Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lacrosse

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

/Archive1

Contents

[edit] Importance scale

I propose an an importance scale for the project be created. Should we vote on, say, twenty top-importance articles first and sort the others from there? Wwwhhh 10:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good. We could rate them using a scale like this. We could also alter the project template so that if you had the importance parameter it would look something like this:

This article is part of the Lacrosse WikiProject, an attempt at improving the quality of pages related to the sport of lacrosse. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.
 view • talk • edit 

or whatever importance is was rated as. --Yarnalgo 01:33, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Why? Sure, we could rate the articles and change the template to have an importance tag, but what's the advantage of doing this, either to your average Wikipedia reader, or to those of us creating and editing lacrosse articles? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 03:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
It would help new editors joining the project prioritising their efforts in editing the most important articles first, and it would give non-lacrosse players/editors an idea of the significance of each player/team/competition, etc. Wwwhhh 11:10, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm new here, but would concur. Several (to me) important names are missing, for example, primarily because they didn't play at the pro level. Having a ranking would help, as well as perhaps a quality level...? --Diogenes00 21:09, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I think I can be convinced. We could add one parameter to the template for importance (High, Mid, Low, <none>) and another for quality (the Albums WikiProject uses Stub, Start, B, Good, A, Feature). The defaults would be <none> for importance and "Stub" for quality, so just using {{Lacrosse}} will give you what you get now, plus a quality indicator of "Stub". For each article we look at, we could add or change the parameters, i.e. {{Lacrosse|importance=High|quality=B}}. The parameters could also be used to put articles in different quality-level categories as well (i.e. [[Category:A-class Lacrosse articles]]).

However, how do we determine the importance level? Something like Lacrosse, Gary Gait or Major League Lacrosse would likely be high importance, but what about articles on other players or teams? Should we come up with some kind of objective criteria (eg. "For a player to be marked as high-importance, he must have played in the NLL or MLL for at least five years, and either won a major award (eg. MVP) or more than one scoring title"), or just leave it up to the opinion of whoever's rating it? (Note that I just grabbed that criteria example off the top of my head - it wouldn't work for non-North American players, and doesn't take things like NCAA into account, so it would have to be a lot more detailed than that.) --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 02:56, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think that's a good start. You're right, it doesn't include NCAA or foreign players, but perhaps adding that if they received a major award at any level or represented their country in international competition, that'd rank as "High", perhaps? We don't necessarily need to have Washington College's 2nd string keeper from 92, but at least you'd get the major names in. (Note: apologies to Washington College's 2nd string keeper from 92)--Diogenes00 03:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is done. You can now specify {{Lacrosse|class=<cl>|importance=<imp>}} - the class and importance parameters are optional. cl describes the quality of the articles, and is one of "Stub", "Start", "B", "GA" (for Good articles), "A", or "FA" (for Featured articles) -- the quality scale is described here. imp describes the importance of the article, can be one of "Top", "High", "Mid", or "Low" -- the importance scale is described here. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 03:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nice work. I suggest we discuss articles' importance on the importance grading scheme discussion page. Wwwhhh 06:54, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox addition / Flags screwed up?

I was looking at Gary Gait & noticed 1) there's no section for "college team" in the infobox, which to me would be a good addition (as I said, I'm biased towards the NCAA players) and 2) the Canadian flag is screwed up & shows some guy? Check out the Toronto Rock team, for example. Did somebody hack the template?--Diogenes00 03:36, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

? I don't know what you're talking about; it looks like a Canadian flag to me, maple leaf and all. --Yarnalgo 06:04, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Hrm. It does for me now as well...I swear, though, it didn't earlier...--Diogenes00 07:47, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
Re: 1)NCAA in infobox -- I don't know if this is what you are looking for, but with some of the MLL players I have been adding NCAA team, for instance: Scott Urick, Kyle Harrison, Chris Rotelli. It does seem to be limited to either a OLA/WLA team, or an NCAA team, but that generally seems okay to me. Mitico 14:13, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Userboxes

Can someone contact whoever made the userboxes for the individual teams and ask them to maybe do the rest of the NLL? WestJet 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

It's a wiki, dude, do it yourself! Seriously, I've been meaning to do the rest of them for a while but never got there. I'll try to do that over the next little while. They're pretty easy to do though -- edit an existing one and copy the code, then click on a non-existing one (they're listed here) and paste it, then change the links and colours, and you're done. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 20:37, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I made a Roughnecks one... WestJet 20:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

And the Rush... WestJet 21:38, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

I did the rest of the NLL ones. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 04:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cannons move to Harvard Stadium

If you find anything that I missed, please make the appropriate edit. Stoneice02 21:54, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacrosse re-nominated as Good Article

Hooray! Lacrosse has been re-nominated for Good Article status. It was nominated once before but failed. However, since then, the problems that were stated have been fixed (in my opinion). So let's all crosse (he he) our fingers and hope for the best. --Yarnalgo 00:09, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New Player Articles

I've started going through all the HOF inductees to see who already has an article but isn't linked. So far I haven't found any, but I created a stub on William Beroza. I have gone through the ABC list and have gotten to C. If anyone could help, I'd appreciate it. Please just list what you've done so I don't duplicate it.

[edit] Mikey Powell/Connor Gill trade

I have updated the pages for Powell, Gill, Cannons, and Bayhawks. Stoneice02 20:12, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

MIKEY! not Casey! Mikey, Mikey, Mikey, Mikey! If you already did it for Casey, please change it! It's Mikey not Casey Powell. --Yarnalgo talk to me 02:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
lol... yes, I did it for Mike... I think there was only one place I accidently did Casey and someone already fixed it. Thanks for catching that, though. Stoneice02 02:52, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] List of MCLA teams

Work in progress. Stoneice02 23:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Completed. Stoneice02 21:27, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Goalkeeper

I was browsing the article Goalkeeper and noticed they had a ton on Field Lacrosse goalies but not on Box Lacrosse.... so I added some and a game photo Goalkeeper#Field_and_Box_Lacrosse. If anyone has anything to throw in there, go ahead. DMighton 01:45, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, I just noticed that the Lacrosse stick article doesn't talk too much about "woodies" or goalie sticks. DMighton 01:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Articles on woodies go in another section don't they?  ;)--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:36, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lacrosse Stick (crosse)

You know they are going to change the rules for heads on men's lacrosse sticks. See Page 109 here.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 17:46, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

As long as they don't influence the rules in Box Lacrosse... the NCAA can do what they want. lol -- DMighton (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Well if you use a standard crosse when you play, you'll be affected.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 21:06, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
I had a look, this looks like this will only affect NCAA field lacrosse. I doubt we will see any distinct changes in CLA or NLL rules for the stick... but you never know. -- DMighton (talk) 22:21, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
The dislodging of ball is this issue. The defense no longer has the advantage, you almost have to tackle a player to make them lose the ball. The heads are too pinched.--THE FOUNDERS INTENT TALK 01:38, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Stan Cockerton

"This article is within the scope of the Lacrosse WikiProject ... Low This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale."

  • I think whoever rated the importance of Stan Cockerton as low missed the boat. Cockerton is in the very top tier of players and influences to come out of Canadian lacrosse -- especially in the OLA. I'd like to ask for a re-assessment of the importance of this article. thx. --10stone5 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The importance ratings are not very well defined but have been discussed to a point here:(Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lacrosse/Assessment). But my opinion is that any hof'er deserves the "High" rating -- this is consistent with other members, too. I also think the article should be assessed (at least) as start with the inclusion of all those stats. Lets wait to hear Mr Boo (the original rater) then we'll update. I know, at least when I am "rating" articles, I sometimes just use the standard "low & stub." Might be a good time to look at other articles, too. 10stone5, don't be shy about rating articles yourself either. Seems like you have a great understanding and attention to historically important lacrosse topics. Mitico (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I must have missed the HOF bit. I've never heard of him (I probably don't know any lacrosse player who hasn't played in the NLL in the past 7 or 8 years), so I skimmed the article and put him as low. I agree that if he's in a HOF, he deserves high importance. Feel free to change it. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 23:27, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into this. Also be aware that I tried to add as much info as I could find after Stan had already been assessed, so the data may not have been there before. Actually I only knew a little about the guy, and only became aware of him because I frequent the Laxpower.com forums. I'll also be sure to take a more active role in providing assessments myself.--10stone5 (talk) 17:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] NLL Statistics & Alphabetize

I have been going through the list of players adding all of their 2007 statistics. If anybody finds any errors in the stats, in addition to fixing them can people let me know if they find anything? Also, should we alphabetize the list of members in the project? I was going to but didn't know if ya'll wanted to leave it that way to show who joined when. --Xander756 (talk) 22:42, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Bravo! Great job on all updating all of those statistics! Mitico (talk) 01:39, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Calgary Jr. A Mountaineers at AfD

It is up for deletion here. Given the Sr. B, Jr. A and Jr. B teams are all part of the same organization, would it not make sense to move the article as I suggested in that AfD, and expand to include information on all three teams? Resolute 23:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Is a team singular or plural?

Many of the lacrosse team pages start off "<whatever team> are a lacrosse team..." and occasionally people change it to be "... is a lacrosse team" (someone just did this to the Portland LumberJax page). Technically, a team is a single entity, so it should be "is", but common usage seems to be to refer to a team in the plural. For teams like the Rock or the Stealth, it doesn't much matter, but it just sounds wrong to say "The Buffalo Bandits is...". Can we standardize on one or the other so we can keep all the team pages consistent? Please vote here. Vote "singular" if you like "is" and "plural" if you like "are". Thanks --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Plural --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 20:18, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. Linguistically, "The Calgary Roughnecks is a lacrosse team..." is unbelievably awkward. Resolute 21:28, 25 April 2008 (UTC)