Template talk:Infobox NFLactive

So I think we need to have something to say a guy was an undrafted free agent, rather than just having the draft section disappear. I previously made an edit that created a "undraftedyear" field which created this: "Undrafted free agent in 1996"? What do you guys think?►Chris Nelson 00:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

For an example of this, see Template:Infobox NFLactive/test.►Chris Nelson 00:36, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that's reasonable. My only objection would be to change it so it only says "Undrafted" while linking to Undrafted free agent (football). The "free agent" part makes it look... weird, but I think that's just me. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 00:51, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I could live with that; I really don't care either way. Does anyone have a different idea, or a preference for my proposal or wlmalty3's slightly different one?►Chris Nelson 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't care either way, either. It just looks funny to me, that's all. Yours is fine. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, would this work: Leave out the year and have the information post as "NFL Draft: Not drafted"? I would intentionally leave out the year and this would keep the "format" consistent. I'll be glad to chime in about why i think leaving out the year would be best. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I've implemented you idea, see the test page. Looks fine to me.►Chris Nelson 00:56, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I think that will work. There's really no other way to do it (as far as denoting an undrafted player goes, I mean), so I'm fine with it. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 00:59, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

The year is very important. I am just really not in favor of that style of edit.►Chris Nelson 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd agree. Leaving out the year doesn't make any sense. Leigh Bodden wasn't drafted in the 2003 NFL Draft. To NOT mention that in the infobox would be inconsistent with all the other articles, especially now that he's a decent cornerback. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I too believe that the year is too important to leave out. If the year is important for when they were drafted, it's just as important for when they weren't drafted. Ksy92003(talk) 01:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I was about to say that. If we left the year out for UDFAs, it'd make just as much sense to just put and link NFL Draft. That is not the best way, and I don't think leaving out the year for UDFAs is either.►Chris Nelson 01:09, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, I have some reasons for thinking we should leave the year out - BUT let me look at a few articles on this. There's a decent chance that if things are already done a particular way - we can probably get around the "issues". Just give me a few minutes on this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio - I think all you really need to do is think about what most people would say. Can we not all agree that that MOST people would say the year is relevant? That's rather obvious to me. And in that case, I'm not sure this is something you'll convince many people on. That's just my guess.►Chris Nelson 01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

You've got to understand that leaving out the draft year really doesn't make any sense at all. If they were eligible for that draft, and they went undrafted, that draft year should be listed. Obviously this isn't going to work for someone who was never eligible for a draft and was just randomly signed by a team, but I think those instances are very rare, and very few and far between. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:15, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Come on guys, we were doing so well. I can either sit here and argue about this with you guys - or - you can give me a few minutes to look at a few things (probably about 20 60 minutes or so) and then you'll have my answer. I don't think that's so unreasonable. There's a good chance, I'm going to end up agreeing with you, just wait ... that's all i want. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:17, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't know exactly what you're looking for. I think 99% of people would consider the year is as relevant here as with drafted people. But I guess I'll wait for whatever it is you want to do.►Chris Nelson 01:19, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I find that this is yet another example of you making things hostile before they ever even were. We were giving you OUR opinions -- opinions which we didn't need to "wait" to give. We never once said we weren't going to consider yours at all. No one said waiting was unreasonable, and no one was arguing. Please, relax. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Don't make ME be the voice of reason here. Let's stick to content and keep our personal feelings out of this.►Chris Nelson 01:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Last time: My opinion is that year should be left out, there is a reason. I would like to look at other information here on wikipedia as it might allow me to agree with you guys. Seriously, this is what upsets people. Patience is a good thing. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:27, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

I don't see any reason why the year that a player wasn't drafted is any less significant than the year that a player was drafted. I mean it's significant at least the fact that they were in a draft, and then you can say if they were drafted or not, what round, what pick, etc. But it's just as significant as the year that a player entered the draft but wasn't selected. I fail to see any reason why the year isn't significant in this case, Jmfangio. Ksy92003(talk) 01:28, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Unbelievable, a guy asks for a little bit of time and you guys can't even do that. Seriously guys, I'm out of this discussion, do what you want...if my problem rears it's head - i'll just remove the information from the template until you guys do want to wait. What a joke .... i just wanted a few freakin minutes. I'm eating dinner and i'll come back when i come back. Just be aware - this could cause problems. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:31, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

Oh, what a surprise. You cause all this ruckus about how we don't have these discussions, and then you go ahead ant say "I'm out of this discussion." This doesn't surprise me at all. You bring a bunch of us here to discuss this, then decide that you don't want to because people are against you. Ksy92003(talk) 01:37, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio, please don't leave it like this. You're free to share your opinion and you can look for whatever you want, I'll wait at least a day to implement this if need bed. I'll wait, I just gotta say I have no idea what you're looking for. Here's a Dolphins player page. Here's an Eagle's. All 32 NFL teams are likely to display this info prominently on player pages, and I'm willing to bet everyone includes the year.►Chris Nelson 01:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Please, stop guys. Just let Jmfangio do his research, and when he's done we'll pick back up the discussion. No more accusations.►Chris Nelson 01:39, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio, you get any of your research done? I'm not trying to rush you, just curious.►Chris Nelson 03:01, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Since it doesn't seem to matter to you guys why I think it should be left out - i'll give you an example of how this has been addressed in other, very similar, instances. I didn't even bother to address the "will this break said template" issue. I simply looked for how things had been done with similar content. So i started looking at a few articles and here's what i found -

Undrafted NBA Players where draft year is absent from template - 12:

• Chucky Atkins, Adrian Griffin, Avery Johnson, Earl Boykins, Bruce Bowen, David Wesley, Brad Miller, Darrell Armstrong, Ben Wallace, Mike James, Carlos Arroyo, Andrés Nocioni.

Undrafted NBA players where draft status is left out of template - 3:

• Kevin Ollie, Slava Medvedenko, Udonis Haslem

Undrafted NBA players where draft year is in template - 3:

• Troy Hudson, Raja Bell, Smush Parker

Okay - so now you're probably going to go with the - but that isn't consensus, and so what basketball is only one sport.... but i continued to do some looking (again - not even addressing my functional concerns for this), so i went and looked at on of my favorite infoboxes -{{Infobox Ice Hockey Player}} (which i absolutely love most of). That doesn't seem to have any obligatory need to include this...but people can add this - so like the NBA players, I looked at some undrafted guys from the nhldoesn't seem to acocunt for this either. So i started looking at NHL players that I knew where not drafted... here's what i found - most of the NHL players don't have it either. In fact - the most famous of all undrafted athletes (Wayne Gretzky) doesn't have anything in the infobox either.

The information is free text, so it's not like these people can't provide the information. You guys are saying this should be obligatory. If most other's don't even include it when there is nothing from stopping them, it seems reasonable to me that there must be "some" reason. Maybe it's representative of consensus, maybe it's something else, maybe it's sheer coincidence - but nontheless - it ain't there. Now we already have the ability to list a person's team affiliation and the years of that affiliation - so I'm gonna stick with let's not include it. A final side note, this cursory search led to the creation of new categories: Category:Undrafted NBA players Category:Undrafted National Basketball Association players, Category:Undrafted NFL players Category:Undrafted National Football League players. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  03:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I guess we just won't agree on this then. I would say that since 32 NFL teams consider it relevant, so should we. I believe this is more important than how Wikipedia does it with basketball and hockey. I also am very confident the majority would land on "our" side of the fence, which is why I'm hoping we can just bypass all that and implement is as three of the four of us here think. I understand where you're coming from, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find many NFL fans agree with you. If the year a guy was drafted is relevant, the year a guy went undrafted and entered the league as a UDFA is equally as relevant. That's just common sense. This is basic "when he became an NFL player" info, no different than birth date, college, etc. It's either always relevant or never relevant, and in this case I think most people would agree it's always relevant.►Chris Nelson 03:08, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

As a side not, i've started bringing the "undrafted" article up to speed. It moved and i brought in the content from the Undrafted free agent (football) article. It now resides at Undrafted athlete. It needs a ton of work, but I at least got some of the blatant POV out and subtitled a section, plus redirected some list page titles to the sub content.

Back on topic - I'm not sure the information is relevant for an infobox. Appropriate context in the main article is certainly relevant for the "encyclopedia" article, but we're talking about the infobox. I don't think that NFL fans would be inclined to differ with those who are fans of the NHL or the NBA. MLB is a whole other ballgame, as it is the one North Am. sport where the draft is "fairly" marginalized, although that's an over simplification. While NFL fans certainly would have an interest in this information - so would others, and that's as important (if not more important) for an encyclopedia. Again, if someone isn't drafted - a lot of times they don't sign with an NFL team immediately after.... so the reality is they are eligible for every subsequent draft until they are either a) drafted or b) sign with a team - think Kurt Warner. Had he not signed with the Packers - he would have been eligible for the 95, 96, 97, and 98 drafts. Taking other people's edits here on wikipedia is very important. I don't agree that the nfl places a high level of importance on this information - Warner's nfl bio makes no mention of it. His cardinals bio kinda mentions it and kind of doesn't. It says that he signed with the Packers after being undrafted. It doesn't say anything about his "stock" going into the 94 draft, it makes no mention of "why" he wasn't drafted, and it doesn't actually say "Undrafted 1994". In fact, in the entire text (which is prettly long - the word undrafted only appears once in the entire article. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  09:25, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

We're not going to agree. So what now?►Chris Nelson 10:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Well chris - the reality is I don't think "undrafted" should be in the box at all due to the format choice for the draft information. But in an attempt at finding some middle ground and recognizing the general need of the group. I'd say a compromise is needed (i was really shocked to see any dispute over this - especially after i provided all the different examples from other infoboxes). In guessing that you guys want the Undrafted information in the article - so is it not reasonable to have the Undrafted in there and leave out the year?. The only other alternative i can think of is to simply leave it as is. Now I like that the best, but I'm trying to compromise with you guys. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And actually, I am almost certain you are somewhat mistaken about how being an undrafted free agent works in the NFL. Undrafted free agents are players that ENTERED the NFL Draft and went undrafted. After that, they can be signed be anyone - they are free agents. I do not believe they are eligible for future drafts, at least if they choose not to be (and I don't see why they would) when they could just sign with anyone. I guarantee you there are instances of guys going undrafted then signing the following calendar year - not entering the draft.►Chris Nelson 10:05, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I just jumped to the NFL draft and it said basically the same thing i did it is unsourced, you may very well be right and if you are - that content needs to be incorporated into the NFL draft article. That aside, I'm kinda doing a cursory scan of google right now for this (before I check out). That still doesn't change the meat of my position, but it's an important clarification no doubt. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I can't speak for the other people involved, but I personally feel the year is relevant and I believe you are a little misled when it comes to how things work. The year should be the first year they are out of college and eligible for the draft. After that, they are a free agent and free to sign with anyone. I do not believe they re-enter the draft the following year. But either way, the year IS relevant because, like with drafted players, it shows when they ceased being college players and began being professionals, whether it be in af2 or the NFL. I don't feel a compromise is necessary here because it seems like an obvious edit to me.►Chris Nelson 10:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I doubt that a person who is not drafted in his first year of eligibility forfeits his rights to be in future drafts. For example, this article talks about how High School players are eligibile for drafts and have in fact decalred (so a bit of my understanding was incorrect, as is the information at the NFL draft article). I don't believe any of those players was ever drafted - and it would seem highly unlikely that someone from High school (with an extremely low chance of bieng draft) would forfeit their future eligibility by "entering" the draft. Underclassmen who declare for drafts only do so in order to inform NFL teams that they will not return to school if drafted. Technically, (again from what I understand) you and I are eligible for the NFL draft. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:20, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but the fact that you think high school players can be drafted shows that you don't follow the NFL that closely. More research is required on your part.►Chris Nelson 10:22, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, the NFL has a rule that players can't enter the draft until at least three years after they finish high school; Maurice Clarett sued the NFL over this a few years ago and lost. Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Now your back to agitating the situation chris - do you really want to take this to DR again? Come on now, i'm trying to work with you here and that still isn't good enough. I'm happy to leave the thigns as they are, i think that's better anyway. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:32, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That was just my observation. You didn't know something that I would say is common knowledge among football fans. It makes me question how much you really follow the sport. A lot of your argument I believe comes from misconceptions you have about the draft. But either way, everyone else that has commented on this disagrees with you. So....►Chris Nelson 10:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm definitely taking a break from this - since you don't want to compromise and there is no consensus, then we can leave this alone for a bit and revisit it later. This is why i said early on that i wanted to leave out the "why i believe what i believe" portion, you guys cannot seem to lay off the personal issues. I know exactly what i'm talking about chris - high school players were made eligible in 2k4 because of the whole clarett thing. That's evident in the link i provided. As I said before, I'm pretty sure the rule as of now is that a person has to be out 3 years. Doesn't really matter though, because it doesn't change the primary points of my position. I'll check in later. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:42, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

You may just have to live with my edit.►Chris Nelson 10:43, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

And now we're back to WP:OWN - let's be peaceful and not engage in behavior we know the other party is absolutely hell bent on reverting. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  10:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

No one's back to WP:OWN except you. You're preventing us from making the changes we all agreed on just because you don't feel there's enough "consensus." Your stance is poorly defined, as far as I can tell. Not a single thing you said convinced me that we shouldn't list the draft year. And before you accuse me of not understanding, I understand perfectly. Let's say Troy Smith went undrafted this past draft, but didn't sign a contract until just after the 2008 draft (unlikely scenario but go with it). It's EXTREMELY important to note the draft year here because some might think (should they not follow the NFL as closely) he was drafted again in the 2008 draft after holding out of the 2007 draft. Therefore it's extremely important to note he went undrafted in the 2007 draft to avoid any confusion. Your argument that it doesn't belong in an infobox and is better left to the article doesn't hold well with me. I know I often look to infoboxes for quick information so I don't have to skim through the article. I think noting the draft year (whether drafted or not) is extremely important. ALSO, I'd like to note that it's not "consensus" just because other articles do something. You find the discussion where they MADE that consensus, and that's your consensus, not the articles themselves. The discussions are where you're going to find consensus. I could take five random articles, completely unrelated from something, and find something in it to claim that there was a consensus amongst them. The NFL Draft is much, MUCH bigger than the MLB, NHL and NBA drafts, and is held on a (usually) grander scale. If I was a member of the NBA wikiproject, I'd put my two cents in as to why they should note when players were or weren't drafted. There's a lot of guys who go undrafted who go on to be awesome - it should be noted they weren't drafted and what draft year they were first eligible for. Obviously things like this get crazy when there's certain circumstances (such as a player entering more than one draft, etc etc). And for the record, that Clarett thing is: High school players are eligible only after they've been graduated for more than three years AND had no NCAA eligibility. They can't just be graduated from high school. Otherwise everyone and their mother would play. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 13:23, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm going to keep this short - but again - stop with the hostility toward me. If you don't agree with me fine, but you guys operate under the premise that when i disagree - I'm completely off base. That's not very civil. Dealing with the content of your edit (which is the ONLY thing i should have to address) - I couldn't disagree with you more on your Smith scenario. That would be exactly why you leave that information out. No body is going to be confused about anything, now if you want to add some sort of "career years" to the college information - that would start to address that problem. I think that continues down the road of "what should and should not be included from an NFL player's amateur career?" Which, no doubt is limited to basically the NFL because there is no semblance of a minor league system in place (NFL europa was the closest thing but it's no longer around). At least the NBA has the DL and there are a ton of high level professional leagues outside of the states. As for the high school thing - nothing i said was incorrect and it's like you guys are trying to prove a point that isn't in dispute. Everyone can play NFL football, but the overwhelmingly vast majority of the people won't perform well so they aren't drafted. I can't speak for you (i don't know how old you are), but I'm perfectly eligible for the NFL draft - nobody in their right mind would confuse the fact that I'm not ever going to play in the NFL, but it's still a fact. Again, I'm abstaining from the remainder of this discussion - not because i refuse to talk about it; and not because i'm saying okay go ahead and make this change and i won't complain; but because hostile environment that is brought upon me for no reason other than "not agreeing". Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  13:45, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• As there is no consensus on this - we should not be adjusting this at all. However, as a temporary "stay of peace" i will get the undrafted status working and just leave out the year. We can always add it later. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  05:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Very well; we may always get consensus later. Undrafted is something I think we all agree on; the year is another matter, and we will need to have a consensus on this before implementing any changes to the template related to the year. Ksy92003(talk) 05:59, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

I have "started" to work on implementation of the undrafted status. In light of the fact that there *may* be some additional information added (supplemental v standard v undrafted), it is important that this change is done with a little more care than it may seem. There are a number of different technical issues to determine, so i have asked a user who has helped out here before what his thoughts are (not on the content - just on the implementation). As an act of good faith, I have left the undrafted status on display at the sandbox version. Again, this isn't a question of how do we do this (there are numerous ways), it's a question of "what's going to cause the least problems down the road? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio - what exactly would you like to do with the whole draft/supplemental/undrafted thing? What did you have in mind with all of it? The only reason I reverted you edits regarding the undrafted thing is because you'd yet to fully implement a working alternative in the sandbox. I would just like to see a visual of what you think we should do with each kind of draft status? So what do you envision with all these options?

Also, are you still steadfast opposed to the year being there for undrafted free agents? I can't say I'm going to budge much on that issue because I fully believe it enhances things and therefore I'm not inclined to acquiesce. And I honestly believe if we were to get a consensus most people would prefer this information. I mean even if you don't think the info is necessary, would you not agree that it is at least informative?►Chris Nelson 05:47, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

OK...the argument that "some people don't have this information so NO ONE should have it" is, frankly, rather ridiculous. That some people don't have a bit of information means that we should go out and add that information to those articles--it does not mean that we should remove it from the articles that have it.

Anyway, the point of contention seems to be over the fact that some people who declare for the draft but go undrafted don't necessarily get signed as free agents until a year or so later. So how about this: we just say "Undrafted free agent; entered league in year X"? Kurt Weber (Go Colts!) 13:59, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Let's try and not call anyone's arguments ridiculous. I think your summary doesn't fully account for the various perspective, however - let's focus on your content. "Entered the league in year X" is not easy to account for in many cases. Did Kurt Warner "enter the league" in 1994 (i think that was the year he signed with green bay) or did he enter the league in 1999? This type of information has been traditionally left out of all other infoboxes. Wayne Gretzky - probably the most notable undrafted athlete of all-time - doesn't have any mention of this in his infobox. If you look at the cursory research i did, the consensus appears to be that the information should be entirely absent. As we're talking about something not as easy to figure out as "when they first appeared", I think a less is more compromise is needed. I think a mention of his draft status *should* suffice. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

By that logic, it should just say "drafted" for players that apply. The year should be the year they left college and entered the draft. Considering we also have "NFL debut" and a list of teams and years, it wouldn't be the least be confusing to have the undrafted year. If a guy went undrafted in 2002, first signed in 2003 and made his debut in 2004, that's all easily understood from the infobox. Face it Jmfangio - most people will agree with us on this. So I'm not compromising.►Chris Nelson 16:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the year of when the player went undrafted is important because what if a running back was undrafted in the year 1997 but only played in pratice squads for a couple of seasons? Thanks --Phbasketball6 22:25, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Well Jmfangio's big problem with it is that he thought undrafted guys went back in the draft. Considering they become free agents after the draft, I'm almost certain this is false. If that's the case, there's no confusion of what the year should be - the year they left college and were eligible. It's very simple.►Chris Nelson 22:27, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Athletes who are not drafted and do not sign with a team are available for the next draft. Athletes who are drafted and hold out are eligible for the draft - see: Bo Jackson. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:16, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bo Jackson was drafted, it does not apply. Undrafted free agents can sign with anyone, they do not go back into the draft. No player would agree with this. Why go from being a free agent able to sign with anyone to being back in the draft and having no choice? That is NOT how it works. So NOW what's your objection?►Chris Nelson 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Chris. Pats1 23:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

If your an undrafted free-agent and sign with a NFL you can not re-enter the draft it never happen, in Bo Jackson's cause he was the first overall pick by Tampa then signed with the Kansas City Royals and I'm guessing since he declined to go with the Buccaneers he was eligible in the draft for a second year. Besides Bo Jackson was the ONLY person drafted twice in the NFL draft (not including the American Football League), so that is not a good example or should I say he's the only. Thanks --Phbasketball6 23:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Plus we're not even talking about drafted guys. Guys that are drafted and do not sign within a year DO go back into the draft. I'm not saying otherwise. But guys that declare for the draft and go undrafted become free agents - they do not go back to being "draftable" the following year. In that case, Jmfangio's biggest argument against my edit is flawed, in my opinion, so I'd really like to hear his other objections so we can get this done.►Chris Nelson 00:05, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Although I'm disapointed that WP:CANVAS was violated to draw attention to this discussion, at least we have more people here. Phb and Pats - have you read the meat of my points above? I would like to get your perspective on those points. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:26, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I seem to recall you doing the same thing. But whatever. Are you going to acknowledge that you were wrong about undrafted free agents going back into the draft, or what? If you biggest argument for the year not being relevant is that you think they go into the draft, then it's no argument at all. So what other objections do you have?►Chris Nelson 01:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

::*How was WP:CANVAS violated? Granted, Chrisjnelson did leave messages on other people's talk page, but he wasn't asking people to side with him. He did say that IF they did agree with his edits to voice their opinion, but he wasn't telling anybody that they had to agree with him, as far as what I've seen at User talk:Pats1. Ksy92003(talk) 01:34, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Please read what he wrote again - specifically with regards to "if you agree..." Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:41, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I don't believe it was intentional by Chrisjnelson, but I do think this violates WP:CANVAS. I honestly believe it was just a poor choice of words on Chrisjnelson's part, but a clear attempt to try to get people to back his opinion up. Ksy92003(talk) 02:10, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Jmfangio is right, I violated it. I just wasn't very familiar with the policy. I think if I had just asked people to join the discussion it would have been okay, but I was asking if people were okay with my edit and that seems to be in violation. Hopefully any admin that sees it will let it slide this once as I wasn't aware it was against the rules.

Anyway Jmfangio, that's two posts you've made now and you have not responded to me with your other reasons. You were mistaken about undrafted free agents going back in the draft, and it seems to me that because of this the year is very simple to identify. So why else do you object?►Chris Nelson 02:11, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not mistaken Chris - if a person is not drafted, he is eligible until the end of time unless he signs with a team. That still doesn't address the points I brought up some time ago. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:15, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• You know, Jmfangio, your view on this rule does seem to make a lot of sense. Usually they will sign as a free agent, but I do believe that they can go back into the draft if nobody wants them. Isn't it this way in the NBA also? This policy actually seems quite familiar in the way that you explained it, Jmfangio, and that can cause problems in the template if somebody goes two drafts without being drafted, so that possibility is something that really should be concerned when considering whether or not to include that parameter in the template. Ksy92003(talk) 02:18, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'd like to leave it out altogether, but if we are going to include it - i think we need to leave out the year information. I don't think the information is as widely adopted as others claimed and if you see my initial comments - it doesn't appear this has support anywhere else. To further complicate the issue - the "NFL.com" has redesigned their website - no mention is made of draft status on Priest Holmes or Rod Smith. The is no question that this information is a critical piece of the individuals careers, but that does not mean it belongs here. As we are only displaying one link - and as most of the sites in the stats section make no mention of "undrafted year". See stacy mack at pfr. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This just isn't true... I even have a couple friends that have been UDFAs the past few years (I know, no big deal, but it does give me some insight into their lives and stuff). That's not how it works. You ARE mistaken.►Chris Nelson 02:19, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I know this isn't court, but saying that a couple of your friends have been UDFAs is hearsay. You can't say something that your friends say because they could be making it all up. Hearsay doesn't work in court, nor in life. Ksy92003(talk) 02:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. But I'm just telling you that I am 100% sure and that's why I'm not compromising.►Chris Nelson 02:32, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

This whole thing has sapped any enthusiasm I had for this subject. In my opinion, you are placing FAR too much emphasis on including an exhaustive amount of information in the infobox. Let the ARTICLE itself explain things such as, "signed as an undrafted free agent in 1997," or "undrafted in 1997, he signed with Pittsburgh the following season." The infobox should be a quick accounting of highlight information: birthdate, birthplace, college, position, and teams played with and year. This quest to document every detail (UFA status, the circumstances of their debut) are maddening. Just write good clean prose in the article itself and you won't need to make the infobox so complicated. There's been a TON of improvement made over the previous infobox, but I think we may have gotten carried away. I suggest you pause for a moment to consider the purpose of the infobox—to supplement the body copy. —xanderer 02:37, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• I agree whole heartedly with this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Then why don't we just put "Drafted" with no year, round or pick? How is that any less overkill? I'm not saying we should do that, obviously we shouldn't. I'm just making a point.►Chris Nelson 02:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

But if you can't prove that a rule exists, and by that I mean that it says it directly in the official NFL Rulebook, you can't say that there is a specific rule. Because of that, I'm siding with Jmfangio on this matter because there is no way to prove that a player can't re-enter the draft. Ksy92003(talk) 02:42, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

You could think about it logically and realize it makes zero sense.►Chris Nelson 02:46, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Actually, thinking about it logically, it makes the most sense possible. Ksy92003(talk) 02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

• Just as a point of clarification - my personal view has nothing to do with the re-entering the draft and everything to do with what xanaderer said combined with the fact that it is not "readily available information on the various stats sites. I think that the compromise here is that if a player is undrafted we present the information as [[NFL Draft]]: [[Undrafted sportsperson |Undrafted]]. Of course, leaving it out as we did prior to the change would be my ideal solution. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  02:47, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Kevin - then you just don't understand the way things work. And you can't be thinking about it logically, because logic will only lead you to one conclusion - the opposite of the one you can do.

Jmfangio - the information is EASILY available everywhere. Saying otherwise is just false.

But you know what? Forget it. I'll just compromise so we can stop dicking around. Let's just make it NFL Draft: Undrafted.►Chris Nelson 02:51, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I think an easy way to remedy the situation involving the numbers (specifically regarding free agents) would be to have "No." linked to the squad number article, rather than the number itself. That is, unless, of course, that's how it's already done... in which case, ignore this. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 00:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I understand your proposal.►Chris Nelson 00:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• The No. is linked to the squad number, the actual number does not link anywhere unless the person is a free agent and the field is left out. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

I think someone commented that it doesn't make sense to have "N/A" link to Squad number#American football if there's no number, so I was suggesting to have "No." link to Squad number#American football instead of the actual number the player is or isn't wearing. In a nutshell: "No." is linked, "99" and "N/A" are not. It makes the whole free agent thing null, since we wouldn't have to worry about the number being linked if the player isn't wearing a number (since he's a free agent). I think I explained that correctly. But at the same token, I don't know if that's what we're doing already or not. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:02, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's essentially what we're doing already. except N/A does link out because there's a decent chance someone would have no idea what that means. personally - i would have liked to set it up where the number field is removed altogether if no jersey number is specified. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I misunderstood what you were going for by having "N/A" link out. Never mind. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd be fine with "No." disappearing for free agents. You don't wear a jersey when you're a free agent, it's irrelevant. And if a guy gets added to a team, the "No." will re-appear and people will no to add it.►Chris Nelson 01:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Oh, okay, well we can do that. Okay so just to be clear - if currentteam=Free agent then "No." should not be displayed? Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. It doesn't really serve a purpose for free agents and I don't think anyone would have a problem with this edit.►Chris Nelson 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. Free agents don't have numbers, so it shouldn't be there. Wlmaltby3 – ^talk/_contribs 01:11, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

• Okay, give me a few minutes on the year thing and i can implement these things at one time. If someone else knows how to do this, please feel free - i would just make sure that the Free agent gets centered in the box. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  01:14, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

User:Phbasketball6 pointed this out to me when it was in beta. It now appears that the new NFL.com has gone live, and while it looks good one difference is that the links to player pages are not only different but contain different codes for each player than previously used by NFL.com/CBS Sportsline. As you can see here, http://www.nfl.com/players/jasontaylor/profile?id=TAY338550 , there are now two unique things in the link - the player name and the ID at the end. I guess to make it work in the infobox, we'd need to have two fields to enter these in. However, considering the following:

• The pages appear to be very detailed
• They are from the official league site
• They have historical players as well

I believe we should now make this the standard for all player infoboxes. So is there anyone that would like to work on implementing this new kind of link in the infobox? I might work on it but I'm not good at that sort of thing.►Chris Nelson 16:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this should be the new standard for infoboxes. Bjewiki 17:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Any idea how to implement it in the infobox?►Chris Nelson 19:12, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It looks like you don't actually have to include the player's name. http://www.nfl.com/players/profile?id=TAY338550 (omitting the name) also takes you to Jason Taylor's profile. As long as this is consistent behavior, we should be able to just copy/paste/change one of the other stats lines. --B 03:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• NFL has been implemented in the first spot so that if someone utilizes all stats fields (not as rare as you think) NFL is what is displayed. Reinserted SI because a) it's still valid and b) someone may want to insert it. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  06:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well considering NFL.com now has every player ever, I see no reason why we don't just decide to make NFL.com the standard.►Chris Nelson 07:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

No denying that logic, but I'm still curious as to one point: does the template have to be restricted to only one source? I mean for baseball, if you look at {{baseballstats}}, there are five options for sources for the stats (see Chris Young (outfielder)#External links). I'm not familiar with this template or anything as technical as it, but is there any reason why there can't be more than just one option for the websites for player stats? Ksy92003(talk) 07:28, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Well are there really things some provide that others don't?►Chris Nelson 07:30, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Nothing is broken with the others - none of us are in a position to make that decision. It's in priority spot #1. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How are we not in position to make that decision? It's just editing. If I end up editing EVERY player's infobox and adding NFL.com stats, I'm in position to make that decision.►Chris Nelson 07:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

(Un-indent)

I'm not sure if there are any stats that are provided in some that aren't in others. The most reasonable choice would simply be the one that seems to have the most complete statistics not only for all players but a bulk of the statistical categories. I haven't been able to look at any of the websites because it's more than I want to concern myself with; I'm here only to discuss, not to make any drastic changes. If there is a statistics site that has a bulk of the statistical categories and is complete, meaning it includes every player, then that would be the one that gets my vote. Ksy92003(talk) 07:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• well regardless - this decision should not be made without widespread discussion. I included the stats options as a compromise between my position of "no stats in the info box"; I would rather not engage either of you in discussions at this time, but seeing as you both have an interest in editing this box - I'm trying to extend to you this courtesy. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I'll just add NFL.com stats to all the infoboxes.►Chris Nelson 07:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• That's certainly an acceptable compromise. I did bump it to priority #1 for you guys, so you *might* want to consider leaving the other links in there as other's might take offense to you adjusting their edits when nothing was "wrong" with them. You can leave the other text in there and it will be hidden on the display. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Edit conflict... again)

Chrisjnelson, if you are right when you said that NFL.com has stats for all players ever, then I think it would be the most consistent to use. Granted I don't know either of the other sites, nor do I really know about NFL.com either, but using the logic you provided, Chrisjnelson, I don't think there would be any problem with inputing the NFL.com links in all the infoboxes... whether it's something you're actually willing to do to all the infoboxes or not at this time is something that I'll leave you to decide. Ksy92003(talk) 07:46, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• All i will say is that stats sites have been a major point of contention at other projects (WP:BASEBALL). Now the statistical depth relied upon in the MLB is somewhat more "intense", but none the less - people argue on here all the time about *which is the best stats site*, how many do we need to display, etc...etc... It is possible (and probably likely) that some people will eventually raise the issue of "why just one" on display in the box. In reality, there is a great deal of bias in place because if two editors want to "dispute" which stats site is the best - the one whose site is "higher" on the list is going to have an unfair upper hand. Get's back to why i just want to leave stats out all together and put them in the ELs. If that ever happens, the fields can be removed from the template and we'll just be stuck with hidden text in the infoboxes. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  07:52, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

(Un-indent)

I really don't even know why we are having a huge discussion about which stats page to use. I mean not that no discussion is better, but I think we're all making too big a deal of it. I agree with you that stats links shouldn't be in the infobox; I was shocked to see that they were here when I first came; they aren't in the infoboxes of any other templates, as far as I'm aware. {{baseballstats}} is used as an EL template and includes any or all or any combination of five websites. If we include them all in the EL, then the reader can simply decide which to use for their own personal use. There really isn't any purpose of linking to stats in the infobox, as it really doesn't contribute do the purpose of the infobox, which is to give personal quick background information on the player. Any and all links should be left below in an "External links" section. Ksy92003(talk) 07:58, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• As a courtesy - I want you both to know that I'm no longer going to engage in this discussion. It isn't up to the three of us to decide this and it's obvious that this type of information is debated outside of here. Until some fresh perspective is offered, there isn't more for me to say. Let's leave it as is to keep the peace - you guys have all the options available to you in your edits. I would recommend to both of you that you don't remove other's choice, you can simply add your text and the nfl will always appear. If changes are made in the future to allow "multiple" stats sites - this will reduce the level of work on everyone and if the stats are removed alltogether nothing will break because the text will simply function like <!-- Hidden Text--> Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:03, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Alright, after two blunders, now I'll finally get to my response. Due to my inexperience with editing infoboxes due to the multitude of characters, all the parameters, you shouldn't expect me to make any real edits to the infobox code. I personally don't have a preference as to which is used as long as it's agreeable, sensible, logical (yes, I know those last two are synonyms), and complete. As long as it is agreed upon, that's the important thing. I don't even like NFL football that much and have rarely edited any football articles; I've kept myself apart from football articles for much of the time I've spent editing. I hardly even go to read football articles, most certainly not frequent enough to concern myself with this template, which is used in exactly 609 articles (as of 08:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)), moreso than any template I could imagine. So I wouldn't dare make any edit to a template which will affect 609 articles. I'll leave that to the experts: Jmfangio and Chrisjnelson. Ksy92003(talk) 08:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

• Editing limitations do not prevent one from asserting their opinions. All editors should feel free to contribute whereever and whenever possible provided that they don't stray too far from things like WP:5P and all the various WP:PG. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  08:27, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, no, I wasn't trying to insinuate that at all. I will continue to contribute to the discussion on the content of the infobox, but I won't at any time soon make any actual edits to the infobox template itself. Ksy92003(talk) 08:33, 16 August 2007 (UTC)