Talk:Eric Williams (defensive lineman)
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
|auto= parameter.
WikiProject class rating
[edit ]This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot 15:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC) [reply ]
WikiProject class rating
[edit ]This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as stub, and the rating on other projects was brought up to Stub class. BetacommandBot (talk) 18:56, 5 January 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
Miraculous birth??
[edit ]This article has one of the most marvelous mistakes I have ever seen on Wikipedia.
In the infobox, it says
- "Date of birth: February 24, 1962 (age 46)"
and I am quoting (as of Tuesday, August 19, 2008).
A miracle beyond compare! A man born at the age of 46!
So I added a "dubious" flag. Somebody needs to fix the infobox to have it say "Current age..." or, better, "Age as of 2008..." where the template should fill in current year with 2008 (or whatever the current year may be). Frankly, though, I don't know why readers can't subtract 1962 from 2008 (or whatever the current year is) to get this man's age all by themselves.
Timothy Perper (talk) 20:10, 19 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- To be fair, while I admit it is a bit misleading, it is consistent across the board for the person infoboxes. Perhaps it is something that should be raised on the infobox talk page instead, since it is the infobox that formats that line from the date of birth. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 11:00, 20 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- Yes, it's misleading. I don't care about the "dubious" tag -- it's not dubious that 2008-1962=46 -- but whether or not it's consistent across person infoboxes doesn't really matter. What does matter is that it's careless and imprecise, just the kind of thing that Wiki abounds in (despite the efforts of well-meaning editors). I'm not going to tilt at windmills and find the "infobox talk page" to start a discussion that will only produce endless arguments. So I've made my point, and that's enough for now. Timothy Perper (talk) 13:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- Well fair enough, but the point you made to a tiny minority here was rendered null and void, as the issue could not be fixed here without fixing it everywhere. Sometimes getting a meaningful change to happen requires a bit of effort and it's a bit of a defeatist attitude to assume nothing will happen. You never know, sometimes the Wiki community does see common sense. ;-) Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 15:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
Well, maybe it couldn't be fixed here. That was not something I knew. And I still don't know what the infobox talk page is, which you mentioned before. If you think I'm lazy, come over and look at the manga talk page, which I patrol regularly. Defeatist I ain't. But I can't fix what I don't know about. So I started here, and that at least brought you and me into contact, which is a start. Do you disagree? Timothy Perper (talk) 17:41, 20 August 2008 (UTC) [reply ]
- Biography articles of living people
- Stub-Class biography articles
- Stub-Class biography (sports and games) articles
- Low-importance biography (sports and games) articles
- Sports and games work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Stub-Class college football articles
- Low-importance college football articles
- Automatically assessed College football articles
- WikiProject College football articles
- Stub-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- Stub-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- Stub-Class District of Columbia articles
- Low-importance District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject District of Columbia articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- Stub-Class National Football League articles
- Low-importance National Football League articles
- Stub-Class Washington Commanders articles
- Washington Commanders subproject articles
- WikiProject National Football League articles