Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lacrosse/Archive3

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Lacrosse. 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.

"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)

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)

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)

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)

Hi. This may be a dumb question, but is there any reason why the Washington Bayhawks don't have a category under Category:National Lacrosse League players by team ? I was categorising one of their players, but found the team category was missing. I confess that I know nothing about lacrosse, so there may well be a good reason, but just in case there isn't, I thought I should draw someone's attention to it :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I knew it was a dumb question - they're not in the National League ..d'oh ! :-) CultureDrone (talk) 12:52, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

There is currently a discussion at Talk:List of current NLL team rosters regarding uniformity of NLL rosters. Please take a look and let me know you thoughts. Thanks, -Mitico (talk) 21:23, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 21:36, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I am on my yearly statistics update binge and I am currently looking for a place to find Scott and Shawn Evans' 2008 NLL stats. On NLL.com for some reason Shawn's stats are mysteriously missing and they have Scott Evans as having 160+ points on the season, which is clearly not correct. --Xander756 (talk) 07:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that pointstreak had issues for most of the season distinguishing between Scott & Shawn, maybe that explains Scott's "incredible season" Anyway, maybe this link will be helpful: Rochester 2008 stats -Mitico (talk) 11:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC) I have just updated all Wings & Titans stats. Mitico (talk) 15:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey thanks. Yeah it seems like they combined Scott and Shawn's stats onto Scotts. Sounds good as long as you leave me the Bandits and Toronto! --Xander756 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Seems I may not be doing the stats this year, guys. The admins here on wikipedia don't want me here anymore. Who am I to stand against their mighty judgment? Anybody may feel free to take over. --Xander756 (talk) 18:59, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia 0.7 is a collection of English Wikipedia articles due to be released on DVD, and available for free download, later this year. The Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team has made an automated selection of articles for Version 0.7.

We would like to ask you to review the articles selected from this project. These were chosen from the articles with this project's talk page tag, based on the rated importance and quality. If there are any specific articles that should be removed, please let us know at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.7. You can also nominate additional articles for release, following the procedure at Wikipedia:Release Version Nominations.

A list of selected articles with cleanup tags, sorted by project, is available. The list is automatically updated each hour when it is loaded. Please try to fix any urgent problems in the selected articles. A team of copyeditors has agreed to help with copyediting requests, although you should try to fix simple issues on your own if possible.

We would also appreciate your help in identifying the version of each article that you think we should use, to help avoid vandalism or POV issues. These versions can be recorded at this project's subpage of User:SelectionBot/0.7. We are planning to release the selection for the holiday season, so we ask you to select the revisions before October 20. At that time, we will use an automatic process to identify which version of each article to release, if no version has been manually selected. Thanks! For the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial team, SelectionBot 22:30, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are we getting the official rosters and lists from? I notice most team sites are incorrect or flat-out slow even though the season starts in 5 days. I'm wonder because I noticed my final roster for the Blazers was revert from my NLL.com version to the incorrect one on their site. Jc121383 (talk) 19:41, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

The NLL.com version are really pass-through from Poinstreak ... which aren't always reliable. So I have tended to give more credence to the team's website. Then again the Titans website still lists Jeff Ratcliffe (who retired a while back), but does not include Jeff Spano who was released more recently. Regarding the Blazers, the NLL transactions clearly indicates that Cosmo & Downing are on the protected list ... but I suspect this will change. So, until each team plays its first game these rosters are always more art than science. Mitico (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

So maybe you are right, that the teams sites are "incorrect." The Titans list CP on their site, but poinstreak does not. With CP listed as "protected" then the roster sits at the appropriate 23. That said, there is so much flux that I would not (personally) feel inclined to act one way or the other until the rosters are really set. Mitico (talk) 20:24, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Portland,_Oregon#major_sports_teams over the inclusion of text which includes the Portland LumberJax as one of two major league teams based in the city. Your input, with a view to achieving consensus, is gratefully appreciated. Coldmachine^Talk 14:42, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I went through all of the members listed on the project page and broke down, into three categories, their activity within the project (much like some other spots projects). This is to give a better idea on how many editors are on the project. If I listed you incorrectly, just move yourself under the proper header. If you're not on the list, put yourself on it. If you want to change the headings or the descriptions, feel free to do so. Jc121383 (talk) 05:29, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Housekeeping

I spent a little time trying to tidy the project page. I cleaned up the open tasks & removed any completed items, I removed the Assessment class detail that can be found on the subpage, and I created an archive page for older "New articles." I hope these changes are improvement to the project page. Any objections? Feel free to undo and/or discuss. Thanks, Mitico (talk) 16:24, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

They are great improvements! Jc121383 (talk) 19:09, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm just wondering what the reason is for putting in that column the winning goalie no matter which team wins. Shouldn't it be the goalie for the team whose page it is, win or lose? I noticed it went back a few seasons that way, too. If it's meant to be this way, the column heading isn't as accurate as it should be. Jc121383 (talk) 23:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Also since both teams are listed per game (visitor to the left of the home team), shouldn't the visitor's score be listed first whether it's less or more than the home team's? Jc121383 (talk) 23:21, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering if we needed the Decision column at all. Goalies are assigned wins and losses, and that column is specifically for the winning goalie (so yes, it is badly named), but the wins and losses are not as important for lacrosse goalies as, say, baseball pitchers. If there are no strong objections, I may remove that column altogether. If people don't want it removed, we should rename it to "Winning goalie" and optionally add a "Losing goalie" column as well.

As for the score, the colour of the row makes it easy to see who won and who lost (though there probably should be a legend), and scores are usually reported with the higher number first. Seeing a score reported as 10-14 is rare and looks weird. We could change it so that the winning team is bold to make it more obvious who won the game. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 12:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't feel seeing a score reported that way is rare. I usually see it like that on team specific pages such as these season pages (official website pages and such)<b>*</b>. However when I see it listed as highest score first, it's always attached with the winning team's name. I always hear "wins" as opposed to "loses". It's always Team A wins, Team A beats Team B, etc. And in the case of our game logs, with the visitor always listed first and most readers reading left to right, I could see this as confusing regardless as the background color indicates.

To best rectify this, I propose to get rid of the team's name, whom that page belongs to, all together. Just have the opponents' name and "vs." if it's a home game and "@" if it's away. We could even put the arena name in the attendance column, like NHL game logs, to better help differentiate. As far as the goalies are concerned, I like the separate columns idea. But another resolution could be to make it a "Game MVP" column.

P.S. Another problem I thought of before from my initial post on this topic is if the goalie is from the opposite team, he should probably be wiki-linked if applicable. Jc121383 (talk) 20:04, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

<b>*</b>P.P.S. As far as score listings with the visitor's score listed first, just look at NLL.com. Jc121383 (talk) 20:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Any more input? Jc121383 (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Nominate a Shamrox article and template for deletion. Wasn't sure if I could speedy delete them (wasn't sure which way it was done in the past):

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2009 Chicago Shamrox season
Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2009 January 16#Template:Chicago Shamrox roster

Jc121383 (talk) 21:09, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

At the moment the subcategories of Lacrosse articles by quality have "Lacrosse" with an upper-case L and the subcategories of Lacrosse articles by importance have "lacrosse" with an lower-case L. Would anyone mind if the importance ones were changed so that they had an Upper-case L so that they were consistent? -- WOSlinker (talk) 23:08, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I personally think they should all be lowercase unless, of course, it's the first word. Jc121383 (talk) 23:48, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Oops, I think that's my doing. I agree with JC - lowercase makes sense. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 23:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't mind if it's uppper or lower but I do think that they should be the same. So lower for the class ones would be good. -- WOSlinker (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

It's now all done apart from the Stub-Class which I'll do soon -- WOSlinker (talk) 08:10, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to call to attention the following talk topic:
Talk:John_Tavares_(ice_hockey)#Rename_article.3F — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jc121383 (talk • contribs) 13:13, February 3, 2009

MLL ANNOUNCES 2009 SCHEDULE DATES

02/19/2009 3:40 PM Major League Lacrosse (MLL), the premier professional outdoor lacrosse league, today announced their schedule for the 2009 regular season. The ninth season of Major League Lacrosse kicks off on May 15 when Washington hosts Toronto, the newest addition to the MLL.

According to MLL Commissioner David Gross, the 2009 season will feature a total of six teams, including the Boston Cannons, Chicago Machine, Denver Outlaws, Long Island Lizards, and Washington Bayhawks. The sixth franchise will located in Toronto, Ontario, and will play their home games at BMO Field, home of Major League Soccer’s Toronto FC. A name and logo for the Toronto franchise will be unveiled at a press conference Friday, February 20 at Toronto’s Air Canada Centre.

The 2009 season begins with a single game the evening of Friday May 15 as Washington and Toronto meet at Navy-Marine-Corps Memorial Stadium, the new home of the Bayhawks. Coach John Tucker will be in his first game at the helm for Washington. Face-off is scheduled for 7:30 PM ET. On Saturday, May 16, the Boston Cannons will host the Long Island Lizards at Harvard Stadium, and the Denver Outlaws will host the Chicago Machine at INVESCO Field.

The Warrior Major League Challenge and MLL Collegiate Draft will again fall between the second and third weeks of the regular season and will take place on Wednesday, May 27. A venue will be announced at a later date.

In Week Five, Chicago travels east for their first visit to Boston in team history. The Machine will play a second time at Harvard Stadium in Week Ten when they face the Cannons again on Saturday, July 18. Also in Week Five, the Long Island Lizards will make their first appearance at Denver’s INVESCO Field when they battle the Outlaws.

Week Seven of the schedule sees a team playing two games in a single weekend for just the second time in League history when Toronto travels to Boston on Thursday, June 25 before returning north of the border to host Denver on Saturday, June 27. The last and only time that teams played multiple games in the same weekend during the regular season was back in 2006, when Los Angeles and San Francisco played a pair of games against each other on consecutive days in late July.

Between Weeks Nine and Ten, the Denver Outlaws will once again host the MLL All-Star Game on Thursday, July 16.

Due to the reduction in the number of teams, the Eastern and Western Conferences will be eliminated for the 2009 season. At the conclusion of the regular season, the four teams with the best overall record will advance to New Balance Championship Weekend in Annapolis, MD. The two semi-final games will take place on Saturday, August 22 with the winners advancing to the Championship Game on Sunday, August 23.

Major League Lacrosse will announce the 2009 ESPN2 Television Schedule in the coming weeks.

Please click here to view the complete 2009 MLL Schedule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trlax14m (talk • contribs) 07:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you :). (how am I so out of it that I don't even know my team's being dropped from the league...) --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 08:10, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

This obviously means the MLL articles need a lot of work. I'm going to make a list of all the team's fates for reference:

Boston Cannons                Staying
Long Island Lizards           Staying
New Jersey Pride              Gone
Philadelphia Barrage          Gone
Rochester Rattlers            Moving to Toronto [1] [2] [3]
Washington Bayhawks	      Staying
Chicago Machine	              Staying
Denver Outlaws	              Staying
Los Angeles Riptide           Gone
San Francisco Dragons         Gone

--Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 08:22, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

per LAXUnited.com, the name for the Toronto MLL team is officially the Toronto Nationals. There's already an entry under that name in reference to defunct hockey teams. EvWill (talk) 20:54, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

The press release hasn't come out yet so we will wait for the official word to see if it is a new franchise or an old one moving (Rattlers) and then I will make a requested move. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 21:21, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

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} 22:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 05:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:20, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Current discussion at Talk:English Lacrosse Association about moving the page from the current title to Lacrosse in England or Lacrosse in the United Kingdom. Overall, I think the question raised here could be raised of all of the WP:Lax international pages. Should articles be organized as "Lacrosse in ...." or by international governing bodies? Opinions wanted. Thanks, Mitico (talk) 11:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

User:Rw mcfarland has apparently edited all of the MLL teams to switch from the former {{MLL Team Infobox}} template to his or her newer {{MLL Team}} template via several changes made back in late August, 2008. This project page still recommends the former not the latter. You active WP:LAX project members may want to decide which infobox you prefer and make some adjustments (either edit this project page to agree with mcfarland (and perhaps also delete the older obsolete template), or edit all the teams' articles to switch back to the older template (and request the deletion of the newer template)). I recently edited the newer MLL Team template to add back in the |website= parameter that had been omitted from it. The omission had left the website url on all team pages undisplayed (until just recently). I hope that helps you out. 67.86.75.57 (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I have re-written {{MLL Team Infobox}} using {{infobox}}. All the parameters are exactly the same as {{MLL Team}} and I made {{MLL Team}} a redirect to {{MLL Team Infobox}} so everything is done and taken care of. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 06:12, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

This was mentioned a couple of months ago: on the project talk page and I'm finally getting around to making the change. I've put a sample log in my sandbox for the 2005 Toronto Rock. It is more explicit with the score (highest score is always listed first, but there's a "W" or "L", only the opponent is listed (with '@' if it's an away game), and the goalie is no longer listed. Let me know what you think. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 14:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Looks great. When comparing side by side, your sandbox version looks a lot cleaner and easier to read. As stated by you & JC in the initial discussion, the GK decision section doesn't seem necessary. Looking at the NHL logs, I think they are way to busy. Only thing I would consider in the future is adding a "Recap" or reference column for each game. For now, the general pointstreak reference is fine. -Mitico (talk) 15:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I added a boxscore column with links to each game, but I'm not sure I like it. Same place. Comments or suggestions? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 15:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• I see you updated the Game logs. They look good. Figured I would just come back and comment. I believe my suggestion for a reference column with boxscore was flawed. Looking at other leagues game-logs - they have this column. Adding this column I thought would increase the verifiability of the log - as it does for others leagues. However, the NLL logs have a general reference in the header that links to the same information. My suggestion would have only added to the appearance of verifiability, not actual increase it. So I think the changes are right on. Thanks. Mitico (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent job on the Game Logs. I meant to follow through with it when I brought up the initial conversion but my time has been few and far between lately. Again, great work!! Jc121383 (talk) 14:30, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

{{Pro lacrosse team}} has been nominated for deletion because it is redundant to {{MLL Team Infobox}} and {{NLL Team Infobox}} and is unused. Discussion is here. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 19:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Currently, there's no infobox template really suited for college lacrosse teams (like there is for basketball and football). At present, the few college team articles use a template for association football (soccer), which isn't ideal since it uses British English words and links to football-specific things. I don't have the technical knowledge of template syntax to do it myself at the moment. Is there anyone with the know-how who would be interested in making an infobox template specifically for college lacrosse teams? Strikehold (talk) 03:51, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure I'll make it. Give me a little bit (might actually be tomorrow). --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 06:28, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Great! The college soccer infobox template is actually not too bad for our purposes, and with a few tweaks it could be used as a starting point for a lax-specific template. Maybe add two more NCAA tournament fields for NCAA quarterfinals and semifinals, and a non-tournament championship field for years predating the NCAA tournament (Wingate Trophy, etc.). Also, if anyone knows how to do it, if there's a way to change the uniform to get rid of the socks and maybe add a helmet/gloves it'd be perfectly suited for lacrosse teams. Strikehold (talk) 22:15, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done as a functional infobox but more can be done: {{Infobox College Lacrosse Team}}. I'm pretty sure it uses most of the same parameters as the soccer one but make sure and check when you are switching. Also, I've only seen the uniform thing on the soccer templates and I don't think it really works well for lacrosse. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 03:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

That was quick, looks good. Nice work. Any thoughts on possibly adding fields for pre-NCAA tourney championships and NCAA quarter/semifinals (such as in the basketball one)? Strikehold (talk) 16:00, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done. For the pre-NCAA, I only added the Wingate Trophy. Was there a different award/tournament? If there is I can change it to the generic "pre-NCAA" type thing the basketball one has. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 22:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The USILA recognizes pre-Wingate championships (I think as early as 1881), so I went ahead and tweaked it to a generic "pre-NCAA champions". Strikehold (talk) 23:50, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 23:58, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I saw that Syracuse is listed as the champion for the year in 1990. Althought they defeeated Loyola in the finals, the title was taken away by the NCAA for rule violations (to be euphemistic). I believe that the actual champion that year was Loyola, the runner-up. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NCAA_Men%27s_Lacrosse_Championship for verification from NCAA. Hkerfoot (talk) 22:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)HK

Not according to the NCAA. If you find a valid reference, I would be interested. Mitico (talk) 23:15, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

{{Current sport}} and {{future sport}} are now lacrosse compatible which means if you write {{current sport|sport=lacrosse}}, it will display as:

Going further, you can write {{current sport|event=lacrosse-related event|sport=lacrosse}} which will display as:

All the same applies to {{future sport}}. --Yarnalgo _{talk to me} 19:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's a discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 23:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)