Jump to content

User talk:Eagles247

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BradleyMamba24 (talk | contribs) at 15:48, 28 February 2020 (→‎Robby Anderson: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Welcome to Eagles 24/7's talk page!

Please add your comments at the bottom of this page. If I leave you a message on your talk page and you reply there, please do not leave a {{talkback}} template on this page, because there is a good chance that I have watchlisted your talk page. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C)

XFL Template question

Hi i'm new and I would like to know what is the reason behind creating the "XFL_roster_templates" for 2020 xfl rosters only? I mean why not just add the 2020 rosters to the "XFL_templates"?
XFL_templates = all 2001 xfl teams staff + all 2001 xfl teams roster + all 2020 xfl teams staff
XFL_roster_templates = all 2020 xfl teams roster
Thank you! Mifoi123 (talk) 16:57, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifoi123: Are you referring to categories? Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:59, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mifoi123: I see what you're referring to, the categories are a little messy right now because the 2020 XFL is separate from the 2001 XFL so we had to make new categories for it. I've moved the 2020 staff templates to its own category, if you have any other questions please let me know. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:05, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, has long as everything is working properly, it's all good. Thank you for the swift response! :) Mifoi123 (talk) 19:25, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]


XFL team rosters abbreviation

Hello, I see that on the xfl website that they have the st-louis battlehawks above the seattle dragons because "sa" is above "se" alphabetically. What are the rules of ordering alphabetically here on wikipedia? I understand that "st" is after "se" but "st" is not a word... It is an abbreviation of "saint". So how does it work? Thank you! Mifoi123 (talk) 19:44, 28 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifoi123: I'm not sure if there are specific guidelines written out for this issue, but I think it makes more sense to alphabetize by the exact spelling instead of if you spelled the word out how it'd be alphabetized. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:26, 29 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalif Mitchell

I was ready to source them from tweets and everything after reverting it. The stuff will be sourced. In the future, if you can just send me a message saying to source them or they’ll be removed. That’d be great. Thanks.

AjayTO (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AjayTO: Feel free to add sources at the same time you add back controversial claims or at least provide an edit summary with your intentions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:59, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrators' newsletter – February 2020

News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2020).

Guideline and policy news

  • Following a request for comment, partial blocks are now enabled on the English Wikipedia. This functionality allows administrators to block users from editing specific pages or namespaces rather than the entire site. A draft policy is being workshopped at Wikipedia:Partial blocks.
  • The request for comment seeking the community's sentiment for a binding desysop procedure closed with wide-spread support for an alternative desysoping procedure based on community input. No proposed process received consensus.

Technical news

  • Twinkle now supports partial blocking. There is a small checkbox that toggles the "partial" status for both blocks and templating. There is currently one template: {{uw-pblock}}.
  • When trying to move a page, if the target title already exists then a warning message is shown. The warning message will now include a link to the target title. [1]

Arbitration

  • Following a recent arbitration case, the Arbitration Committee reminded administrators that checkuser and oversight blocks must not be reversed or modified without prior consultation with the checkuser or oversighter who placed the block, the respective functionary team, or the Arbitration Committee.

Miscellaneous


Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:05, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punters/Kickers in the Super Bowl articles

Hi, I noticed you removed my edits to add the kickers in the "Starting lineups" page for II, III, IV, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX, X, XI, XII, XIII, XIV, and XV. You've got a good amount of experience on the site, appreciate your help. I am aiming for accuracy here. My goal is to make sure the kicking crew is mentioned as participating in the game. I noticed across Wikipedia these articles currently list the kickers in the lineup section (my point is your rule has not been evenly enforced, so if you want to enforce these articles are also incorrect):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_I#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXII#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXIV#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXV#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXVIII#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXIX#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXX#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXI#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXII#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXIII#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXIV#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXV#Starting_lineups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVI#Starting_lineups

Is there a better way to list all of the kickers on these articles than in the lineup section if the NFL standard is that they are not listed as "starting" players? Can we add a separate section that is distinct from lineup like there is for officials? Perhaps "Kicking", "Special Teams", etc.? Also, I trust you but do you have a source on the kickers and punters not being considered in the starting lineup even if the official documents do not list them (i.e. a secondary source that isn't the raw data from the gamebooks (example http://www.nflgsis.com/1981/Post/04/14062/Gamebook.pdf)? Thanks for your help. TheWikiJedi (talk) 16:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheWikiJedi: Thanks for the message. I was not aware that kickers were listed in the starting lineups in those articles above, and now understand why you were trying to be consistent and add them to other Super Bowl articles. These are players who see the field for about 10% of each game, and if we made special mention of them I think we'd have to mention every other reserve offensive and defensive player in the game as well who saw minimal game action. I would support adding kicking and punting stats to the "Individual leaders" sections for these articles, but anything further might need consensus at the NFL WikiProject talk page. The official documentation from the NFL is what we go off of, and other stats pages support this as well like pro-football-reference.com. If this answer is not satisfactory for you, feel free to start a talk page discussion at WT:NFL and see what other editors think. Otherwise, would you be willing to help out and remove the specialists from those articles you mentioned above? Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:56, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the quick response, that sounds like a good plan. It still amazes me how fast people see these edits when I make them. Normally my edits are pretty minor, but this was one of my few major edits. I'll try the NFL talk page, see what people think.TheWikiJedi (talk) 23:10, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quinton Flowers

Hi, I saw that on the 2020-01-28T12:30:32 you moved Quinton Flowers from the QB to the RB and that you removed his dual identity (QB/RB) from him... That's why I added a reference to him directly to avoid further removal. I understand that reference is redundant. Can you share with me what is the reason of the removal of his dual identity? Mifoi123 (talk) 21:54, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifoi123: I think someone else moved him from the QB section to the RB section, and I removed the additional “RB” text as redundant. Typically on these templates the additional position parameter is used when there’s a guy who plays multiple positions (like TE and FB for example) so we put him in under his primary position category and then add the secondary position as text. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:51, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft:Casey_Sayles

Hi, I just created my first article Draft:Casey_Sayles and I just read that it may take a whopping 4 months for it to be reviewed!!! Since I used the NFL template is there a way that you or someone else can review it since it is pretty decent (but not perfect) imo? I'm asking because I want to create a few more in the coming days... Thank you! :) Mifoi123 (talk) 15:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mifoi123: Hi, thanks for the message! It looks like you worked hard on the draft, and we sincerely appreciate your enthusiasm. I'm afraid Sayles may not be notable enough to warrant his own article on Wikipedia at this time, however. For a topic to be notable enough for inclusion here, it must meet the general notability guidelines, which states that it must have "received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". This article about Lamar Jackson winning the MVP would be an example of a third-party reliable source significantly covering a notable subject. When I did a quick check of Sayles' coverage through newspapers.com, it appears to be only passing mentions in articles instead of detailed biographical coverage. As a rule of thumb, for professional American football players, we can assume they are notable if they have played in an NFL game, CFL game, or AFL game in their career (according to the gridiron football player notability guideline). Until Sayles plays in a top-level professional football game, it might be best to wait to create an article for him. The next question is "Well, when he plays in the XFL this weekend, won't that count?" The XFL will likely be viewed as a minor league, similarly to the AAF, as the players they have signed are ones who weren't good enough to be in the NFL. If you still want to create an article that is very likely to be notable per the guidelines I have mentioned above, there are hundreds of former NFL players who have played in at least one NFL game who still don't have articles, and while it's not as fun as creating articles for players currently playing, it would be a big help if you wanted to contribute: Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Articles to create. I don't want to discourage you from editing, we could really use your help for this upcoming XFL season, and I remember as a new editor over 10 years ago how fun and fulfilling it was to create articles for current players. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:12, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, it looks like you can read my mind! :) So now, how and when can we discuss/update the gridiron football player notability guideline to include the XFL as a 100% professional league. Pros (potentially millions of viewers, high attendance, the CFL is included and the XFL has arguably better talent) vs Cons (potential failure of the league after or during year 1, low viewership, low attendance). "The XFL will likely be viewed as a minor league" I 100% disagree with that "opinion" because the CFL is full of NFL cuts. I know that there is clearly a bedate that needs to happen about it... Until then, I'll keep Casey Sayles on hold. Thank you! :) Mifoi123 (talk) 16:59, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mifoi123: I somewhat agree with you that the CFL would be a similar case, but the reason it's included is because Canadian football is different than American football, so the CFL would be the highest-level of professional Canadian football. WP:NGRIDIRON is more of a rule of thumb than an inclusion/exclusion criteria. If someone passes WP:NGRIDIRON, they will likely pass WP:GNG and should warrant an article on Wikipedia. From an FAQ at the top of the page: "The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from reliable sources are available, given sufficient time to locate them." Minor league does not mean the league isn't considered professional, it just means it's not the top level of the sport. If you want to start a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports) to discuss changing WP:NGRIDIRON or at least acknowledge the XFL in the guideline somewhere, feel free to do so at any time. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Can you move David Wilson (American football, born 1991) to David Wilson (running back)?-- Yankees10 00:05, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And David Nelson (American football, born 1986) back to David Nelson (American football), since the other player doesn't even have an article yet?-- Yankees10 00:07, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh man, it looks like this user made a bunch of these moves that goes against DAB standards.-- Yankees10 00:11, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll send that user a message, looks like they jumped right to point #4 at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(sportspeople)#Gridiron_football and missed #2. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:17, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Yankees10: I've moved the David Wilson RB page back. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:48, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources are not content

Sources are not content based on your miss actions at De'Veon Smith. Primary sources like miamidolphins.com are not recommended sources per WP:V - WP:SELFPUB, etc. Spshu (talk) 20:11, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spshu: There is actual text that you deleted too, please read it carefully. The Dolphins website is not a primary source if the subject (De'Veon Smith) is not the team itself. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:17, 10 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NFL Season v. Employment Year

I'm curious about the consistency of your logic. For the Seahawks, you want to represent Grigson time as 2018 and 2019 seasons (even though he worked with the Seahawks until February 14, 2020 {note he is still listed on the Seahawks staff webpage as of February 15, 2020}). Yet, for his time with the Colts, you are okay to represent his time as 2012-2016, which are the years he was employed, not the seasons (he left after the 2015 season). Since scouts are on contracts (typically, two years and Spring-to-Spring), does it really makes sense to tie their employment to NFL seasons?? HoosierHonorStudent (talk) 01:52, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HoosierHonorStudent: I agree with you there, the article you previously cited was only about the 2019 season's playoff run so I assumed his contract expired after the season or something. I'll revert back to have his tenure end in 2020. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:54, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HoosierHonorStudent: What do you think about the Browns' tenure? The article says he was no longer a member of the staff in January 2018, but the only reference is to the team's staff page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:59, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Eagles247: Thank you for the 2020. I noticed I had some faulty logic in that initial post, but I think it's fair to state his tenure with the Seahawks extended beyond the "2019 Season" into 2020. The Browns (first stint) is more challenging. I have no memory (or evidence) of that transition. My gut says 2017-2018 would be more accurate for Employment (not NFL Season); however, it seems clear Dorsey did not want him around for the 2018 Draft/Season. So, I think 2017 is a fair representation. HoosierHonorStudent (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HoosierHonorStudent: I believe you are correct, and I agree. If I remember correctly, the end of the 2017 season was when the Browns cleaned out their front office (again), and that included team president Sashi Brown, so I would be surprised if Grigson was still there for any part of the 2018 calendar year. Thanks for the messages! Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

question re section

Hi. I saw that you are an admin who can close discussions at ANI. is there any possibility of closing the discussion in the section relating to my recent posts, edits, etc? I have expressed my sincere regret for the edits that were intrusive. I also expressed my thanks to those providing some important feedback. I will willingly take any corrective measures felt necessary. I would be glad to discuss this further if necessary, but I would prefer to have any further discussions one-on-one if possible. I respect all of the points made, and will take them to heart. I think those providing feedback had valid concerns, and I think they have now expressed those points. is closure a valid possibility now? I would appreciate any help. thanks. --Sm8900 (talk) 03:43, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bradham

Bradham needs to wait until march 18 until he is a free agent. Doesn’t he? Jcoolbro (talk) 13:07, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcoolbro: He had his option declined on Tuesday, and if that were the only transaction that would indeed be the case. However, the Eagles decided to outright release him yesterday to allow him a jump-start on free agency, so he is immediately a free agent. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. So this is different from other scenereos such as Phillip Rivers? Jcoolbro (talk) 13:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jcoolbro: Yes. In Rivers' case, his contract is up on March 18. The Chargers have not released him, they've only announced that they won't be re-signing him to a new contract. They could still release him between now and March 18 to allow him to become a free agent sooner, but unless/until that happens he's still a member of the Chargers for now. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robby Anderson

https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2868738-jets-rumors-robby-anderson-seeking-10m-annually-on-next-contract-as-free-agent It’s not vandalism, he’s becoming a free agent, now it will be official on March 18th, but it’s not “vandalism”

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eagles247&oldid=943060120"