User talk:Rockchalk717/Archives/2020/March
 | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Re: edit summary
There was no need for the subtle passive aggressiveness in your edit summary. Not everyone is aware of the intricate details of the free agency rules. Not even all die hard fans. TrueCRaysball | #RaysUp 06:42, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @TrueCRaysball: That wasn’t directed at you specifically. Year after year it’s the same thing this time of year. Analysts do frequently say “4 pm eastern” so if you follow analysts on social media or read their news articles, it’s mentioned. Again, none of this is directed at you specifically. It’s just years of editing pending free agents this time of year and border line edit warring with people who don’t know that kinda has gotten to me.
- Hope you didn’t read that before my typo, I mistakingly put “was” instead of “wasn’t”.--Rockchalk717 06:49, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- And I keep putting typos (facepalm) I think that’s a sign that’s enough Wikipedia for me tonight.--Rockchalk717 06:51, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Tom Brady
I figured I'd try to edit Tom Brady to a free agent. he signed with the Tampa Bay Buccaneers. That's just needs to be official. So he's technically a free agent Bryzzo1744 (talk) 07:27, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bryzzo1744: Players cannot sign with new teams until 4PM EDT today, Brady is not a free agent until then. Additionally, he will likely have to pass a physical in order for the transaction to become official. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:47, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Bryzzo1744: And considering team facilities are closed until March 31 due to COVID-19, it’s doubtful he’ll get a physical anytime soon.--Rockchalk717 14:25, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Chiefs roster template
See User talk:Dissident93#UFAs for a similar discussion. The reason we're showing UFAs is not because we think they might re-sign with their team. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:34, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
- Can you please discuss here instead of edit warring and discussing in the edit summaries? The player pages and roster templates need to be consistent, I don't see a point in showing one or the other. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:17, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Eagles247: I’m not trying to edit war at all, sorry if it came across that way. I don’t mean this in a condescending way, but am I wrong with what I said in my edit summary? Wasn’t “agreed to terms” decided to be ok? Or did I misread that?--Rockchalk717 18:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound condescending, you're good. There's a lot going on in that thread and it's a little hard to follow (and that's probably my bad for not being clearer about what I wanted to accomplish when I opened the thread). Tarl N. made a statement about leaving the infoboxes and lead "as is" which I assume means without the reported transactions, and then suggested adding a hatnote. This suggestion was generally agreed to, but the hatnote part was disputed by Bagumba as being incorrect per WP:LEGITHAT. You said to wait until announcements are made, several editors were okay with adding "agreed to terms" as long as articles were being very closely monitored and updated after the official signing. I don't think I expressed a firm opinion on the matter, but for the most part I just want to be consistent with how we handle this across Wikipedia since I'm focusing on the entire NFL instead of just my individual team. I'm tempted to say "agreed to terms" announcements by teams is good enough for updating player articles, and keep the roster templates only for "official" transactions, but then there's an inconsistency that appears contradictory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Eagles247: Gotcha. I’m cool with the roster templates sticking to what’s official since that’s almost always been the case with them. This time of year does result in a lot of inconsistencies, then throw in the COVID-19 precautions on top of it, it makes it even worse since that’s delaying everything.--Rockchalk717 19:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- It doesn't sound condescending, you're good. There's a lot going on in that thread and it's a little hard to follow (and that's probably my bad for not being clearer about what I wanted to accomplish when I opened the thread). Tarl N. made a statement about leaving the infoboxes and lead "as is" which I assume means without the reported transactions, and then suggested adding a hatnote. This suggestion was generally agreed to, but the hatnote part was disputed by Bagumba as being incorrect per WP:LEGITHAT. You said to wait until announcements are made, several editors were okay with adding "agreed to terms" as long as articles were being very closely monitored and updated after the official signing. I don't think I expressed a firm opinion on the matter, but for the most part I just want to be consistent with how we handle this across Wikipedia since I'm focusing on the entire NFL instead of just my individual team. I'm tempted to say "agreed to terms" announcements by teams is good enough for updating player articles, and keep the roster templates only for "official" transactions, but then there's an inconsistency that appears contradictory. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Eagles247: I’m not trying to edit war at all, sorry if it came across that way. I don’t mean this in a condescending way, but am I wrong with what I said in my edit summary? Wasn’t “agreed to terms” decided to be ok? Or did I misread that?--Rockchalk717 18:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Can you clarify this? Your second sentence is a fragment and I want to be sure of its meaning. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
- @Eagles247: Oops. Hit submit before I finished. (face palm)--Rockchalk717 19:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Tournament Bids
I agree with you. I was hoping someone would correct the Men's tournament. I did the Women's tournament and surfed the 18 tournaments that were yet to have a conclusion and found only five that named a default bid(the Ivy League had previously named their league champion, someone added Stony Brook later). If you notice the NCAA Division I Women's Basketball Tournament bids by school page, I also made notations to schools that received bids but I didn't add them to the total appearances. Somebody on the Men's side added the totals but didn't revert them back since there was no tournament...Roberto221 (talk) 21:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)