Jump to content

User talk:TonyTheTiger/SPORT template discussion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have invited you to participate in this discussion either based on personal interaction or because you are one of the leading editors on the talk page of WP:MLB, WP:NFL, WP:NBA, WP:FOOTY, WP:CFB or WP:WPCBB. Please invite any other editors that you feel might be interested.

It has come to my attention that each of these projects has different policies on a lot of editorial issues. I perceive template policy inconsistency (TPI) in athlete biographies to be a great problem on wikipedia. Although the sports with highly developed and lucrative professional team sports leagues have a lot of common interest on wikipedia because the players, coaches, owners, host venues, and major competitions in these sports are generally notable on wikipedia, the template policy is widely varied and confusing to both the reader and the editor. In general, the TPI issue is handled pretty consistently by football, basketball and baseball. WP:HOCKEY totally disagrees with these sports and excludes most templates I have been considering. Soccer has a policy that seems to be somewhere in the middle. I am wondering if WP:SPORT should set a policy regarding templates that all of the major sports agree to implement in a consistent manner. Other sports would be free to adopt the policy as well. For the time being, I believe WP:HOCKEY should be excluded because their vehement disagreement with most of these TPI issues would ruin any chance to come to a common policy agreement. If you look over my TPI chart you will see that there are several considerations for a template policy. At first, I was going to propose my own thoughts for ratification (see the TPI talk page). However, I think it might be more likely to come to a consensus, if we just put each individual template type up for discussion and came to a consensus. I would think this could occur in three stages. Stage 1: editors from various sports agree to put template policy to a vote; Stage 2: we come to an agreement on the common template types to put up for a vote; Stage 3: we vote either allow, disallow, or merge content with another template on each type. Among the types that would be considered are as follows

  1. MVPs (regular season, post season, and primary all-star competition)
  2. Other major awards
  3. International teams
  4. Olympic teams
  5. Championship teams
  6. League statistical leaders
  7. Professional draft templates
  8. Sports franchise and University individual sport templates
  9. All-league teams
  10. Collegiate All-Americans
  11. Decade and All-time league teams

For the sports high school level, college level and professional level template policies could be unified across sports. Below could you comment on whether you think most sports should come to an agreement on a common template policy.

Stage 1: Survey

[edit]
Feel free to state your position on the idea of setting a uniform WP:SPORTS template policy *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', state which projects you primarily edit for, then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons.
  • Support as nominator, on behalf of WP:NFL, WP:NBA, WP:CFB and WP:WPCBB, I feel it would benefit the reader to be able to know what to look for on all the relevant pages. I also feel it would benefit editors to know how to help each other refine templates.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 21:50, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support; I think consistency is very important to avoid conflicts and misinterpretations. I meet differences every day, as I edit for WP:CYC, WP:HOCKEY, WP:FOOTY and WP:HANDBALL (or edit handball articles at least). I started out editing for FOOTY, then got heavily engaged at CYC, before I later joined HOCKEY. And I must say that WP:HOCKEY is pretty Americanized and hard to influence, so this might be the right way to establish worldwide sports consistency. lil2mas (talk) 23:36, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I'm concerned, WP:FOOTY should be the yardstick here. It is by far the most actively collaborative of WP's sport projects in terms of talk page turnover; it is certainly odd to assert that it is following some "middle ground" between WP:HOCKEY (which is proudly and defiantly different for the sake of it, across the board) and the majority of the other examples at User:TonyTheTiger/sandbox/Hockey mafia issue (which are almost all US sports). WP:FOOTY is IMO a WikiProject which prides itself on early and enthusiastic adoption of general WP consensus and policy, and its templates certainly follow that line. There is a perennial argument that a certain division is needed between US sports and global ones, which may need revisited, but that would require much more than a simple up-down on "unification" here. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is not clear whether you are saying yes there should be a uniform cross-sport policy, but it should be FOOTY's without further consideration or that there should not be a uniform cross-sport policy because the issue is complicated.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • As far as I'm concerned WP:FOOTY is doing the right thing already. I would support a uniform policy, but I do not see why this would require any change on behalf of WP:FOOTY (which IMO follows WP's template guidelines better than any other sports project at this point). The issue is only complicated in that, as you've documented, many US sports projects employ all sorts of navbox conventions not currently used by WP:FOOTY, and we need to discuss how that should be addressed (as it is evident that most US sports projects seem to think they're useful). Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in general - I do think it is useful to make some Wikipedia-wide standards for sports templating. I think that would be a positive step forward. I'm not sure we have to even diffentiate "major sports". Sports championships are notable enough to be covered by Wikipedia. The various projects are capable of determining the notability, so we should not figure out another level of notability for 'major sports.' I'm not sure look and feel is also something that should be determined at the Sports level, except at some basic level, like generating base templates for all sports that can be overlaid with sport-specific content in some extensible way. I do like what is done on the French wikipedia to use icons. Something like that could be proposed at this level. Some will argue that the use of navboxes is overdone within the Wikipedia sports section. E.g., creating navboxes for magazine-determined awards is probably overdoing it. This must be respected in any step forward. ʘ alaney2k ʘ (talk) 15:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose what works for one project does not necessarily work for others. Not to mention that this proposal basically seeks to dramatically increase template clutter across all sporting projects. Resolute 16:33, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose in general I have no problem with an over all guideline, except that one of those options should be that there are none of these templates to begin with. But I also think that each project has its own needs for the subject matter they cover. Being that WP:EMBED, WP:NAVBOX, and by extension WP:ATC all suggest these sorts of templates should not exist at all. I think this discussion should probably focus on if they should exist or not exist, not on which ones to have. -DJSasso (talk) 16:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • agree - case in point, WP:HOCKEY has 2 sets of templates, one for NHL/ North American teams, and another for KHL and spreading to other European teams, following more in the steps of euro football (giving credence to WP:FOOTY, of course).--Львівське (talk) 18:02, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Having read through the arguments and counter-arguments below, I think that this issue isn't really as big a deal as the original nominator makes it out to be. Each sport has its own needs, and forcing each of these round pegs into the square hole of a universal template seems unneccesarily limiting. Furthermore, the US-centric nature of the proposal seems to ignore entirely the fact that top level team sports exist outside of its borders, and potentially creates more problems than it solves by implementing American sporting conventions on countries where those conventions do not exist. I think it's much better to allow each sport's individual project team to come up with their own templates, working within the framework provided by Wikipedia's sports template and navbox guidelines. --JonBroxton (talk) 17:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Each sport is different, and thus different approaches may be appropriate for different sports. And in some cases, a number of approaches are probably appropriate, but the editors working in various sports have different preferences, and as long as the approaches are appropriate, consistency is not essential. I am not actually sure what overriding necessity a drive for consistency accomplishes - all else being equal, consistency is better than inconsistency, but all else is not equal. Better to let the editors working in those sports use the approach they are comfortable with and that work for that particular sport, rather than force hockey editors, for example, to adopt the approach used for soccer. Rlendog (talk) 19:31, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

WP:FOOTY member here. I don't mean to come across as dense, but I really don't understand what you're proposing. --JonBroxton (talk) 23:22, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am proposing setting a world-wide cross-sport uniform template policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:53, 6 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but templates for what? Uniform page layouts? Player articles? Team articles? League infoboxes? Competition infoboxes> You don't make it clear what templates you are talking about. --JonBroxton (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Check the link above for "template policy inconsistency ". It is about templates used at the bottom of athlete bios.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can see, the basic idea is to attempt to compel WP:HOCKEY to stop acting different for the sake of it; this is indeed highly desirable, but the proposal put forward is currently far too US-centric. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 00:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, no. The goal is to let Hockey do what they do and get the rest of the sports world united under a common policy. If this can be achieved, then in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold. In what sense is it US-centric. If it is just omitted sports in the invite, I can address that. I guess, cricket might be a sport I forgot about, but I have attempted to contact the major sports that I am familiar with. I just forgot about them. In what other sense is this US-centric. Are their other sports with highly developed (lucrative and highly attended) team sports leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 00:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's US-centric in that only three of the twelve rows (tennis, gold, senior association football; ignoring the empty athletics column) are not predominantly US/North American sports. I hope that changes, but it's difficult to draw conclusions which aren't US-centric from the current table. And while I can see the strategy in trying to coerce the hockey project into conformity, in my experience that's not likely to happen while said project still insists that it can opt out of guidelines as it pleases based on nothing more than a head count. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 02:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is not an attempt to make any change to Hockey's usage. That would be fruitless and discussion of changing their policy will cause this to go no where. It is an attempt to get the other sports to coordinate policy better. Actually, I am not sure how tennis and golf fall into this policy because they are not team sports and don't share many of the issues with the invited groups to this discussion.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 03:21, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my question would be why do this? I've read encyclopedias all my life and in looking at a hardback copy right now I don't see consistency in their sports article bios. I find it kind of charming that there are differences in how they look and not cranked out like some robotic factory. I have not edited any hockey pages (mostly tennis) but nothing worries me more than the statement "in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold." I hear that type of statement all the time in California elections and it always comes back to haunt the people. The new law will only require a ticket for no seatbelt usage if they stop you for violating something else. A foot gets in the door and then another law is passed to ticket non usage no matter what. Cigarettes worked the same way with first restaurants, then bars, then parks and now they are trying beaches. I'm not saying those end results are good or bad but it makes me worry about the final ending here with regards to hockey or tennis (like world team tennis) once this passes muster with all the sports you are suggesting. Probably my only post here but I wanted to express my concerns and have it on record lest one day it attempts to gobble up tennis in some way that throws out the beauty of a well made page in favor of some fill in the blanks form. Thanks. Fyunck(click) (talk) 04:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that there are concerns about a sport like tennis that is not really a team sport. Above, I have said that I am not sure where tennis and golf fall. Certainly the team aspect of tennis is of minor importance compared to true team sports. I am really trying to get the team sports (sports where the primary and most prestigious competitions that are yardsticks of the sport) are coordinated. Being a league MVP or first overall draft choice have similar importance across these sports. Surely, we could implement a policy that is intended for bios for team sports athletes without mussing up tennis. I think we all understand that world team tennis championship teams are not notable in the same way as World Series or Super Bowl championship teams. My problem when I look at a page is I can't scan different bios the same way. If I look at an American basketball player, I know if he was consensus all-American in college because that templating system is complete. The football system is incomplete so I don't know and baseball has no such templates so I really don't know. It is confusing. This means the same thing across these sports. I imagine being a tennis All-American is probably pretty similar as well. Tennis was not asked to take part because I think this consideration is best applied to similar sports with major professional sports leagues.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 05:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You do realize that only American sports have things like college honors and league MVPs and overall draft choices, right? I think that's what an earlier poster said about it being USA-specific and not really having any relevance to sportspeople outside the United States. I don't think this whole exercise is going to have any kind of impact on soccer, because 99% of the soccer players with articles on this site aren't going to utilize any of the templates you're talking about anyway. --JonBroxton (talk) 06:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sure there would be things that don't apply for leagues that have no draft. However, there would be several considerations for Major League Soccer, which is in America. Don't they have a draft? Also, I think both the MLS and Premier League would have a major consideration for a cross-sport policy involving annual league championship teams. I don't know much about soccer, but I would like to be able to look at the bottom of David Beckham, Zidane or Ronaldo and figure out if they were on any Premier League champions and who their team mates were. However, it may be the case that football guys convince others that this is not important. For me, I would like to be able to see this at a glance and it would be a discussion point of a cross-sport policy.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:47, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, all sports are different, so that they use different templates. But awards templates could easily be harmonized I think. It would be harder for squad templates.--Latouffedisco (talk) 07:01, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is being on a Premier League Champion a lot less important than a World Series or Super Bowl champion? I sort of view it as the same because I read bits about the championship in the Wall Street Journal just like the American sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 07:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's no more or less important, but it's certainly different, and opens things up to a much wider scope than you may realize. The Super Bowl is the de-facto world championship, because with the exception of Canada, there are no other countries in the world which have a domestic American Football league. For soccer, however, there are premier league equivalents in well over 100 countries in the world. When you consider that most countries' domestic leagues go back 50 or more years, you're looking at at least 5,000 brand new templates, and that's just for domestic league competitions. When you add in domestic cup competitions like the F.A. Cup - which for some have equal weight as the leagues - plus continent-wide tournaments like the Champions League, the Europa League, the Copa Libertadores, the CONCACAF Champion's League, plus the Club World Cup... it's potentially enormous. --JonBroxton (talk) 07:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In all honesty, I may have the Premier League and the Champions League all mixed up. Basically, each sport knows which leagues are the highest level in their sport. The intent of a policy would be to have templates for the highest leagues in a sport. I don't believe that there are really 100 such leagues. It may be the case that their are 4 or 5 such leagues going as far down in importance as the MLS. It may be the case that I am misinterpreting what is out there. I don't know what CONCACAF is. Maybe you already have the templates that I think each sport would need to be uniform. I would not mind really if baseball added Japanese Baseball Championship templates as a policy issue. In all honesty, I think there must be a highest set of leagues. In hockey for example, most players play in the NHL and then when they get older some European players are still competitive in their own domestic leagues. However, I think most of these leagues are a cut below the NHL. I suspect soccer might be like that. I am sure a policy could be written broadly enough that it does not twist a specific sport's arm into producing unnecessary templates. The point is really do we want to be consistent.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 08:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
JonBroxton, I have finally read up on my confusion and I was confused on Premier League and UEFA Champions League (and its sister the CONCACAF Champions League). I think what would be consistent with U.S. Sports is if the champion teams of these two tournaments (not all of the league champions) each had templates. Is WP:FOOTY against that? Has it been discussed before? Even if there is no official unification policy that would bring the global sports world aside from Hockey much closer to being consistent because that is the most significant difference between FOOTY and the other major sports.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 01:02, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm personally in favor of the navigation templates, but I do not believe that I speak for the general WP:FOOTY community in that. The WP:FOOTY community in large has been reducing templates, I believe, if I recall previous discussions accurately. matt91486 (talk) 05:26, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think the thing about FOOTY that differs from most sports is that there are so many international competitions that they have templates for. Thus a lot of good players get overloaded with those. I don't know what types of things have been getting reduced, but I also don't know which international competitions are truly the most important.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 06:12, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason why you chose to canvass every project except the one that disagrees with you, (except a single individual on their talk page who was known to somewhat agree with you)? Which is a blatant violation of WP:CANVASS? I am assuming it was an oversight and have done so for you. -DJSasso (talk) 11:36, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I was pursuing a policy agreement that does not include Hockey so I did not contact them as the matter does not concern them. You will note I have only contacted 6 projects and many sports in {{Team Sport}} have not been notified. Basically they are the 6 that have major team sports leagues almost exclusively based in the United States with which I am familiar. Admittedly, NHL is largely based in the US too and soccer has other major team sports leagues, but I think these are projects that have common interests and may come to a unified policy. I have no reason to believe hockey has an interest in a unified policy. It would be CANVASSING if the policy were intended to impact WP:HOCKEY and they were not contacted. However, this policy will not impact them if there is any agreement.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it would impact us. If you create a standard that applies to every other team sport we will be forced into it applying to us as well because of consistancy issues. So instead of asking us to come and help with a consistent agreement you tried to cut us out of the loop so that you could develop a policy without us which would later be used to force us into agreement because "everyone else does it", which is evidenced by your comment "The goal is to let Hockey do what they do and get the rest of the sports world united under a common policy. If this can be achieved, then in the future, HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold". Which makes it clear your ultimate goal is to try and force us into line with what you want. Despite a guideline (WP:EMBED) suggesting templates should not be used for such things. As well as WP:NAVBOX which is an essay but is pretty much followed as a guideline.. -DJSasso (talk) 13:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You are misreading my intent. I never intend to force HOCKEY to do anything. I was hoping to unify a policy in a way that would work well for other sports. I certainly hope "HOCKEY may seek to come into the fold" if a unified policy works out. This is different than forcing them to do what everyone else does. Pleas WP:AGF.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You might want to read AGF. It specifically mentions that you do not need to follow it when there is a preponderance of evidence pointing to bad faith. Which is clearly the case here. You ran out of good faith when you made personal attacks on an entire wikiproject calling the people in it the Hockey Mafia. Then proceeded to invite all the major team sports that are more likely to support you and ignored the one that is not likely to support you. Then instead of doing the conversation in the open on the WP:SPORTS talk page, you transcluded it to your own subpage so that no one following WP:SPORTS except those you hand picked would notice the discussion. Do you honestly think people are so dumb as to not see where you are headed with this? Give us some credit. -DJSasso (talk) 17:05, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And made it a subpage of your own page and transcluded it so that when people edited it on the WP:SPORTS talk page, it wouldn't show up on peoples watch list. Seems you have gone out of your way to illegitimately influence the debate. -DJSasso (talk) 11:46, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it a separate page to preserve a history without clutter from other subject matter. I have been working on this and related subpages for weeks.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(I'm an active editor of CFB, HOCKEY, & FOOTY) Also, what's not been discussed is whether or not these types of templates should even exist in the first place. Per WP:NAVBOX: "For a series of articles whose only shared characteristic is that they hold the same position or title, such as peerage or world champion sporting titles, consider using {{succession box}}. Variant templates for persons who have held several notable offices are discussed at Template talk:Succession box." So why should we have any navbox templates like {{Ballon d'Or recipients}}, {{Heisman Trophy}}, etc.? If you want to know who won those awards then you only have to go to each article's respective page, which ought to include a list of winners. HOCKEY is not being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian; WP policy is why HOCKEY has opposed navbox temps in that vein, much like we recently did at WP:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 April 11#Template:Hobey Baker Award – much to the chagrin of this conversation's initiator – a discussion in which I did not take part, although I agree with the rationale. JohnnyPolo24 (talk) 13:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly, he is portraying that WP:HOCKEY is disagreeing with a common standard, which is not the case. Our stance is that both WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED indicate that you should not be using templates for these sorts of things, so we are not being contrary for contrary sake, we are following what is already laid out. -DJSasso (talk) 13:18, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that was the idea behind this discussion: To first vote over having a discussion about this issue, then come to an agreement of which templates to include, and which to exclude, and then vote over the different proposals. If this was not the case, I have to alter my vote... lil2mas (talk) 13:27, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The original intent was a discussion of whether the major team sports that were invited wanted to 1. Unify policy, 2. agree on templates involved, 3. vote on said templates. This was intended to be part 1.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 13:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first time you brought this up Tony, you left agreeing that projects were free to do as they please. It's frustrating that you have changed your tune and are now looking for ever more devious ways to bully other projects into your MLB/NFL way of thinking. To answer your questions as a representative of WP:HOCKEY: 1. No, I do not have any interest in unifying "policy". Let each project decide how it wishes. 2. Moot given the answer to question one. 3. Moot given the answer to question one. Resolute 15:07, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

^What he said. And the fact you transcluded this as a subpage of your own page? So, so shady... 93JC (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I spent a couple weeks figuring what is going on across wikipedia in my own user space and just transcluded it. Nothing shady.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:03, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no. There is nothing at all shady about canvassing only those most likely to support you as you attempt to write a "global policy" and transcluding the discussion to your sub page so that those who did not get an invite because they are most likely to oppose you are less likely to notice the discussion in their watchlists. Personally, I think the most comical highlight of your efforts was how the one hockey project regular that you did invite featured a thread title and invitation message that was deliberately non descriptive so as to obscure your intent. Resolute 18:17, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think calling this a "great problem" is exaggerating: I don't think any readers are failing to find relevant information based on differing approaches for navigation boxes. Given the differences between the cultures of different sports in different locales, personally I don't believe there is a strong need for a single policy across all of them. Suggested guidelines to help give a project some ideas of alternate mechanisms of navigation might be useful. Isaac Lin (talk) 17:24, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For example refer to Reggie Jackson and Oakland Athletics.
Is this all about that footer material between External links and Categories on these two pages? (Visit Reggie Jackson and "show" the "Links to related articles".) Or does it concern also the Infoboxes at top right, which may be called header material? --P64 (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The Reggie Jackson article paints a very impressive picture of just how bad the clutter is in the footer templates for the baseball project. You have both succession boxes and templates for awards. You have lists of teammates in some seasons but not others (winning a championship is notable, teammates are not). You have a retired number template that is completely redundant to the retired number section of the team templates. You have team templates that act as history of lists rather than navboxes. Additionally, they are riddled with POV and redundant entries. You have three separate templates noting that Jackson is in the Hall of Fame. And you end with a template that links completely unrelated teams and individuals together by the non-defining trait of being part of a city's Hall of Fame. I'd look at that and describe it as being an unparalleled mess. Resolute 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jumpers, by the time a clean shaven fella got through reading all of those things (at Jackson's article), he would get up to leave & suddenly trip over his white beard. GoodDay (talk) 14:16, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Let me repeat.
Is this all about footer templates? For example, visit Reggie Jackson; scroll down to External links and Categories; "show" the "Links to related articles".
Or is this also about header templates? At Reggie Jackson, see the box displayed at top right. It begins with his name. --P64 (talk) 17:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tony was refering to the Navbox footers and not the infobox templates, yes. Resolute 17:48, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:TonyTheTiger/SPORT_template_discussion&oldid=366401309"