Template talk:Cincinnati Bengals roster

Appearance

Black is more prominent than orange, therefore black is the background and orange the lettering. Please alert me if this poses any problems. Crazy Canadian 11:20, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This Roster is old. Anyone have a new one? Slingstone (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, it's perfectly accurate. Pats1 ^T/C 03:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Haha wtf...it's literally the most accurate Bengals roster in the world.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 05:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

hCard microformat

I recently added an hCard microformat to this template; my edit summary was "Add hCard microformat - see WP:UF".

My edits have been reverted, apparently by an editor who did not understand them. That's not a good reason to revert edits. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:06, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You still have yet to answer the series of questions I posed to you. Here's another one: If these edits are general, repetitive, and just relate to code, then why don't you have a bot do it? Individually going around to hundreds of templates making these minor repetitive changes is a waste of time. And if you're not doing that, then it begs the question why you picked this template specifically to make this change. Pats1 ^T/C 15:28, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why I've "picked" this template, and whether I've edited any others, are irrelevant. How I spend my time is my business. Have you read the link provided? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 16:22, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's not irrelevant, because if you're going to implement this change then you should do it across all relevant templates. There is no logical reason for only applying it to one template - Template:Cincinnati Bengals roster, when there are hundreds, maybe even thousands of other very similar templates just in this WikiProject, such as Template:Atlanta Falcons roster or Template:Washington Redskins staff or Template:Carolina Panthers, etc., etc. Why you stumbled across this one template and decided to implement this "change" here and only here baffles me, as does your decision not to use a bot for repetitive edits. I could care less about your link and back-end code, because 99% of the time those edits are handled by bots which implement the newest code nuances to thousands of pages a day. Why someone would waste their time with that is beyond me. Pats1 ^T/C 16:37, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So you're reverting a valid and useful edit with an edit summary requesting clarification, but "could care less" [sic] (sigh) about reading that clarification? As for BOTs, please provide a link to a bot capable of performing the suggested task. As I said before: How I choose to spend my time is my business. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:20, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've still yet to tell me why you specifically chose this template to make the modification to and whether you're on some quixotic quest to "fix" some minor code "problem" on every single template in this website. If you're going to do it on this one template, then do it on all of the relevant templates. Pats1 ^T/C 13:06, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the policy requiring such behaviour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:28, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Pats1 is right. The Templates are all formatted the same way. Unless you make the change to every template, it will be reverted. RF23 (talk) 21:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please point to the policy requiring such behaviour. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:34, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COMMONSENSE. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:48, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Pats1 ^T/C 22:50, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So; no such policy. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:10, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]