User talk:Chrisjnelson: Difference between revisions
Appearance
Content deleted Content added
Chrisjnelson (talk | contribs) removed comment from person i don't like |
|||
Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
Having consistent introductions for NFL players' articles is a good thing, but "originally drafted" is wrong. In the HFL, a player can only be drafted once, so the word 'originally' shouldn't be there. ("Originally signed" is fine for undrafted free agents, since players can be signed more than once, though.) I'm thinking of going through and changing "originally drafted" to "drafted". What do you think? -- [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
Having consistent introductions for NFL players' articles is a good thing, but "originally drafted" is wrong. In the HFL, a player can only be drafted once, so the word 'originally' shouldn't be there. ("Originally signed" is fine for undrafted free agents, since players can be signed more than once, though.) I'm thinking of going through and changing "originally drafted" to "drafted". What do you think? -- [[User:ArglebargleIV|ArglebargleIV]] 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
||
:Hey, finally somebody agrees with me. ArglebargleIV, when I was making some changes Chris got all mad at me because I was removing the word "originally." There is absolutely no reason why that word needs to be there because players can only be drafted once. Feel free to remove it. '''[[User:Ksy92003|Ksy92003]]'''<small>[[User talk:Ksy92003|<font color="black">(talk)</font>]]</small> 21:14, 6 October 2007 (UTC) |
Revision as of 02:48, 7 October 2007
Leave a new message.
"originally drafted"?
Having consistent introductions for NFL players' articles is a good thing, but "originally drafted" is wrong. In the HFL, a player can only be drafted once, so the word 'originally' shouldn't be there. ("Originally signed" is fine for undrafted free agents, since players can be signed more than once, though.) I'm thinking of going through and changing "originally drafted" to "drafted". What do you think? -- ArglebargleIV 20:24, 6 October 2007 (UTC)