[edit] NFL Players of the week & month I'm pretty new to editing wiki, but wanted to create a page for NFL weekly awards. The NFL hands out awards to 6 players each week...offensive, defensive and special teams player of the week for each conference, AFC & NFC. In addition, the NFL announces a monthly winner for each, awarded for September, October, November, and December. And lastly, there is a monthly award given to the offensive and defensive rookies of the month. The offensive and defensive awards started in 1984, and special teams was added in 1993. I have most of the data, but there are some considerable gaps in the 1980's and early 1990's that would need filled in. The info can be found in yearly NFL Record & Fact Books (for instance, I have the 1991 record & fact book which includes all of 1990's winners). The rest of the info I have was obtained from recent team media guides that include it. I have 100% of the awards info from 1997 to 2009. I don't even know if this is the right place to bring this up, but since there is a page for FedEx air & ground weekly awards, and pepsi rookie of week awards, i thought it would be appropriate to have a page for this NFL award. If somebody who edits NFL pages frequently could let me know what to do, that would be great thanks PS: sorry, i don't know how to include my user name like others have, but my user name is Eldorado Owens —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado Owens (talk • contribs) 07:08, 17 November 2009 (UTC) - What's the deal here? Can anybody give me an answer on what to do? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado Owens (talk • contribs) 27 November 2009 (UTC)
-
- You can create it if you want, no one is really stopping you. Just make sure it's good enough not to get deleted. Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:16, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I guess my main concern is I have some holes in the data...it's not complete. I'll create it...I just wonder if there is anybody who has older NFL record & fact books to fill in some of the holes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eldorado Owens (talk • contribs) 20:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- 17 weeks for the entire history of the NFL? Way too much data, my suggestion is to not create since this info is pretty much useless in the big scheme of things.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 20:26, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Lawsuit The NFL is a copyrighted name. Shouldn't/couldn't Wiki be sued for infringement? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tatumstevens2 (talk • contribs) 19:36, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - No because the NFL prevents the use of it by other leagues, not encylopedias or the media. If you use that logic then ESPN would've already been sued. So, absolutely not.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Is that a serious question? That's like asking if Wiki, or any other encyclopedia used for information purposes, could be sued since Microsoft, Macintosh, CBS, CNN, ExxonMobil, etc. are copyrighted names. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:47, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Switchover all Infobox NFLretired to Infobox NFLactive Do all of the NFLretired infoboxes need to be changed to NFLactive infobox? I want to make sure. Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 23:16, 26 November 2009 (UTC) - Yes.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:29, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yea. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:53, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Please check Bob Griese to see if I changed it right. Please tell me what to change or fix so I will know in the future. Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 02:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Just some minor things, but overall very nice switch.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:46, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for the fast reply! I will now start changing others now. Southwood Paul (talk) 02:48, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- And thank you for being willing to do this. Giants and I were the only ones who have done this. At the rate we were going, we weren't going to finish switching them over until 2013 or so. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry to be a bother, but I have a quick question. On the article Otto Graham how should his two numbers be formatted? Right now it just has a comma inbetween his two numbers. Thanks Again! Southwood Paul (talk) 03:30, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- I've replied on your talk page.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 03:33, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Do we use the same format for a coach? Southwood Paul (talk) 03:43, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
- Yes except if they didn't play then no number and you replace the former teams field with former coaching jobs.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:49, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Woah, hold on there. Why are we changing all the infoboxes to active? This makes no sense to me. Wizardman 01:49, 1 December 2009 (UTC) - The Infoboxes are being changed to nflactive now becuase the infomation will work in this template. I got this off of the Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League poject list. I asked a few questions and user:Giants27 and user:Eagles247 confirmed the switch. If you have any questions you should ask them.
P.S. If you converted any back please put it back to nflactive. Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 01:55, 1 December 2009 (UTC) Where is something about John Matuszak? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.236.47.147 (talk) 17:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC) Why? I just realized today that the infoboxes getting changed. So what's up with that? Who decided that this should be done? Actually I don't think it's a good idea that infoboxes of former NFL players who are now coaches get changed to "NFLactive". I also saw that the infobox of former 49ers HC Bill Walsh (a coach who never played in the NFL) was changed to "NFLactive" . "Height", "Weight" and "Last played" don't make any sense for a coaches infobox. There is the "Infobox NFL player coach" around. Don't get why those have to be changed to "NFLactive" too. Could someone enlighten me please? (Armchair QB (talk) 22:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)) - It's being done to unify all the infoboxes. Admittedly the NFLactive name is poor now but until we can get consensus on the name then it'll be that. Plus, the coaching years field allows for the move of coaches to this infobox. And to put it honestly switching infoboxes is a pain, for example a player retires so: Change #1, NFLactive → NFLretired, he then goes into coaching so: Change #2, NFLretired → NFL player coach. Takes to much work as little as you may think it is when the infoboxes can just be combined into one.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:25, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree though that the Height and Weight shouldn't automatically appear on the infobox even when it is not added, especially for coaches. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Follow-up, I've added a coaching debut and final year field (see Bill Walsh (American football coach) as an example for it). Also on the height/weight thing for coaches, I agree but I'm not completely sure how to make that change to make it removable. However User:DoubleBlue may know, so you may want to drop him a line.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Alright. And also, would the debut have to be as a head coach or can it be an assistant coach? Because there are numerous assistant coach pages out there who have never been head coaches. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- The wording I used is neutral for either assistants or head coaches, so either way.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 22:36, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Wouldn't Bill Walsh have debuted in 1966 then? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:38, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Yes.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, if "switching infoboxes is a pain" it's not exactly comprehensible why you are now trying to switch all the infoxboxes which have been created before, may it be "NFL player coach" or "NFL retired". Honestly said that statement doesn't make much sense to me. But anyway, I don't have a problem with the name "NFLactive". Nor do I have much problems with the idea of switching the boxes of retired players (who are no longer involved in football). I just think that this infobox isn't exactly adequate for coaches. So do I get that right that you also plan to change all the infoboxes of current or former NFL head and assistant coaches (even those who haven't been NFL players) too? Honestly said I'm not in favor of that. Actually I would prefer that for coaches the "NFL player coach" infobox would be kept or that the "Infobox Gridiron football person" would be used. Just trying to voice my opinion on that matter. And just again the question: Was the idea of switching the infoboxes discussed somewhere before? (Armchair QB (talk) 23:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)) - Yes, it was discussed on my talk page (in August I believe) along with the talk page of the template itself.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 23:31, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- We have a new issue. See Vince Lombardi. He never played in the NFL, and it says "No regular season or postseason appearances" right before his coaching debut stuff. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Starting Lineups in Seasonal Articles User:Ethan9456 added starting lineups (like this) to each 2009 Philadelphia Eagles game, but they were very bulky and I did not see the purpose of adding them to all NFL pages. Could someone look into this? Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:18, 1 December 2009 (UTC) - Definitely inappropriate. Delete on sight. – PeeJay 02:33, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
- (ec) Absolutely unnecessary and obtrusive. Remove any without prejudice.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:34, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] New bot request I have requested a bot that would go through various templates and replace hyphens (-) with en dashes (–) in certain parameters. Any other suggestions, approval or even disapproval would be appreciated. Also, if I missed any template, please add it to the list on the Bot request page. Thanks.—NMajdan•talk 16:05, 1 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Do all infobox templetes need changed? Do all infoboxes need to be changed to NFLactive? For example; does the infobox NFL Player need to be changed or not? Thanks! Southwood Paul (talk) 00:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC) - It would help, just don't change Template:Infobox Gridiron football person to NFLactive because WP:CFL uses it and the project has yet to accept NFLactive (the name may have something to do with it...)--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 00:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Thoughts on a strange category just created? this Enigmamsg 18:24, 7 December 2009 (UTC) - I personally dont like it--Yankees10 19:48, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
- It seems kind of pointless. ~Richmond96 t • c 19:53, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
What's your opinion on players of the United Football League, like Shackelford who otherwise fails WP:ATHLETE, and as far as I could see didn't really play on that league neither. Secret account 01:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC) - The UFL is a professional league, so yeah he is notable. If you see here he did play.--Yankees10 01:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Merger Anybody willing to merge 4th and 2 into Colts-Patriots rivalry?--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 02:45, 14 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] All-American in infobox I tried to get some opinions at WP:CFB, but no one has responded to a stylistic disagreement among the editors of Brandon Graham about how to discribe his All-American Status in his infobox. The disagreement is between whether it should say - "All-American (1st-team: Rivals, Scout; 2nd-team: WCFF, TSN, AP, SI, CFN)" or
- "First-team All-American"
I assume you NFL guys know the that NCAA only recognizes certain A-A list which it uses to describe who was A-A, consensus A-A (at least half these lists) and unanimous A-A (all these lists). According to the five lists that are recognized by the NCAA Graham is a consensus second team All-American with no first team recognition among any of the five that count. His only first team recognitions are by "unofficial" lists that do not count towards consensus or unanimous AA status. I feel it provides disinformation to the reader to describe a consensus second team player with no official first team recognition as "First-team All-American". Opinions welcome.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:41, 16 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Template NFL navbox What is the purpose of {{NFL navbox}}? Compared to {{navbox}} it has zero additional features, plus it does not have a "titlestyle" parameter which means {{NFLPrimaryColor}} et al. can't be implemented. IMHO we should delete this template. And with {{CFB navbox}} it's just the same. --bender235 (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC) - Agreed, it's pretty useless.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 19:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- This edit explains why I/we created CFB navbox (colors!). At the time, colorizing the vde links was quite a chore. If the navbox now has all the features of the CFB, then sure, incorporate it. MECU≈talk 15:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] Playoff appearances Should every team's list of playoff years indicate the current year if they clinched a playoff berth, even though they haven't physically been in the playoffs yet? (Example) Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:56, 24 December 2009 (UTC) - I think its fine. ~Richmond96 t • c 02:04, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] retired numbers I'd like to make a suggestion that the navboxes for retired numbers for NFL teams have a 2px border in the team second dary color to mimic the jersey of the team. examples:
As people can see the way with white lettering (if a team uses white numberals better matches the look of the team, is easier reading. I was told that the retired numebrs are meant to match the current roster boxes of the teams, I see no need for such a restraint, but I wanted to show a few examples of how this looks better.
I realize it is a small thing and whatever the consensus wants is fine. I think these boxes are different in that not every team retires numbers and the borders on Nav boxes add a little something to the display without being too busy. Look at the examples above, the purple backgroud with yellow letters is dull, mundate and is not the mark or character of a vikigns jersey. It's just a simple remdention of the team colors. If the technology exists to look a little cleaner, sharper, then I am in favor of doing it. It makes the wiki NFL stuff look more professional to average readers, rather than just the editors. Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:28, 24 December 2009 (UTC) - I like how they were before because I dont understand why should they be any different from the roster templates.--Yankees10 20:51, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Fair enough. I like the new way because there is no reason they have to be the same as the roster templates. There are no rules. Roster templates are for rosters, these are for guys who have retired numbers. Different templates for differant uses. The only time people see the roster templates is when they are on the team page. When they see the retired number tempaltes they are looking at a player article. These look sharper, more colorful and yet are not busy. I think they look cool.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 20:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I agree that they look cool, however they may be a little too distracting as a template. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
ANother idea, 1 px border rather than two. I like toe 2px border, it captures the color and looks sharp, but for those who think it may be a bit too busy here is what 1 px looks like:
I agree that they may be too distracting, but if absolutely necessary, then the one above my comment looks fine.--Truco 503 21:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- The 1px looks good. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:34, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- I quite like the 2px borders, and given the choice I would support a change to the template to include them. However, if the consensus is that 2px borders are distracting, I would happily defer to the group judgement. – PeeJay 02:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- I also like the 2px borders best. could this be used for other NFL team related templates? ~Richmond96 t • c 03:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- It should be 2px, but if nothing else then 1px. It looks much better and is not too distracting. What is distracting is the old look. I vote for the changeMcDanny74 (talk) 07:56, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Yes, it could. That way, both primary and secondary colors could be used on roster templates. It is easy to add a border of the secondary colorBigmaninthebox (talk) 19:30, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
[edit] NFL color templates During the last couple of days, I spent quiet some time implementing the NFL color templates—{{NFLPrimaryColor}}, {{NFLSecondaryColor}}, {{NFLAltPrimaryColor}}, and {{NFLAltSecondaryColor}}—on several NFL roster navboxes. However, User:Ositadinma reverted most of that changes. My question is: was it correct to implement those templates? --bender235 (talk) 20:21, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Update: It turned out that User:Ositadinma only edited those navboxes because User:Chrisjnelson reverted my changes on those color templates. I switched a couple of team colors to actually have alternative colors for some teams that previously had identical colors on the main color template and the alternative color template. Yet the question remains the same: do we implement those color templates to all navboxes and other templates relating to NFL teams (even if, in some cases, main colors and alt colors are identical)? --bender235 (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC) - Yes, some teams like the Colts and Jets only have one color as a primary (blue/green) and white as a secondary color. If and only if, all of the colors on the four color templates are right can we implement them, if they are wrong then no. Ositadinma 20:40, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I don't get it. If those colors are wrong, we should correct them on those templates. Why shouldn't we? --bender235 (talk) 20:44, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- What I am saying that if the colors are wrong on the color templates and not changed and implemented on a template were the maneul web colors are right, then we should not implement them. In the end all that matters are that the colors are right, weather by the color templates or manuel web colors. Ositadinma 20:57, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- So, in the end those colors template just should have the right colors. Because it doesn't make sense to have all those team templates (whether be roster navboxes or something else) that have their colors adjusted manually. --bender235 (talk) 21:01, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the colors don't look good. You have the Ravens with black background/gold text secondary scheme. Both technically team colors, yes, but it doesn't look good in the template with the primary color scheme. Some teams just look better with only one scheme, which is why the secondary scheme matches the primary scheme in some cases.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC) - Just out of curiosity, who decides which color schemes "look good" and which don't? Because I'm wondering why black/gold looks good in Steelers templates, but apparently doesn't look good in Ravens templates. --bender235 (talk) 22:35, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
- The first criterion for what "looks good" ideally should be as per WP:COLOR: color combinations should have adequate contrasts so the text can be readable against whatever background it is printed on. Unfortunately, I do not see those general readability and accessibility rules practiced on a regular basis regarding these templates. Zzyzx11 (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I decide. And it looks good in a Steelers template because THOSE are their colors. Black is very much a minor color in the Ravens scheme and looks too "Steelers-ish" in their infobox.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:20, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oh, you decide? I guess you must have applied for ownership of those color templates. Anyway, I've got a compromise in mind. How about adding a feature to {{Infobox NFLactive}} that for some teams (like Colts, Packers, Jets, ...) it does not use the colors in {{NFLAltPrimaryColor}} and {{NFLAltSecondaryColor}} at all, allowing us to leave different colors in there and implement those templates to roster navboxes and others. --bender235 (talk) 03:07, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Better idea - don't change anything. Man, glad we solved that one.►Chris NelsonHolla! 03:25, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
- Seriously, who put you in charge of this? You do not own these templates. As a matter of fact, those main color templates and alt color templates should have different colors, in order to implement them effectively in navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 12:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- I personally didn't mind the changes except for the Ravens. They should stay with "purple" (or whatever they call it) with gold because the infobox coloring are for team identification and could look good as well. So, having both Pittsburgh and Baltimore with the same color scheme is problematic. On the other hand, the Lions and Raiders looked okay while I didn't get a chance to see what the Redskins, 49ers etc. looked like but they do sound strange. Implementing the change is okay with me but if we don't then that's fine as well.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 14:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- In the recent changes, Baltimore and Pittsburgh do not have the same color scheme. Black/Gold is only used as Baltimore's alternative color, the main color scheme is sill purple/gold. --bender235 (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Thanks for clearing that up. If that's the case then I'm perfectly okay with the change considering it isn't the same as Pittsburgh's.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 15:00, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Bender235, why not put a 1px border around the roster boxes using the seoncdary color? Do one here soo we can see how it looks. Most teams have 3 colors anyway, with white being the color of their numbers. Look at the retired number infoboxes to get an idea of what I mean.Bigmaninthebox (talk) 19:33, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I'm sorry, but I don't know what you mean. --bender235 (talk) 19:51, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- See the above thread.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:29, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- Oh, okay. But actually I was talking about the {{Infobox NFLactive}}, not the roster navboxes. --bender235 (talk) 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Acutally, the roster boxes and the {{Infobox NFLactive}} could use the three colors like the retired boxes in the thread above. There are only 32 teams so there is no reason that it is too much work . . . I think the primary color with a 1px or 2px border would show the colors properly. The Ravens would be purple with a black border and so on/Bigmaninthebox (talk) 03:21, 29 December 2009 (UTC)
Some of the combinations just look like crap. The Raiders' secondary scheme looks too close to the free agent/retired colors. The Ravens' secondary scheme doesn't look like Ravens colors because black isn't major color of the team (except when they wear the black jerseys occasionally). There was just no need to fuck with the colors, and I'll keep reverting.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:32, 28 December 2009 (UTC) - That Raiders scheme does not look like the FA scheme, because there still is the main color scheme above it. As for the Ravens, their team colors (see Baltimore Ravens) are purple, black, gold and white (not to mention they're wearing black helmets). Anyway, neither you nor me should decide whether we use this colors, but the members of this WikiProject. --bender235 (talk) 22:53, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Well no one has had a problem until you came along, so it makes the most sense for it to stay how it's been until you can get people to change their minds.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:55, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- I guess you people can do whatever you want, since you make the rules Ositadinma 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Actually no. Just because you initially made these color schemes does not mean they're set in stone. --bender235 (talk) 23:01, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Chrisjnelson, please consider my suggestion from above. We could add a little feature to {{Infobox NFLactive}} that decides for what team it should use main and alt colors, or only main colors. You could name those teams right here, if you want, and I'll work to implement this feature. --bender235 (talk) 23:12, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- In fact, I just programmed that feature. So feel free to decided which teams should use alt colors and which don't on {{NFLusealtColor}} (just delete the Alt for those teams that shouldn't). I hope we have this dispute is settled now. --bender235 (talk) 23:42, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
- Accessibility dispute
@Zzyzx11: Could you please name the color combinations that fail WP:COLORS? --bender235 (talk) 12:22, 29 December 2009 (UTC) [edit] Mac vs. Mc How should we list players names in roster templates by the DEFAULTSORT way that lists Mc's like Mac's (McCargo before Maybin in the Bills template) or the alpha way which is used already? What is with Chris? Mac comes from Scotland/Ireland meaning of son. Mc is an contraction of Mac, some say the difference between Protestant and Catholic in Great Britian. But that was hundreds of years ago and people whoes names begin with an Mc are pronounced; McDonald, McGee, McCargo, etc. Not; MacDonald, MacGee, MacCargo, etc. If they wanted to be pronounced with an a then their would be one in their names, since names/pronounications change over the centuries (Some names are still pronounced with an a like, McElrath, even though having no a). But, I don't know what Chris is talking about alpha wise since Mc is a contraction of Mac (and it is by a player by player basis). What I am saying is that they should be listed alpha wise in terms of the alphabet, not by pronounications/contractions. Ositadinma 20:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC) - Chris is saying that is how wikipedia works with DEFAULTSORT, which is true, but these players names are on the templates not in categories. Ositadinma 20:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- I agree; DEFAULTSORT is something different. Pats1 T/C 20:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- Take it to WT:NFL so there can be consensus although I think that going the DEFAULTSORT way is best since mostly the "Mc"s come before the "Ma.."s.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:23, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
If it is how Wikipedia sorts people's names for categories, why would we not sort names that way anywhere else here? Consistency makes the most sense.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC) - Yeah, but most people don't know that Mc is short for Mac, and not alphabetized the right way on the templates, besides it been the way it's always been sorting by alphabet on the templates; not contractions in WP until you brought up Richmond McGee and Pats1 told you about the Bears and Bills. Ositadinma 22:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
- Not having done it until now (because none of us noticed/knew better) is not reason to avoid doing it correctly now.►Chris NelsonHolla! 22:45, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
- All this over a punter... Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:48, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
-
-
-
- I guess you people can do whatever you want, since you make the rules Ositadinma 22:58, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
|
