't say unequivocally that "it will" be useful as an NFL template and that others "will" use it "all the time" and that it's "not going anywhere." Just because it provides useful information doesn't mean it can't be removed; if the amount of content was everything, then Chris Long would have all of those news blurbs and such. There always has to be a balance struck with clarity, presentation, and aesthetics. I understand you've put a good amount of work into adapting it for use for the NFL, but the fact is, there are other people here with an interest in the NFL roster templates, and the preference seems to be for a chart-style template over a list-style template. Indeed, a list-style template looks nifty for NBA rosters, but the collective opinion of me and others involved is that, due to the extreme size of NFL rosters, presenation of all of those players must be emphasized over giving as many vital stats and info as possible. Personally, as someone who deals with these roster templates frequently, I believe the doubling of included player info nuggets will serve to bulk up the template beyond its own good, insofar as to make maintaining the templates on a daily basis a chore and maintaining a level of accuracy increasingly difficult. Pats1 ^T/C 15:50, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you could stop bringing up the Chris Long situation as if its relevant or comparable, that'd just be fucking fantastic. Kthanks. The info the IP user wants to add to Chris Long (blurbs about speeches at trainers conventions or some shit) is not relevant for the encyclopedia. An organized chart with players heights, weights, college, etc. is without question relevant and useful.

I get that there is opposition to this template replacing the old one, which is why they will have to co-exist. You can have your player list, but my new roster template is good for the encyclopedia and will stay. If someone is so against it they will try to keep it off the encyclopedia completely even if it doesn't replace the old template, well then they'd just be a douche.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 15:56, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But how do you suppose they co-exist? Thanks to the folding of NFL Europa (whoops, Goodell said we shouldn't bitch about that anymore), roster sizes in the offseason are just about the same size as regular season rosters. Think about it: in the offseason, you have only only a few reserve list players, if that – bringing your total to just over 80. In the season, you have 53 players, plus 8 practice squad guys, plus another 5, sometimes 10, sometimes 15 reserve list guys, bringing your total to 65-75 players. Removing 10 or so players from the Dolphins or Bills templates that we got a sneak peek of isn't going to make a whole lot of difference in the size of it – it's still pretty damn huge (and I've been saying that since the beginning). And while we're on the subject of reserve players, it's almost impossible to pick them out from a quick glance at the list-style template, since they're inter-mingled with the long, unbroken list of other players. You even have to scroll down to find them all absent using the sort feature. A roster template doesn't have to be an excel spreadsheet like this one seems to be, and just because the list-style template worked well for NBA rosters and was "good for Wikipedia" doesn't mean that it *has* to be used for NFL rosters too. Pats1 ^T/C 16:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And as far as the 72.0.36.36 thing goes, don't you remember how many times he (annoyingly) claimed you and I and others were just using WP:IDONTLIKEIT? Pats1 ^T/C 16:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

But he was wrong, I am not. My edits are relevant, he are not.

I suppose they coexist by linking the expanded one from the current one. Something along the "See expanded roster" or something.

Yeah, but doesn't the website roster link accomplish the same thing with much less work on our part? And at some point, between the roster templates, the "expanded roster templates," and roster navboxes, and in your case, all of that over two different leagues, is a ton of work – but that's just my advice to you, separate from my opinion on this roster template. Pats1 ^T/C 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And as for the size – who gives a shit? If you don't want to use it, don't use it. It's too long for your personal preference, but it's certainly not too long for me. The official website roster aren't "too long" to be used, they can still provide information and this one can too. (More info, since it'll be more accurate than the official website ones, which is what makes it worth having here and not just living to the official roster.) I'll use it, and others will too, because the size does not prevent it from being extremely useful and informative. If you don't thinking a second of scrolling is worth it or you'd have no use for the template, then fine. But others will so there's no reason to be against its existence altogether.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I do, and my opinion matters too. Pats1 ^T/C 17:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

If you're going to be obtuse it's going to be a lot harder to discuss. It'd help if you'd stop bringing up the same "issues" that I've already explained. Yes, you can link the official website and get a similar roster to my template, but will be it as accurate? No. That's the beauty of our rosters – they are always more accurate than the official websites. Do the official sites offer sorting like mine? Yeah, but they do not offer sorting on 100% accurate rosters, which we would. That is the key difference, and it's why we don't simply link the official site from the beginning. Because we do it better.

And yeah, your opinion matters. But your personal opinion has nothing to do with whether or not it's relevant. If you don't care to use something on the encyclopedia, that's your own thing. But it doesn't mean it isn't relevant or useful to others. This template would be, and that is a fact. Therefore your lack of interest in the template is irrelevant when it comes to its presence on the encyclopedia. I'm never going to use the All My Children article, but others will and that's why it should be here. Myself and others will use the new template, which is why it should and will stay.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And so far you've batted down every single point of opposition as invalid and stuck to a hard-line stance that the template "will" be used in its entirety no matter what. Keep in mind that you and I split the NFL roster work 49-49 (and 2 for the rest) -- you don't want that becoming a 98/2. I and others have expressed our opinion that this style template is not best for NFL rosters because of design issues; and personally, I have expressed my opinion that the extra information in the list-style template would make the template rather cumbersome to maintain and maintain accurately. Pats1 ^T/C 17:40, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Which is why I guess they'll have to co-exist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:49, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to do so, but I will only pick one template to maintain, because I have neither the time nor the desire to do everything twice. And I think we know which one I'll pick. :D Pats1 ^T/C 18:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Then that's fine. There are separate uses for a player list and a detailed roster.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I think a better use of your style of roster template with more information would be as a list article, maybe titled "Miami Dolphins roster" in this case. Include all possible bits of information like physical attributes, statistics, draft position, and team experience. That would seem to be a very useful article, even if it has to be changed often to add and remove players. -- bmitchelf•T•F 06:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

So, the current solution is that the current roster templates will linked to the expanded detailed ones, correct? Bjewiki (Talk) 15:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

See Miami Dolphins or Buffalo Bills. Both have their different uses, so I think both should exist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:03, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Right, but I was just suggesting that you should provide a link to the detailed roster on the current roster. So, if you're just viewing the current template, you can easily navigate to the detailed one. Here's another suggestion, you could add the show/hide functionality to the title bar of the detailed roster. Right now it makes the team articles much longer (scroll-wise). Bjewiki (Talk) 17:04, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Team articles are long anyway, I don't consider the length to be very significant.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:50, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

By my estimate, the Dolphins detailed roster comprises something like 15-20% of the length of the Dolphins article. That seems excessive. Perhaps it would be more appropriate to have a link to the roster as a separate article (like done with "List of Miami Dolphins starting quarterbacks", "Miami Dolphins seasons", "List of Miami Dolphins first-round draft picks". Bjewiki (Talk) 19:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't seem too long to me.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 19:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I was thinking we could set up a list article like something I have started in my sandbox, with the correct colors, of course. If you want a detailed roster, it might as well include all of the details. -- bmitchelf•T•F 18:36, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I think the stats would be unwieldy to maintain. Bjewiki (Talk) 19:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously, those would only be updated at the end of each season. i'm just worried about the way it looks with the columns being broken up every other row. The column headers might not be necessary with all of the information for each player, though. Unfortunately, they can't be sorted this way. -- bmitchelf•T•F 20:13, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I like the one that Chris proposed over the one that you tested. The double row thing didn't look quite right, and as you pointed out, losing sorting isn't good. Bjewiki (Talk) 01:56, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, it can't stay like it is now with both rosters on the team pages. -- bmitchelf•T•F 16:32, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, I think it's redundant to have two versions of the roster on the team pages. Bjewiki (Talk) 16:54, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not redundant because they both serve different purposes. One is essentially just a small list of the players, the other is a full roster will all other kinds of sortable info. They can both stay because they have two very different purposes.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:06, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Brandon Inge

I undid your revision of my previous edit regarding Brandon Inge being the Tigers starting catcher. I understand fully that this is not a depth chart, and the policy is to follow the rosters on MLB.com as closely as possible. However, we all know how slow MLB.com can be to update rosters at times, and how many mistakes they make. There had been many articles published from MLB.com & detroittigers.com, the Detroit Free Press (www.freep.com) and other sources quote Leyland, Dombrowski and others regarding Inge's status as starting catcher now that Pudge has been traded. Additionally, I watch nearly every Tigers game and can confirm that Inge has started all since Pudge left. Not trying to start a "rivision war" here, but I respectfully submit that an exception to the norm be made in this case, as Sardinha is NOT the Tigers everyday catcher. Mattfranko81 (talk) 22:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

The template has nothing to do with who starts or not. Inge can play catcher, but he can still be listed at other positions.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 02:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

I completely understand that, however I also believe the information reflected should be as accurate as possible. Right now, even though MLB has Inge listed as an INF on the official rosters he IS the starting catcher and presumably will be for the remainder of the season at least. I just think the information presented would be misleading at this time to list only Dane Sardinha as a catcher since it can be confirmed the Tigers don't plan on using him as their everyday catcher. I guess the same argument could be made for listing Sheffield as OF rather than DH...but in that case it's sheffield personal preference to at least not be considered a DH. Like I said, I don't want to start a revision war, but if the consensus among editors is to list Inge as INF rather than C, I'll go along. Mattfranko81 (talk) 03:14, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Template Sorting Suggestion...

I was checking out your new NFL Player template. I like it, especially the custom sorting weights. I was going to help you out, and add a couple commons ones that I thought were missing (RB/KR, WR/PR, etc). Quick suggestion though. Why weight the sorting differently for secondary positions? It seems like a WR should be weighted the same as a WR/TE or WR/KR or WR/PR. (Of course, I'm assuming you can give two items the same sort weight here).

For instance, I think this:
Jason Avant WR
Reggie Brown WR
Kevin Curtis WR
Michael Gasperson WR/TE
DeSean Jackson WR/PR
Jammal Jones WR
Greg Lewis WR

Would be preferrable to this:
Jason Avant WR
Reggie Brown WR
Kevin Curtis WR
Jammal Jones WR
Greg Lewis WR
Michael Gasperson WR/TE
DeSean Jackson WR/PR

Any thoughts?

Bjewiki (Talk) 12:08, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Well I actually wasn't going to include the things like WR / KR / PR. If a guy plays a certain position on O or D, then that's how he'd be listed. It's not meant to be a depth chart. The only reason KR and PR are in the list at all is for guys that pretty much only do that, like B. J. Sams.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 16:12, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, irregardless of KR/PR, don't you think sorting by only primary position makes more sense? Bjewiki (Talk) 16:14, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

No I don't. I think there should be a flow to it, like the OL for example. You have pure tackles, then tackle / guards, then guard / tackles, then guards, then guard / centers, center / guards, centers. I think it looks better when sorted to be T, T/G, G/T, G, G/C, C/G, C.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 17:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Jorge Cantu.jpg

File:Jorge Cantu.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Jorge Cantu.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Jorge Cantu.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 13:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Kevin Gregg.jpg

File:Kevin Gregg.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Kevin Gregg.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Kevin Gregg.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Luis Gonzalez.jpg

File:Luis Gonzalez.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Luis Gonzalez.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Luis Gonzalez.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:10, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Manny Acosta3.jpg

File:Manny Acosta3.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Manny Acosta3.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Manny Acosta3.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Mike Jacobs.jpg

File:Mike Jacobs.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Mike Jacobs.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Mike Jacobs.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Paul Hoover.jpg

File:Paul Hoover.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Paul Hoover.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Paul Hoover.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Richie Sexson.jpg

File:Richie Sexson.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Richie Sexson.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Richie Sexson.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 14:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:Wes Helms.jpg

File:Wes Helms.jpg is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Wes Helms.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all MediaWiki wiki's. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Wes Helms.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 15:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Glenn Pakulak

Hi Chris,

I was wondering where you got the info that the Oakland Raiders signed Glenn Pakulak. NFL tranaction list doesn't show the transaction (http://www.nfl.com/transactions) and neither does spider site kffl (allthough kffl often misses stuff). Cheers, Z Doc (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

NVM dug up references and added them to the wiki. Z Doc (talk) 15:51, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Chicago Bears seasons at WP:FLRC

You are one of the leading editors of Chicago Bears. Chicago Bears seasons has been listed at Wikipedia:Featured list removal candidates/Chicago Bears seasons for removal from the set of featured lists under the WP:FLRC procedures. I am not sure who to turn to, but the original WP:FLC nominator is unable to save the article. I hope you will consider responding to the discussion page issues and save the list.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 02:03, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Slaton

Yeah, I planned on doing that when the preseason was over. But to keep up with the info, I just did it game-by-game like it is now. John (talk) 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Yeah that's cool, just making sure.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 23:39, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Chad Ocho Cinco?

Why did you move Chad Johnson to Chad Ocho Cinco? Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 20:44, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Because it's his legal name.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Right after I clicked save, it came on ESPN. What do ya think about it? Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 21:06, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

I think he has mental problems and is starved for attention.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 21:07, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Like he doesn't get enough. Burner0718 ^{Jibba Jabba!} 21:11, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, "Use the most common name of a person or thing" Chad Johnson is by far the most common name, and I would bet the barn that he will still be called and known as Chad Johnson, even though he has this idiotic "real" name. By all means, if the media accepts it and we stop hearing about Chad Johnson and we start hearing about Chad 85, then by all means move the page back. But right now it needs to be at the destination Chad Johnson. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 18:48, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Just delaying the inevitable.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:50, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Stop the gheyness on the Ocho Cinco talk page. Its just become spam and if it continues I will remove it... HPJoker ^{Leave me a message} 19:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

About Nkang

The way I understand the NF/Inj list is that it is basically PUP with a specification on the cause of the injury. PUP still apply which mean that would either have to place him on the active roster or PUP. Since the former is clearly not the case I take it they put him on PUP as reported by NFL.com and Jaguars.com

Pats1 explained it.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:17, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Hey Chris, nice to see you back...see User talk:OaklandAthleticsfan for the Chargers' situation. Every other roster is at 54, and I doubled checked all inactive counts too. I don't feel like double-checking active counts, but I reviewed all edits to the rosters from today, and everything looks good. Pats1 ^T/C 01:17, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh, nevermind, you're not back... Pats1 ^T/C 01:22, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Huh?►Chris Nelson^Holla! 01:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

In my imagination, you had said "Pats1 explained it" about 4 hours after you actually said it. Pats1 ^T/C 12:03, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I just double checked the miami herald. It was Josh McCown who got traded, not Beck. I remembered it incorrectly. Halli B (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

RE:Category:Green Bay Packers quarterbacks

Hey Chris, I have deleted this category again, as it still has no navigational use to the project. The category itself is too broadly defined to actually be useful in navigation. Would we add every player who has ever played the QB position to the category? Every Packers player who has been listed as a QB, but never played? Only the starters? Only the main QBs who have played a lot? As you can see, the category is subjective and will never be properly filled. Now you state that all the other teams have it, which is fine and dandy, but there is no reason to embrace a problem just because everyone has the problem. As a compromise, if you want a navigational category for Green Bay Packers QB's, why not create Category:Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks, which has a very easily defined scope and will allow us to fill the category accurately and not subjectively, and will create a category that will be very useful for navigation? I am of course open to other ideas, but Category:Green Bay Packers quarterbacks really doesnt help with navigation. Cheers, « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:08, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not such categories should exist is debatable, but you should not delete it because it is not black and white. If they are going to exist, they should exist for all 32 teams and not 31. If it should not exist, it shouldn't exist for any NFL team. Right now, there are 31 others so this one stays until you can argue that no such category should exist.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:10, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, WP:OTHERCATEGORIESEXIST is not a justifiable reason to keep a category. How bout we just create Category:Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks, which I think we both can agree would be much more useful and a whole lot easier to maintain? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:13, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

That is not applicable here. It would apply if, say, you were arguing this should exist because there were an Atlanta Braves pitchers category. But if Wikipedians have access to this type of category for 31 other NFL teams, they deserve access to this type for the 32nd team. I'm not even sure this kind of category should exist myself, but it is and will always be a package deal. It's up to you to nominate them all for deletion and argue it if you want, but you cannot delete one and leave 31 others. You also cannot simply delete it without any kind of debate, as it is not black and white and is an abuse of admin powers.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

How bout we just create Category:Green Bay Packers starting quarterbacks and use it as a replacement for Category:Green Bay Packers quarterbacks? And please don't accuse me of admin abuse, cuz we both know that is bs. Deleting a category one thinks is useless is not abuse. Now say if I deleted the category again right now, after someone has stated they oppose deletion, then one could make a case for abuse. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

My opposition to deletion was clear the first time it had to re-create it, so deleting it today was admin abuse.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:25, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

$.02: I don't see how having a starting quarterbacks category is "easier to maintain." What if you have someone like Cleo Lemon who started a few games here and there? Is he considered a starting quarterback? Or what if Tom Brady goes down in Week 16 and Matt Cassel starts Week 17? Having just a quarterbacks category is easier to maintain, because it eliminates that element of picking-and-choosing. Pats1 ^T/C 20:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

@ Pats1, Any quarterback who has started for the Packers. No picking and choosing whatsoever. Seems pretty simple to me. The broad "quarterbacks" category is the one where you have to "pick-and-choose." Should we include every Green Bay Packers player who has been listed as a quarterback? Or just ones who have played as quarterback? How bout the players on the practice squad? Or do we only just list ones who have made significant contributions as a quarterback? So unless we add every single quarterback that has ever been listed as such for the Packers, then we are going to have to pick and choose.

@ Chris, Making a passing comment in an edit summary is not clear or straightforward opposition. When you oppose something, use a damn talk page for once in your life and try and discuss the issue before you go around undoing actions you feel were wrong. And nevermind about this stupid debate Chris, there is no point in discussing anything with you, your words are always The Truth anyway. Go ahead and do whatever. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 20:56, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, be a baby.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 20:59, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

You never cease to amaze me with comments like that. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk ♦ contribs) @ 21:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)