User talk:Eagles247/Archive 46

IPP active roster count

It is objectively false to claim the active roster is 81 for teams that include an IPP player. Surely there can be a better way to explain their status on a team than misleading people? Maybe by including an additional note saying that they do not count towards the active roster on the abbr template? ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 02:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Was just about to post on your talk. The Washington website roster shows Bada on the active roster, with the other 79 players. When the Eagles were at 83 players (82 active + 1 international exemption), their website said they had 83 players on the roster. The Giants worded it as they reached the roster limit of 80 players, and then later said "The Giants' roster count is currently 81, which includes running back Sandro Platzgummer of Austria, who does not count against the roster as an international pathway exemption." We could get creative with the roster templates and add a separate count for exempt players, but wouldn't that include Commissioner's Exempt List players too?

Somewhat unrelated, I'm not sure if "(IPP)" is the appropriate denotation for international exempt players. IPP stands for "International Player Pathway" as you know, but there are other players from the IPP that are on active rosters without exemptions, like Jordan Mailata and Moritz Boehringer before he was cut today. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I assumed that the IPP designation only lasted for that season or if they were involved in another type of transaction before then? "Exempt" players are on a reserve list so I wouldn't group the two, as this international status isn't "except" in the same way. As for the IPP denotation, it could instead say "international/int." while still linking to the IPP article. In any case, I still think it's misleading to state 81 active when its really 80 active + 1 special designation. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 03:51, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made the adjustment to the designation, hopefully this is acceptable (and more understandable) now. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 07:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: You can't just remove the international players from the count entirely, they still show up on the roster and they still act as active roster players in every other capacity. It's also confusing for readers to look at a list of 85 players and see the counts only add up to 84. I've added to the {{NFLplayer}} description of the exemption, noting that it will carry into the regular season for practice squad players as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247, for one, who is even actually counting the lists besides the people who maintain them? (IE people like us who understand the roster stuff more than the casual fan) And even then, clearly stating they are not to count against the 80-man active roster due to their special status should be enough to clear any confusion. You can usually convince me after a few debates on things we don't happen to agree on, but unless I'm misunderstanding the entire IPP thing (which is possible), then I just see this as misleading and incorrect. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 18:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Would this change work for you? Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:08, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247 Honestly no because there should only ever be a single IPP player on the roster (and only select teams/divisions even have access to the program). This is still just overcomplicating it IMO. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:25, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: So your solution instead is to pretend the player doesn't exist for the purposes of the counts but leave him on the roster template? Why should this type of player be different from guys on the Commissioner's Exempt List, who we count as "inactive"? Those players' official roster designation is "Exempt/Commissioner's Permission" whereas the IPP players' official roster designation is "Exempt/International". Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:32, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: If their official designation is under the exempt tag (where exactly do you see that?, team rosters just list them as active) then they should be moved to the reserve list like we do with the active/PUP-type players. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I saw the designation on the NFL.com transactions page before they switched up their layout (and now I can't figure out how to find it through the Web Archive...), but here I added it to Jakob Johnson's infobox using the exact notation from the transaction listing. Now that I'm thinking about it, "exempt" means "active roster exemption" so maybe Commissioner's Exempt List players should go on the active roster along with the international exempt guys? They may not technically be "reserve" lists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK sorry, I just now noticed your formatting change in the template and I fully support that. As for the Commissioner's Exempt players, would we have to also note that in the same way? (so for Washington, the template would say 80 + 2 active exempt) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:05, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Great! So that's one thing to cross off the list (pinging @Jrooster49: if the change makes sense for him too). So with the Commissioner's Exempt players, we would move them onto the regular active roster, and I'd change the count coding so that Washington's would say "80 (+2 exempt) active, 5 inactive" at the moment. When the regular season arrives, I added a practice squad exempt parameter so we can denote the practice squad/injured and international practice squad exempt players since that was an issue with the count last year too. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: That works for me. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:15, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Actually, I think it would look better to have "active" before the exempt count. So in Washington's case, it would say 80 active (+2 exempt) instead of 80 (+2 exempt) active. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:58, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I'm fine with that. Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:11, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

oops

Thanked you for the wrong sig on User talk:John Pappas. Oh well, you get the idea. Meters (talk) 21:02, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Marc-Antoine Dequoy

Since Dequoy was waived by the Packers and drafted by the Montreal Alouettes, does that make him a member of the Alouettes? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:12, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: Good question. With NFL draft picks, it's safe to assume they are members of the organization before signing their contracts because the values of the contracts are so lucrative and it's rare for NFL draft picks not to sign with their drafted teams. However, CFL draft picks frequently do not sign with their drafted teams, so I think in this case, it will be better to wait for Dequoy to sign his contract with the Alouettes before changing the infobox and lead. As a quick example, Geoff Gray was drafted by the Winnipeg Blue Bombers in the first round of the 2017 CFL Draft, but did not sign a contract with the team until October 2018 because he wanted to explore his NFL opportunities first. CFL contracts are also hard to get out of once signed. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:04, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Executive vs administrator

In your opinion, what roles and/or titles qualify for the administrator parameter for the infobox? Purely business titles like CEO/COO? I'm asking because I'm not sure which a team president falls best under. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:13, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I'd say team president is an executive, but there could be debate there. Administrator is usually reserved for team owners and commissioners, and we really need to specify the usage of that parameter within the documentation at Template:Infobox NFL player. Eagles 24/7 (C) 12:23, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

But both those roles can be considered executives too. And don't most owners and commissioners use another type of infobox as well? I'd personally just get rid of the parameter. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 19:13, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: This is probably a better question to raise at WT:NFL, as I'm not overly familiar with the rationale when these parameters were originally added. It appears many commissioner pages were changed to Template:Infobox officeholder, which I don't agree with. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:05, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Honestly, WT:NFL leaves a lot to be desired. You try to garner consensus for something and usually get ignored unless you specifically ping people (I'm guessing they don't watch the page or something?) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 20:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry

Hello, Eagles247 (talk), I just wanted to apologize and say that I am deeply sorry for trying to force through unwanted color code changes for the Denver Broncos, Los Angeles Chargers & Miami Dolphins over at Module:Gridiron color/data. Is there any way you would please take a look at my latest edit request over at Module talk:Gridiron color? Please? Also, is there any way you could put in a good word for me in order for me to re-gain my WP:TPE rights? I really am committed to doing better and to seeking out consensus from other editors like yourself before I try to unilaterally force through changes that go against the established consensus. I'm sorry. Please help me re-gain my WP:TPE rights? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 22:04, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Charlesaaronthompson: I have added {{Edit template-protected}} to your request on the talk page so TPEs can find it easier. If you show substantial reform in the next several months when it comes to template edits/requests and seeking consensus, I would be happy to support your receiving TPE privileges again. However, I do not think you should get them back immediately, since it's been too soon since they were revoked. Please stop pinging me every time you post on someone else's talk page about an edit request, and please do not canvass editors to perform your request. The changes you are requesting to make to the modules are far from urgent, and posting the request on three user's talk pages to perform the request is excessive. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:20, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

@Eagles247: OK, but how else do I go about building consensus if I can't canvass other editors? Also, why not? Why must I wait several months? If I can demonstrate substantial reform and willingness to seek consensus, and then proficiency in editing the sandboxes within a reasonable time frame, then shouldn't I be allowed to submit another request for WP:TPE over at WP:PERM? Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 16:48, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

John Pappas

Hi. I've pinged you about this, but I just want to make sure you don't miss it: John Pappas has made some comments about you on my user talk page that you may wish to respond to. (Sorry to bother you, but I felt you deserved the right to reply even if you choose not to do so.) YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 17:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@YorkshireLad: Thanks, I've read through his comments and I don't believe it's worth my time to try communicating with someone who refuses to read what many users have tried explaining to him. The user seems WP:NOTHERE to help build an encyclopedia and I'll start an ANI discussion if his disruption continues. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:58, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, 100% understandable; I made one last attempt with my reply but I don't want to waste any more energy after this either. Thanks for such a quick reply! YorkshireLad  ✿  ^(talk) 19:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alabama Pitts

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Alabama Pitts you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 18:01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Roster navbox question

Is there any reason why we aren't using NFLPlayer templates within the roster navboxes? Doing so would allow the extra code (such as abbrlink and rookies in italics) to be shown. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:51, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: I think it would be overkill. {{NFLplayer}} was designed specifically to replace the tedious formatting that used to go into the main roster templates (here for example). Abbrlink probably shouldn't be used on the navboxes per WP:BIDIRECTIONAL anyway, and for the most part navboxes aren't even visible for >50% of readers because it doesn't show up on mobile. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:59, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Protected PS player elevations

Would you consider these practice squad elevated players for game days to count over the 53 or would they fit better as exempt? If the latter, then they have to be noted in some way or else it would just look like 54 players without any reasoning if you weren't aware of the transaction. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 21:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

@Dissident93: They officially count as 54th and 55th members of the active roster per the CBA. They are not exempt players, and I don't think we need to explicitly explain why rosters are allowed to be up to 55 starting this season. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:21, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Eagles247, got it, just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 06:09, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I also had a question about this. Should we be adding this to the player pages and updating the roster templates? It seems tedious to add them to the rosters them remove them the next day. Jrooster49 (talk) 00:14, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jrooster49: I think we should be doing them for the templates and player pages, but it affects up to 64 players per week so I'd understand if you chose not to update them. The weekly practice squad protections are definitely something that can be optional, many teams don't announce them and it may be hard to find who was protected. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:15, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Waived vs. released

Hey I see you have been changing a lot of players pages to say they were waived rather than released. I always thought it was the same thing. What's the difference? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:39, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: A waived player is subject to waivers, in which any of the other 31 teams can immediately claim his contract the next day. A released player is usually a vested veteran who is not subjected to waivers and can be signed to a new contract immediately. Typically “released” can mean both released and waived, but “waived” is specifically only players subjected to waivers. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:30, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Today's Wikipedian 10 years ago

Awesome

Ten years!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:13, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Alabama Pitts

The article Alabama Pitts you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Alabama Pitts for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Hog Farm -- Hog Farm (talk) 01:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Falcons 2010s

Falcons2010s

There are clearly 2 articles below.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Falcaholic (talk • contribs) 10:59, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Happy Adminship Anniversary!

Wishing Eagles247 a very happy adminship anniversary on behalf of the Wikipedia Birthday Committee! Megan☺️ ^{Talk to the monster} 07:13, 5 October 2020 (UTC)

Avonte Maddox

Maddox is on IR per [1]. The others may have been reverted to practise squad. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:09, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: "Arnold's promotion is not a surprise considering the fact that the Eagles will be without starting cornerback Avonte Maddox (ankle) and backup Trevor Williams (rib) was placed on Injured Reserve." Re-read that sentence, a comma would likely have been useful but Trevor Williams was the only one placed on IR. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:50, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Good catch, I read that wrong. Pretty confusing. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 13:35, 7 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Hart

Bobby Hart (American football) is receiving a fair amount of IP vandalism lately. Perhaps a semiprotect is in order? ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:13, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

@Editorofthewiki: Sorry for getting to this late. The majority of the vandalism was from one IP address, and it appears they were only warned once. If the vandalism persists, please notify me or other admins at WP:RFPP. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:35, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

About Shannon Dawson WP:G4 decline - your thoughts about this?

@Eagles247, NuclearWarfare, Paulmcdonald, Drdisque, and Bigmike2346: I have declined the speedy deletion of this article here. In my opinion, the article did not meet the outright WP:G4 speedy deletion criteria, but - as mentioned in the 2010 deletion discussion - in 2020 may not pass the WP:NSPORT/WP:ANYBIO/ and so on tests for notability. I would appreciate your opinion about this. Peter in Australia aka Shirt58 (talk) 11:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

It doesn't really look like a "speedy" deletion to me... there is a claim to notability, it doesn't seem to be a hoax... 10 years ago an AFD came to the conclusion to delete. Normally I'd recommend follow-up with the original deletion discussion admins and participants. But there's no rule on that that I know of. The article was re-created, it looks like it was re-created in good faith, it looks like it was nominated for speedy in good faith, the speedy was declined in good faith. If someone is enthusiastic about its deletion, I'd suggest AFD for discussion (rather than plain ol' PROD). As the article is written, I'd personally likely still land on delete... but that's only after a cursory review and no in-depth study. It could be a keeper. But it seems like the traditional procedure has basically been followed and there's nothing of bad faith in the works. So I would likely have opposed the speedy myself and allowed it to go to AFD if not nominating it myself (with no prejudice to sticking me with a delete position once it gets there, things change). If I would have deleted it per speedy (which is a possibility), and if someone were to contest the speedy I wouldn't interfere and would be okay sending it to AFD. This is kind of how things are supposed to work on Wikipedia.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:11, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Shirt58 and Paulmcdonald: I generally agree with Paul here. The subject seems to have become more notable since the AFD 10 years ago, and the article should be taken to AFD again if someone believes it still does not merit an article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:33, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Blogs

You reverted my edit to the Thornton article, pointing out that the source I added (here) reprinted a press release and was from a blog. I am not sure about the first point, but the fact that a source might be characterized as a "blog" does not disqualify it. The "Scratching Post" is actually a publication of the The Hamilton Spectator, a major metropolitan daily that covers the Tiger Cats as part of its news coverage. Accordingly, and even it were appropriately characterized as a blog, it would still qualify as a reliable source. Many editors are under the erroneous assumption that all "blogs" are per se unreliable, and that is simply not the case. See WP:BLOGS. Cbl62 (talk) 20:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Cbl62: Thanks, I did not realize it was part of a major publication. At brief glance, after determining it as a reprint, it appeared to me as a fan blog. It is still a direct reprint of this, however, which was already referenced in the article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Revision deletion request

Edit and immediate self-revert from 2600:387:1:813::84 re rvt edit summary.[2] UW Dawgs (talk) 18:24, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: done. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:26, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Bryce Hall

Hello - would you mind reverting the RM close of Bryce Hall? A contested RM like with multiple options discussed should have a more experienced closer. I went to ping the closer, but it says they have retired (which is weird in itself). I saw you had engaged with them about this page, so thought I'd bother you about it. Thanks! Dohn joe (talk) 21:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Dohn joe: I've reverted the closure and closed it myself. I believe there wasn't enough consensus to make Bryce Hall (internet personality) the primary topic, but I wouldn't object to a new requested move discussion at Talk:Bryce Hall (internet personality) to see if a consensus can be formed there. It appears with the original move discussion, there was no move request tag placed at Bryce Hall (internet personality) or notification of the discussion at Talk:Bryce Hall (internet personality), so anyone with vested interest in that page may not have been aware of the original discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 21:56, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Pennridge-Quakertown Thanksgiving Day Classic

I am not clear on the motivation to delete the "Scoring Records" and "Weather" information per the original research rationale. This information is no more original research than the entire article. The "Scoring Records" are the summary of the well-cited scoring plays that comprise the bulk of the article. They are no more synthesized than the "Game Results" section which can be found on any sports rivalry page. The weather information which was cited, and the files can be downloaded from the NCEI webserver - I am just reporting the numbers. The weather extremes were objective descriptions of the data itself. If this is not the proper forum for such information, than I prefer that the article be deleted considering the sections deleted were the purpose of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkey Day Classic (talk • contribs) 19:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

@Turkey Day Classic: Hi, thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia! The policy I referred to can be found at Wikipedia:No original research. As the page states in the first paragraph, "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. [...] To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented." In this case, under my interpretation of the policy, it is original research to have a table of superlatives for the game in which the only way to verify these as factual would be to comb through every single game's box score and calculate it on your own. That is, there isn't a published, reliable source that has calculated it already. I cannot speak to what other articles on Wikipedia have, as other stuff exists, but if you were to point me to specific articles I can take a look at them as well. As for the weather analysis, it can be considered synthesis (WP:SYNTHESIS) to, as the link says, "combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources". I am sorry to hear your desire to have the page deleted if your entire untruncated analysis of the game cannot stay, but no one owns (WP:OWN) a Wikipedia page, and once you hit submit you have allowed the community of editors to edit and change the contents of text according to the policies laid out. If you have read through the policies and links I have cited and believe my interpretation is wrong (which it tends to be sometimes), you can post on the talk page of the article (Talk:Pennridge–Quakertown Thanksgiving Day Football Classic) and see if other editors agree with you to form a consensus (WP:CONSENSUS). There is also an Articles for deletion (WP:AFD) discussion going on right now to determine the notability of the game (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pennridge–Quakertown Thanksgiving Day Football Classic), and you may weigh in there as well. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:41, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

User:Spamfighter247

Might be time to revoke TP access. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Lard Almighty: Yep. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:25, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

National Hand Touch Football League

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Demons24/sandbox2 National Hand Touch Football League can this be edited just wondering it’s under review right now? Demons24 (talk) 23:14, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Demons24: What are you asking? Eagles 24/7 (C) 23:48, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

I was asking if it can be reviewed Demons24 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It’s a League of Touch Football American Demons24 (talk) 00:11, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Demons24: You'll need to add sources that prove the league is notable enough for inclusion on Wikipedia from third-party reliable sources that show significant coverage of the subject. At the moment the draft is very far from being accepted into mainspace and I suggest you spend time working on the page instead of leaving messages on a dozen user talk pages. There are many helpful links on your own user talk page that can get you started. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:18, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

But if you look on the draft I left my website information on there https://handsfootball.wordpress.com/ saying it’s a League I’m not trying to bug you about this but I have been working on it. Demons24 (talk) 00:20, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

@Demons24: WordPress websites are not reliable sources since they are typically self-published (see WP:RSSELF). You need to find third-party reliable sources. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:50, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I did find other sources if you give me a chance people are playing in the National Hand Touch Football League out there if you look carefully at my draft Daniel Hand High School is playing Hand Football Demons24 (talk) 00:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

"It exists" is not a reason for a subject to have its own Wikipedia page. It still needs to be notable enough for inclusion here. You may need to look for a different website to host your article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:59, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Yeah but it created an inspiration of the League I enjoy Hand Football Demons24 (talk) 01:25, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Does this mean I can create an Article now just wondering I need confirmation m first? Demons24 (talk) 01:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

I helped Demons24!out National Hand Touch Football League is a real league that actually plays there games in Upstate New York Relays24 (talk) 05:17, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hail Murray

What's your opinion on the notability of the Hail Murray article? In my view, it doesn't pass WP:NSPORTSEVENT. Even though there are many sources that talk about the catch, I feel like that still counts for WP:ROUTINE coverage. There's nothing to indicate that this Hail Mary is more notable compared to any other Hail Mary in the regular season.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 22:04, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

@Bait30: It could be worth a look at AfD. List_of_Hail_Mary_passes_in_American_football#Professional_football has a list of NFL Hail Mary plays, and from what I can tell, there have only been about 14 game-winning Hail Mary plays in NFL history: Hail Murray, Miracle in Motown, Fail Mary, a 2010 game between Jaguars and Texans, a 2002 game between Browns and Jaguars, a 1999 game between Browns and Saints, a 1995 game between the Broncos and Redskins, a 1991 game between the Falcons and 49ers, a 1987 game between the 49ers and Bengals, a 1983 game between the Falcons and 49ers, a 1981 game between the Bills and Patriots, Miracle at the Met, a 1978 game between the Falcons and Saints, and a 1975 game between the Vikings and Cowboys. Only four of them currently have standalone articles, but the references included at Hail Murray do not appear as significant as you'd expect for a standalone article about a play. Eagles 24/7 (C) 01:18, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

RevDel request

re[3] Cheers, UW Dawgs (talk) 04:55, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

@UW Dawgs: Not done, doesn't meet the criteria for redaction. Ordinary vandalism. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:22, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

Kendall Hinton confusion and joining the project

Sorry about the confusion with Kendall Hinton. I'm still somewhat new to this part of Wikipedia and the Broncos situation was just weird in general. By the way, I've been making quite a few contributions to the NFL articles in Wikipedia and was wondering if I could join the project. Also, thanks for all your work to keep the project in order! LOL!ChessEric (talk · contribs) 03:58, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

@ChessEric: No worries. You can certainly join WikiProject National Football League! (And, for that matter, most WikiProjects are free to join by anyone.) You can add your username to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League#Participants and start editing pages that interest you. Eagles 24/7 (C) 04:10, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the message you left me.

Hi there! Thanks for the message you left me regarding Bill Belichick's tree on the Coaching tree talk page. I think I see where you're coming from, and am willing to change the revision back to the version you had. One question, however: Would you happen to know how to update the coaching trees that were displayed on the article's actual page? Or would you happen to know someone who could update it? I don't know how to do it, unfortunately, but the trees themselves, in my opinion, do need a serious update. Thank you for your time. Hope to hear from you again. Mr. Brain (talk) 22:28, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

Kenny Stills article

Thanks for the protection on the Kenny Stills article... some of our fanbase in indeed overzealous and immediately are ready to declare him signed. The protocols are taking longer than expected, but when he does sign I'll probably let you know so it can be edited. Thanks! Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 01:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Jack Podlesny Draft

Hi, I saw you corrected my mistake in trying to put Jack Podlesny's draft on the list for New Articles on the CFB WikiProject site. I have finished my draft, and I want to send it for review, but how would I get it on the list on the WikiProject site? Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gcjimmerson (talk • contribs) 17:42, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

@Gcjimmerson: When you submit the draft for review following the instructions on that template, the bot will automatically add the page to the alerts page. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:00, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Copy of deleted article

Hi. I was a contributor to the article Lonnie Coffman, which you deleted following an AFD discussion. I see that you are in Category:Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Could you provide me with a copy of the article please. I'm not sure how this is best done, but you can email it to me, if there is no better method. thanks very much. Nurg (talk) 03:27, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

@Nurg: I've emailed you the contents. Eagles 24/7 (C) 03:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Received. Thank you. Nurg (talk) 03:40, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

ANI for LaDanian1000000

Just letting you know that an ANI has been started in case you would like to add any comments. Best, GPL93 (talk) 01:39, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Coaching tree update?

Hello again. Are you still planning on making a coaching tree for Bill Parcells for the Coaching tree article? For the record, I think you did an excellent job constructing the trees of Bill Walsh & Marty Schottenheimer. Let me know if you're planning on a tree for Parcells. Thanks. Mr. Brain (talk) 22:48, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@Mr. Brain: Hi, this is still on my to-do list, but at the moment I am backlogged with tasks I want to work on regarding NFL transactions and the coaching turnover. When I'm caught up and there's a dead period in the NFL world, I'll get around to this. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:39, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Jared Goff and Matthew Stafford

Hi Eagles247,

What do you think is the best way for Wikipedia to represent this trade without violating WP:SPORTSTRANS? I know that the trade is not yet official, but it is widely reported on. And unfortunately, the trade will not take effect until March, but there may be a lot of editors who want to change this article in the meantime.

I know that based on WP:SPORTSTRANS we can't change infoboxes or things until the trade is complete. Natg 19 (talk) 07:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Natg 19: Typically, just wait until the trade becomes official before adding anything to the prose too. These are still anonymous reports about biographies of living persons, and, despite being "widely" reported, they still only amount to Internet rumors. Keep in mind, the trade cannot become official until more than six weeks from now, and the teams can back out at any point without penalty. You could also post on the respective article talk pages to see if a consensus can be formed about adding a section about the reports, but WikiProject National Football League has historically been hesitant to agree to something like that. Thanks for the message! Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:37, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I copied from my own text

You warned me because I copied my own text from my own draft?. When I was nit confirmed I created a draft for taulia and now that I’m confirmed I try to create pages. And I copied it so wtf man — Preceding unsigned comment added by Christiancool123 (talk • contribs) 23:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Removed BLP Prod

I'm still fairly new so I just wanted to check with you about this. I thought the article had to have a reliable source, not any source at all, to qualify for BLP prod? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Wikipedia:Proposed deletion of biographies of living people#Nominating says only articles without any sources whatsoever can have the BLPPROD tag applied to them, so your addition of it to the article was incorrect. However, WP:BLPPROD also says removing the tag can only be done once a reliable source has been added. I thought one of the sources in the article was reliable, but in any event I've added a new source just in case. Thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:47, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for info! Won't make that mistake again. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Could you assist me with withdrawing the AfD nomination? I'm not sure how I didn't find any sources, seeing what you're putting in now, but I don't see a reason for the AfD at this time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish:  Done thanks! Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks a ton. I appreciate the help. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:19, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

I hate to bother you again, but I came across 1400 Reezy from an edit request, the page was nonsense except for an infobox, so I blanked it except for the infobox. Is there a speedy delete category that works for this? I'd like to avoid making another mistake. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: I think I've cleaned it up, looks like the user moved their user talk page into mainspace. I reverted the move and deleted the mainspace article. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:46, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Nice little watchlist misclick there, sorry about that. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:51, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Shaq Lawson

Hi, I edited the Shaq Lawson (NFL player) page since it was reported today that he was traded from the Dolphins to the Texans. I did not provide a source so it was removed, but the trade has been reported by numerous well-known NFL reporters/insiders like Adam Schefter and Ian Rapoport. I am not sure how to cite sources so here is a link: https://www.nfl.com/news/texans-to-trade-pro-bowl-lb-benardrick-mckinney-to-dolphins-for-shaq-lawson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akamazing7 (talk • contribs) 18:39, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

Andre Roberts and Kamu Grugier-Hill

I edited the Andre Roberts and Kamu Grugier-Hill (NFl Player) pages since they had signed with new teams. I didn't cite a source however so it was removed, although it was reported by several people. If you could please change it back I would appreciate it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.152.251 (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

@108.26.152.251: New league year opens up on March 17 at 4PM ET, players cannot change teams until then. See WP:RSBREAKING and WP:SPORTSTRANS. Since you are clearly the same user as above, any further edits like this will result in a block on your account and IP address. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

First off, no I'm not the same user as above, and, second off, the players have agreed to contracts and basically been signed. It's absolutely pointless to revert these edits constantly when they will be perfectly fine in one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.26.152.251 (talk) 03:32, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Kyle Juszczyk

Thank you, Eagles247. I switched it back, but before I did, I cited an nfl.com article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SteelerFan1933 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

@SteelerFan1933: Thanks. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Deleted Lists

Hi. I was a contributor for Wikipedia for a while and I created my own personal lists for sports. It was brought up over ten years ago that should be removed but the ruling was it was “allowed”. Now I understand that I probably shouldn’t have those lists on Wikipedia but I wasn’t given any warning with those lists being deleted. If you can send me the deleted lists I’ll be extremely grateful. I see that you are one of the Wikipedia administrators willing to provide copies of deleted articles. Could you send me copies of the lists please. If possible email would work best for me. Please and thank you. ~ User:Phbasketball6 Phbasketball6 (talk) 23:27, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

I apologize you did message me on my talk page unfortunately I didn’t see it until now. Phbasketball6 (talk) 01:08, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Nelson Agholor

Hi, you recently marked a warning on my talk page for changing the content of Nelson Agholor without proper sourcing. I apologize for my mistake, I meant to add sourcing but I forgot. I realized my mistake and started editing the page again to add sourcing. However I couldn't do it because the page was extended-confirmed protected before I could publish my edits. This isn't a request to edit the page, I just wanted to let you know that I intended to add sourcing, and that I acknowledge my mistakes and will work to remember so properly source my content in the future. NSNW (talk) 23:59, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Earl Okine

Hello, I am fairly new to this but I have credible source that Earl Okine has retired from football and is back in school, thanks for listening Eagles247! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernschollyy (talk • contribs) 19:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

@Southernschollyy: What would that source be? Eagles 24/7 (C) 22:18, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

his agent Chris Martin of OTG agency based in Chicago — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernschollyy (talk • contribs) 17:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

@Southernschollyy: Can you provide a link to that? All information on Wikipedia is based on verifiability (see link for more), and we need published evidence to confirm it exists. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:01, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Would it need to be a social media post or something similar? I do not think any of his previous teams would publish anything about him retiring — Preceding unsigned comment added by Southernschollyy (talk • contribs) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Southernschollyy: A social media post from a verified account (from his or his agency's accounts, etc.) would suffice as a reliable source in this case. In any event, it's generally understood that if a player has not signed with a team in over a year they can be considered no longer active, so by February 2022 the page could be updated to say he's a "former" player even without a formal retirement statement. Eagles 24/7 (C) 18:49, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe Flacco

Huh, but it was literally confirmed by the NFL and the Eagles themselves, I even provided a reliable source confirming it. How is it still premature information? https://twitter.com/Eagles/status/1374514166350770183?s=19 See? How is it still "unconfirmed" or "premature" if it has been confirmed by the Eagles themselves? DisplayedName (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 01:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree ReaganHoang10 (talk) 01:43, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@DisplayedName: When you added the content, the Eagles had not yet confirm the signing. Please see WP:RSBREAKING and WP:SPORTSTRANS for more information. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Joe Flacco Signing

How do I cite sources on mobile? Joe Flacco was signed by the Eagles, per tons of reports. ReaganHoang10 (talk) 01:42, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

@ReaganHoang10: See WP:RSBREAKING and WP:SPORTSTRANS for why Wikipedia has a higher threshold for sources than "tons of reports". And I don't use mobile for editing, but I'm sure it's the same as on desktop. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

PFR executive page

I'm not sure how long a dedicated executive page for people has existed on PFR, but shouldn't this also belong as a parameter in the infobox? It also includes non-GMs such as owners. I ask you since you have more skill in wikicoding for infoboxes or I would have tried it myself. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 00:27, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@Dissident93: Voilà. Thanks for the info! Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)