Template talk:Pittsburgh Steelers roster

This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Pittsburgh This template is within the scope of WikiProject Pittsburgh, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Pittsburgh and its metropolitan area on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PittsburghWikipedia:WikiProject PittsburghTemplate:WikiProject PittsburghPittsburgh National Football League: Steelers This template is within the scope of WikiProject National Football League, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the NFL on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.National Football LeagueWikipedia:WikiProject National Football LeagueTemplate:WikiProject National Football LeagueNational Football League This template is supported by the Steelers task force.

information regarding links per the MOS Internal links Items in Wikipedia articles can be linked to other Wikipedia articles that provide information that significantly adds to readers' understanding of the topic. This can be done directly ("Ant", which results in "Ant"), or through a piped link ("five new species", which results in "five new species" in the text, but still links to the article "Ant").

Internal links add to the cohesion and utility of Wikipedia by allowing readers to deepen their understanding of a topic by conveniently accessing other articles. These links should be included where it is most likely that readers might want to use them; for example, in article leads, the beginnings of new sections, table cells, and image captions. Generally, where it is likely that a reader may wish to read about another topic, the reader should not have to hunt for a link elsewhere in the page.

Links add to the cohesion by conveniently accessing other article. Therefore, linking to non-existant pages detracts from cohesion and convenience. Reverting to links non-existant is a violation of this policy. IrishLass0128 18:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You've proven absolutely nothing.►Chris Nelson 19:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have gotten an admin involved. He will decide. What I've done is add the MOS for links, provided information to what is policy of Wikipedia. An admin will decide further how to handle the issue.IrishLass0128 19:38, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An admin already said you were wrong on my talk page. You clearly don't understand the policy you cite.►Chris Nelson 19:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the one that I have asked for an explanation. I will wait for him. Oh, I see, AFTER, this page was addressed. That's why there are time stamps. Don't address issues or editors using assumptions. You are supposed to show good faith in working with other editors. You seem to not understand that based on how you have treated this editor.IrishLass0128 20:05, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See my talk page. User:B practically proved you were wrong. The end.►Chris Nelson 20:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• You have a misconception of the words good faith. You should try it sometime. Oh, wait, it's a requirement of Wikipedia that you seem to feel exempt to. Check your time stamps on this page. They are helpful in understanding the flow of this discussion. IrishLass0128 20:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another way to say "running my edit count up". Grsz¹¹ 00:10, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not really, considering a null edit does the same thing as editing the talk page.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 17:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It counts as a mainspace edit. Either way, it's annoying to come across a conversation through edit summaries. That's what the damn talk page is for. Grsz¹¹ 18:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's been the practice for a while to just talk using edit summaries, not sure why but it's the way it's been done on these roster templates.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 18:05, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of us care about our edit counts. I have no idea what mine is.►Chris Nelson^Holla! 18:12, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We've been having "null edit" talks on edit summaries for 3 years now. We don't care about our edit counts; mine is already above the level of "I have no life." Pats1 ^T/C 21:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither the NFL page, nor the team's site or any other source lists him on the roster anymore! (They all removed him around week 3 this season!) If I remember correctly we never had a DNR before in this template, so how do we move forward with it? Maybe DNR's don't need to get cut officially?

Whatsoever, Stafford is NOT on the roster anymore. And I think in case of doubt we should go by the actual roster and not by updating through transaction reports. Is this an roster template or a "we list players unless somebody remembers to write a cut notice" template? I am not trying to fuck you up, but I think you are wrong in this case.

--Taari (talk) 14:48, 28 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

To the person reverting me from different IPs each time, "return specialist" IS NOT a roster position. These roster templates are for the position the player is listed as. There is not roster listing for return specialist. Even long snapper is an actual listed roster position, but return specialist is not because most returners have a primary roster position they play.--Rockchalk717 20:39, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone found the right site for Beanie's number. As of today, Beanie Bishop and Jaylen Warren both wear #30 on Steelers.com and ESPN. I give up. Bringingthewood (talk) 21:11, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bringingthewood: I'm seeing Beanie as #31 on Steelers.com at the moment. It was probably one of those things where during preseason the players on defense and offense sometimes have the same number until the roster gets cut down. This happens due to shortage of numbers for positions sometimes. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:32, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh: HA! I swear it was #30 when I typed that. I also see #31 today. Like you said, duplicates and roster trimming. Next time I'll show some patience. Thank you, Josh. Bringingthewood (talk) 23:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]