Talk:Patrick Pass

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

[edit] Listing of teams in year box

As Pass is no longer on the Houston Texans roster - he is not eligible to make an appearance during the regular season. This is similar to a player who appears in a spring training game for a Major League Baseball team or as a member of an NBAs rookie ball team - if they are not eligible to play for the team during the regular season (as in - on the roster) then they are not "on the team". You will notice in the text of the article, there is a note about this. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  15:19, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And show me where the rule rule states a player must appear in a regular season game to have the team listed in the infobox, O Mighty Curator of WP:NFL. By the way, the category Category:Houston Texans players is not Category:Houston Texans players who have played in at least 1 regular season game for the team. Pass was as much a member of the Texans as he was a member of the Pats. It just happened he didn't last long enough to help the team in the regular season. But last time I checked, teams don't lock their doors, close their offices, and stop any activity from January to September. Pass was a member of the team. That cannot be denied. Therefore, the Texans should be listed in his team history, as he was *gasp* a member of the team. He was paid by the team; an employee. He earned $1,110 a week for as long he was in training camp, with possible some workout bonuses too. This issue first came up at Kenny Smith. Yankees10 believed that since Smith didn't play a game for the Raiders in 2005, the Raiders shouldn't be listed in the infobox. Smith was, in reality, on their injured reserve list. So, I retorted that if a player, say, Tom Brady, was injured tomorrow, placed on IR, and missed the entire 2007 season, would his infobox read "New England Patriots, 2000-2006, 2008-?" Don't think so. Pats1 16:34, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Your hostility does not lend it well to this conversation; if you would like to discuss this politely, i'll be happy to. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:00, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Give me a break and respond with your side of the argument, or the change will be reverted. Pats1 17:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I have no obligation to discuss this with people who cannot participate in a civil discussion. I really have nothing more to say to you. I have already stated my position in the opening statement. If the information doesn't appear in his career stats - it shouldn't appear in the infobox. See tim couch at nfl. You don't see any mention of the packers there do you? so it should not be in his infobox either. It is confusing and poorly supported. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  17:49, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
So in other words you're more than willing to state your opinion but sticking your head in the sand when any other are offered. Gotta love WP:CON. And if you want to use NFL.com player pages as your argument, I suggest you check out Cleo Lemon's. He was traded in October 2005 from the Chargers to the Dolphins. His 2005 row only has the Dolphins listed, yet he was with the Chargers from January 2005 (and prior) through September 2005 (that's regular season games too, for those keeping score at home). Pats1 17:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I'm more than willing to discuss things - I just don't put up with this type of behavior. The onus is not on me to bring in other editors - if you want to bring in some impartial parties, there are avenues for this. Your Lemon example is very different - we're not talking about "pre-season" appearances or anything of the sort with him. However, his Baltimore information shoudl be removed from the infobox for the same reason - no mention of it on his stats. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
To put it another way - his Chargers information is verified by that source, Couch's isn't. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  18:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Not entirely! To a casual observer looking at his NFL.com page, they would think he signed with the Dolphins as a free agent before the 2005 season, or something to that effect. They wouldn't expect him to be on the Chargers for a certain amount of time in 2005 before being traded. My point? Why settle for less information when there is a perfectly acceptable method (see Cleo Lemon) to presenting the most accurate information: every team the player was a member of!?! Pats1 19:04, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Why are you assuming what people will and will not say? If a person is on a practice squad, it will show up in his "stats" even if he didn't play any games. If he was signed during the offseason and then released - he won't. That is not an acceptable way of doing it - it's just the way one other editor has decided to do it. It is again - just like preseason MLB - you don't see that listed on every players infobox (if any at all). Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  20:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, I could care less of what the MLB project does. That's irrelevant. And would you please tell me why you want to avoid accurately listing all of teams a player has been a member of like it's the plague? Honestly, I'm baffled. Pats1 20:50, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • Because what you deem as "accurate" i deem as inaccurate. These players never appeared on the active roster at a time when they were eligible to play for the team in a regular season game. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:06, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
And that matters how? Who made the rule that the infobox can only contain teams in which the player was active for a regular season game?! What if a player is signed, goes on IR, and is never on the active roster? The question here is simple: was the player a member of the team or not? How can you deny that Patrick Pass was never a member of the Texans? Pats1 21:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Aside from my own assertion that it is unimportant and misleading - this information is not included on any of the major stats sites that i can find. Take a look at the stats boxes on NFL.com, nflplayers.com, Pro-football-reference, sportsline.com, espn.com, cnnsi.com, rotoworld.com, yahoo.com, foxsports and more ... not one of them makes one mention of his time with green bay in their stats box. If there is a biography - some of them do mention it - most do not. I understand this is an emotional issue for you, but if none of the other sites on the net consider it important enough for inclusion in the "infobox", making it difficult to confirm at best, there is no reason to include that information in the infobox. A person who does not make a roster does not deserve the same recognition as someone that does. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:36, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, we have to make a distinction here. Those are all statistical listings. It's tough to list statistics for a player when he did not play in any regular season games in which he would accumulate them. This is not a statistical listing. This is a historical "employment" listing. Last year, before Ourlads.com went pay-only, they had little pop-up infoboxes for the players on their depth charts. And in that infobox contained no stats, but rather a history of every team the player was on. Also, NFL.com (or ESPN, etc.), if a player is on multiple teams in a year (very common among street free agent types), will only list usually the last team the player was on, but give the player's stats for all the teams he was on. The only way to decipher which stats belong to which stint with a team is by looking at the player's gamelog, matching up the opponents to a team's schedule, and then separating the stats. I don't see why we want to replicate that here. If there's an infobox we want to replicate, it's Ourlads'. Pats1 21:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Ourlads.com (a site i have never heard of) has a specific focus - that is to communicate scouting reports. I'm glad that you find that useful and encourage you to use it for research, but it doesn't change the fact that that type of information is not readily available and is confusing. A player like Pass does not deserve to be listed as a 2007 Houston Texan because he was not one. If he was one, he would be on the practice squad or the roster. If you want to raise this topic with a wider audience, the nfl project will probably be receptive. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

And again you give no response to the fact that all the sites you listed provide team histories for statistical purposes (and in doing so have major flaws, one I described) and that these infoboxes are for historical purposes. And Pass was employed by the Houston Texans from July 30, 2007 to August 28, 2007. The Houston Texans are a company; a business. They operate year-round -- they don't just shut down shop from January to September. Pass was an employee of the Texans for almost a month during the Year of Our Lord 2007. So, yes, he is/was a 2007 Houston Texan. Whether he was cut (fired) on August 28 or September 11 is irrelevant. Pats1 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Just as an amendment - ourlads content is not available to the public - so while i was suggesting it should be used for "research"; wikipedia does not consider subscription based sites to be viable sources or ELs. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  21:53, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Whether it's a viable source or not is irrelevant in this matter. We're not enclosing it in ref tags, here, so enough with the WP:...'s. I already said it was a free site (for the most part) up until this time last year. And for 5 years (starting in 2001) I visited the site, and so I'm not making their infobox material up. The point remains the same - all of the websites you mention are for statistical purposes. The only one I can remember that wasn't is Ourlads, and that's how they did it. Pats1 22:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I cannot see any reason to change my position at this time. If you want to transition this topic to a wider audience - perhaps the nfl wiki project, i will gladly re-assert my opinion there. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
The thing is, there are no rules about this. There is no rule stating that the infobox teams section is solely for teams for which they saw regular season action. Not to mention, with the asterisk and explanation in there, it's not the least bit confusing, but on the contrary all the more informative. If a guy last played in the regular season in 1999, then plays again for the first time since in 2002, but attended camp and offseason workouts with other teams in between, I would say it is actually harmful and misleading to leave this info out. If a random visitor sees an infobox like that with the gap between 1999 and 2002, they will probably assume that he was out of football during that time. But, if they see teams in 2000 and 2001 with a note that they were an offseason member only, this will give them a better understanding out where he's actually gone in his career. The simple facts are that, my style of edit is 0% confusing and 100% more informative.►Chris Nelson 22:16, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
I agree. Now, since I'm at 3 reverts for today on this page, could you do a Cleo Lemon-style edit to this page? Pats1 22:21, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Haha, I love how it's called "Cleo Lemon-style" now. But I don't think it's best to edit-war with him right now, considering he's already accusing me of it when I'm not doing it.►Chris Nelson 22:23, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
  • I will note this just onece Pats1 and CJN - you cannot ask for another user to make an edit on your behalf, that is the sign of wikilobbying. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  22:25, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
We're in a discussion. I don't think it's unreasonable to decide on something and then enact that in the article. Isn't that the point of discussion? Pats1 22:54, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Keep your pants on. I actually am aware it's against policy. *gasp* ►Chris Nelson 22:26, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitrary section break

What is his actual disposition with the team? If he is going to be on the practice squad, then we include them as being with the team that year. The same would be true if he were on injured reserve. But if he was actually removed from the team and is no longer under contract with the team in any way prior to the regular season, it doesn't really make sense to list him in the info box. --B 22:38, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

He will not be on the practice squad. But some of us disagree it is not relevant info. If you are unaware, the Texans listing in his infobox would be accompanied with an asterisk and explanation, see Cleo Lemon as to how I think it ought to be done. It is relevant info because he was under contract just as much as any other player. I simply don't see the harm in presenting this info, so as not to confuse the reader but rather inform them even more, as long as it is made clear he was not a regular season member. It simply does nothing to harm the article, but rather only makes it more informative. People will naturally assume a guy was out of football if they see years missing. It should be made clear that this was not the case.►Chris Nelson 22:41, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
And for the record, I know at least five editors that were very pleased with this style of edit that I started, and they all agree it's good for the infobox. So this is not just something I think.►Chris Nelson 22:42, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Lemon was on the rosters for SD and MIA - that's not the issue - the issue is with the Baltimore Ravens information in his box. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Random... no one said otherwise...►Chris Nelson 23:09, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

So is anyone going to make a reply related to the topic? Juan's last comment didn't make any sense from what I can tell. He basically just stated a fact - one that one one was discussing or contending.►Chris Nelson 23:22, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

What does the NFL say? Do they consider him to have played for the team in 2007? --B 23:52, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
They haven't gotten around to updatign releases, but here is a pretty simple example of a very notable player. Kurt Warner tried out with the packers (it's sourced and in his article last time i checked) - yet there is no mention of it in the stats box at his nfl profile. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  23:55, 30 August 2007 (UTC)
Stat boxes are irrelevant - the infobox is not a stat box. But if you want to argue about stats, here's the counter - Keith Harrison at NFL.com. Was on Buffalo's practice squad from mid-October of last year. NEVER on the active roster last season. Buffalo is listed for 2006, with 0 games played. I do NOT feel stat boxes should decide this, since it's not a stat box, but there's the contradiction to your example.
As Pats1 stated early, these are not statistics. It's a list of teams they've been with. I've always felt this works best, and is most informative, in a timeline form. And that includes teams they were under contract with but got cut from. I mean honestly, since the information is factually correct, AND not confusing given the asterisk and note, how can one say it's bad for the article?►Chris Nelson 00:00, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Chris - no one is arguing about practice squads. That information should and can be included and no special notation is needed. Juan Miguel Fangio| ►Chat  00:02, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay. Well I disagree and I'm going to do it this the correct way.►Chris Nelson 00:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Jmfangio--Yankees10 02:25, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Chris, you're not omnipotent. Your comment suggests that. Ksy92003(talk) 02:37, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No, my comment suggested that I have undeniable proof that this player fits the criteria for the category, so I'm going to do it the correct way.►Chris Nelson 02:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
No, you said that you're gonna do it one particular way because you disagree with one person, which gives the impression that you think you're omnipotent. Ksy92003(talk) 02:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
Well what I meant is that I'm going to do it the correct way, the way that can be factually supported. Sorry for the confusion.►Chris Nelson 02:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Even replacing the disputed comment with the way you phrased it right now, it still gives the impression that you're acting like the omnipotent force by simply saying that you don't believe somebody is right and changing it to the way that you want. Ksy92003(talk) 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)