Talk:Dallas Rattlers

Lacrosse High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Lacrosse, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the sport of lacrosse 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.LacrosseWikipedia:WikiProject LacrosseTemplate:WikiProject Lacrosselacrosse articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

New York (state) Mid‑importance

	New York (state) portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject New York (state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of New York 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.New York (state)Wikipedia:WikiProject New York (state)Template:WikiProject New York (state)New York (state) articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2006 East standings for NJ/LI/Roch

When the seaon ended I sent an email to mll asking about 3-5 in the east I finally got a response today: They (NJ, LI, ROC) would be decided first by overall record but they were all 5-7. Then by head-to-head record among all tied teams, but each team was 1-1 against each other. Then by overall conference record - NJ was 5-5 against the East, and ROC/LI were 4-6, so NJ becomes the "best" of those Teams and the #3 team in the East. The tie-breakers then re-apply to just ROC & LI, so they are both 5-7, both 1-1 against each other, both 4-6 in the east, so the next tiebreaker is total points scored margin in their games against each other. LI won 19-7 and ROC won 15-13, so LI is the "better" of those teams because they were +10 and so LI becomes the #4 team, ROC is #5 and BAL was #6 because they had the worst record in the conf.

So I made a correction on the standings

Smith03 22:16, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not to be forgotten

Do we really need this section? --Paploo 19:58, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 21:57, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Toronto

same franchise different franchise? Smith03 (talk) 18:18, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Press conference was supposed to be at 3:30 EST (almost an hour ago) and the press release hasn't come out yet... But most likely same franchise. We will wait for the official word to change anything. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 21:19, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it is the same franchise I propose keeping the Rattlers page as is, and creating a new Nationals team page. This would follow the Baltimore Thunder --> Colorado Mammoth model. ~~FWIW, I predict the new team plays one season before the league shuts down (maybe less!)~~ -Mitico (talk, contribs) 21:40, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The NLL has pages for every team like you said, however Bridgeport Barrage redirects to Philadelphia Barrage and Baltimore Bayhawks redirects to Washington Bayhawks so following the MLL's model we would just move the article. However this is the first time the team name has changed so maybe we should make a new article. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 21:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move of Toronto Nationals (MLL)

I've started a requested move discussion at the Toronto Nationals talk page for it to be changed to just Toronto Nationals (no MLL). --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 22:24, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Rochester Rattlers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20141214212742/http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S795871.shtml?cat=572 to http://www.whec.com/article/stories/S795871.shtml?cat=572

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:40, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]