Jump to content

Talk:Colt McCoy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleColt McCoy has been listed as one of the Sports and recreation good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
February 19, 2007Good article nomineeListed
October 4, 2008Good article reassessmentKept
Current status: Good article


Archives

[edit]

Archive 1


GA Reassessment

[edit]

2005- Matt McCoy (no relation to Colt) was the 3rd string QB as a walk-on. He did play in mop up situations and this did not confuse anyone but uninformed idiots. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.111.158.86 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Colt McCoy/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force in an effort to ensure all listed Good articles continue to meet the Good article criteria. In reviewing the article, I have found there are a number of issues that need to be addressed.

  • It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
The prose is OK, maybe a 6/10. Its good enough for a pass here, but remember to look it over for grammatical problems and stylistic things like using numerals instead of written numbers for the digits one to ten.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
Double check that all references are properly laid out with title, publisher, date of publication and last access dates.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
The personal life section is a mess - facts are thrown out without any cohesion or order. It has to be organised in a more systematic way into clear consise paragraphs.--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  • It is stable.
  • It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b (lack of images does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  • Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

I will check back in no less than seven days. If progress is being made, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted (such a decision may be challenged through WP:GAR). If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN again. Feel free to drop a message on my talk page if you have any questions, and many thanks for all the hard work that has gone into this article thus far. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 20:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • You were right, that section had gotten messy. I reorganized into 4 clear paragrapsh: Religion, The life-saving incident, Volunteer work, and family. I also added some new information to the 2008 season, and updated the lead. Please let me know if you think more work is needed. Best, Johntex\talk 17:54, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thats much better. The only thing I'd still like to see are the references that are improperly formatted being given title, publisher and last access fate information, as I've described below. This is not a massive problem, and I cannot envisage this article losing its GA status as a result, but I will hold the review oen till then end of the period so that this can be done first. Regards.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:03, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

[edit]

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

  • <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

  • Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). "Avoiding a Thirty Years War". The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • At the moment, the article has 85 inline citations. Just skimming them quickly, it looks like about 78 are properly formatted and about 7 are just a link. I'll work on fixing those if no one beats me to it. Best, Johntex\talk 17:15, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think they are all in the personal life section, shouldn't be too difficult to deal with.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I think I have fixed them all now. Please check and see if you still see any problems. Thanks! Johntex\talk 15:34, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have indeed, although please look out for unexpected bolding and unlink the dates as they are no longer supposed to be linked. It has passed, thanks for all the work on the article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 17:59, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks very much for helping to improve the article. I fixed the accidental bolding now also. I am in no hurry to unlink the dates. It is not really clear to me that the changes discussed as MOSNUM are going to have Wikipedia-wide consensus. If consensus is kept and maintained, I expect someone who is a proponent of this change will come up with a bot to implement it. Cheers, Johntex\talk 18:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chruch name

[edit]

The name of the church McCoy attends had been rendered in title case. However, GregTex (talk · contribs) changed it, citing what is tantamount to doctrine as the reason. I think we should use title case (i.e. "Church of Christ", "University Avenue Church of Christ") for two reasons. First, this is Wikipedia and usage should be based on the common form regardless of church doctrine. Second, this website renders it in title case. I was curious as to how the source rendered it, but the link is dead. I'm reverting the change. →Wordbuilder (talk) 18:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

no. 1 game injury

[edit]

in the game for no. 1 with Bama, the injury to McCoy is a key info ab mccoy needed to be followed in this wiki article... here's to full speedy recovery to finest, athlete and person McCoy - Bama fan willyg 69.121.221.97 (talk) 17:21, 8 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Personal life

[edit]

Hi, due to the youth of this sports person, it is acceptable for their personal life section to only cover the period before they began their career. However, as they grow older it becomes more important for information on their life outside sport to appear in the article. Please ensure that as the person develops their article does too. For an example of how such a section might look, see Brian Urlacher and for pointers on how to expand and improve such a section, see this guide. Thanks--Jackyd101 (talk) 10:26, 30 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a portion of this section dealing with an irrelevant medical condition of one of McCoy's relatives. 74.110.135.89 (talk) 03:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy Sits Out BCS Title Game

[edit]
Closing forum-style comments, this page isn't for trash talk
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Unfortunately Colt McCoy was unable to play in the national championship game because of a stinger in his right shoulder that is believed to probably be nerve damage that didn't show up in the x- rays. Although many believe that The University of Texas would have won the game against Alabama, it is said he was not allowed to go back into the game because his father and trainers did not agree with his willingness to finish the game. In the postgame interview you can truly see his pure regret as he put everything to get his team to that game. Although no one will ever know what would have happened with Colt in the game, "what if's" will haunt the win of the crimison tide forever along with longhorn fans. Calviny (talk) 18:31, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ala beat Texas in the 64/65 orange bowl with Joe Namath in the replay driving 1 to 2 yards over the goal line into the end zone, but the ref said he didnt score, though the replays proved he did score (no instant replays and reviews were done then as done today). So Tx won that Orange bowl, even though clearly to all, it didn't and with that win, Tx became no. l , even though they clearly were not - so these haunts you refer to are Tx BS esp as it is clear, Ala defense would have beat Tx & McCoy if not this play, then another and the Ala overall team speed is / was esp much greater than Tx. farook omar 69.121.221.97 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

McCoy's height

[edit]

Why are we going with the B.S. height that his college lists him at, instead of his actual height? Colleges routinely exaggerate the physical properties of their players, height, playing weight, et cetera. Are we waiting for the NFL Combine weigh-in process to get his official height, 6'1? http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/9d8c4d4269.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.131.26.130 (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That picture shows nothing. Okay, so Bradford is taller. We don't know how much taller, and both are presumably wearing shoes. Not only does his Texas bio say he is 6'3", but his ESPN bio says the same. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Good thing you know what you're talking about. It's not as if Colleges, as I stated, routinely fudge the numbers with players weights and heights. Oh wait, they do. And guess what? Colt McCoy was just officially measured at the NFL Combine at 6-1 and 1/8. Not to mention that picture absolutely does show something, given that a football is a standard size (with minor variations) you can use it to determine scale. Not to mentino using the good old fashioned eye test and common sense. And I was right. Source: http://www.statesman.com/blogs/content/shared-gen/blogs/austin/longhorns/entries/2010/02/26/heights_and_wei.html

So now we have his height listed as 5’9 in the intro table and 6’1 in the combine table. Which one is correct? Klod (talk) 21:44, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Number as a Pro

[edit]

We've had at least three different numbers for McCoy as a Brown, but none of them have a reliable source attached. I would suggest holding off until we get a proper course. Dayewalker (talk) 03:23, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Degree and College Major?

[edit]

Mr. McCoy attended the esteemed University of Texas for five years. Nowhere does this article mention his degree or major. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.106.168.45 (talk) 02:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Colt's family

[edit]

Brad was from Merkle, TX (near Abilene). That's where his parents & grandparents were located during Brad's youth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.55.110.88 (talk) 18:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Explanation for changing text about McCoy's "wins" record

[edit]

Though frequently used, "wins" is not an official stat for a QB (or any football player), as there's no set definition. This is usually not a problem, since barring injury, a winning team's starting QB will either play the full game or run up such a lead that credit for the game clearly to him, rather than his backup.

However, given the stat's vague but still narrow definition, it is indisputably the case that McCoy does NOT have the most wins in college D-I history (despite frequent media dissertations to this effect when he finished his college career). That's not to say that we can say with certainty who does have that record. The one thing we can say with relative certainty is that he has the most wins of any quarterback who spent all four seasons playing at the FBS (or Division I-A) level.

To clarify, D-I football encompasses both Division I-A (now called FBS) and Division I-AA (now called FCS). FCS schedules sometimes include more games than FBS programs. When Chad Pennington started his first year at Marshall in 1995, they were an I-AA program (12-3). He was redshirted the next year, and by his redshirt sophomore year, Marshall had transitioned to I-A, and in his final three years as the starting quarterback, he went 10-3, 12-1, and 13-0, totaling 47 wins.

I don't possess a list of QB wins in FCS/I-AA or transition, and frankly, I doubt anyone has put that together. I'm a Senior Researcher at ESPN The Magazine and we put together the list of FBS/I-A wins, and we indeed had McCoy at the top. I do not mean to imply Pennington clearly has the all time D-I QB wins record; he's just a player I was familiar with and was able to tally, and I realized he'd top McCoy if you include his D-IAA freshman year. It's absolutely possible that another QB has a better D-I record, especially if he played at a knockout I-AA program years ago.

Do I need to prove my identity to cite the above? If so, can I do it in a non-public way?

192.234.2.90 (talk) 19:53, 24 May 2011 (UTC)KC[reply]

File:Colt McCoy - Fiesta Bowl - Jan 5 2009.jpg Nominated for Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Colt McCoy - Fiesta Bowl - Jan 5 2009.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 02:31, 17 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File:Colt-mccoy-browns-quarterback.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Colt-mccoy-browns-quarterback.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article length

[edit]

This article is very lengthy, would probably be good to cut somethings out or split this article IMO--Levineps (talk) 08:42, 4 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That is the same exact thing I was thinking. This article is to long, some sentences are being repeated. It is just a very long article for someone who really hasn't accomplished that much. I would suggest trimming some of the fat off this thing.Zdawg1029 (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

winningest

[edit]
As per WP:FORMAL we should use formal terms suitable for an encyclopedia apart from direct quotes. winningest is an informal term, and as such does not have the tone required for wikipedia.
also
As per MOS:COMMONALITY we should try to use forms of English that are universally understood by all speakers of English. winningest is an American English term, that is not common (or correct) in other forms of English. Of course, we must never change from US to UK (or vice versa) as that would fall foul of MOS:RETAIN and American English will always have priority over all other forms in this article, however victorious is not an exclusive word for one variety of English, it is a universal term and as such is preferred to any term exclusive to one variant of English. Spacecowboy420 (talk) 10:54, 12 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Colt McCoy. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 07:46, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Colt McCoy. 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:

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 12:03, 18 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Colt McCoy. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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 IITalk to my owner:Online 02:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colt McCoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 17 external links on Colt McCoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 23 external links on Colt McCoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Colt McCoy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:13, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Free agent

[edit]

@Bears247: Was he a free agent for his entire career? Is he going to be? Paradoctor (talk) 17:44, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

take a look at any of nfl player who is not currently on a roster and tell me what it says Bears247 (talk) 19:34, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please consider that I, like someone from the general WP:AUDIENCE, have no idea what you mean by that. Paradoctor (talk) 19:37, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
all other free agent nfl players do not use “currently” in the lead, or a link that you’ve been including Bears247 (talk) 19:57, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WHATABOUT. That a mistake is widespread doesn't mean it's ok. MOS:DATED is clear: Terms likely to go out of date need a timeframe attached. Being a free agent is an inherently temporary state, and requires at a minimum an {{as of}}, or equivalent. Paradoctor (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
please refer to the message on my talk page I just @ you in Bears247 (talk) 20:28, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rockchalk717: is cordially in invited to provide policy-based arguments in favor of his position. I don't think he can, but hey, I'm listening. I'm also inviting contributions from MOS:DATED watchers. Paradoctor (talk) 20:52, 24 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradoctor: The lede is fine and doesn't need anything added. The lede is currently set to what has been the long standing standard when a player is a free agent. Typically after a year of no workouts (if you're not familiar with what that means in NFL terms basically a tryout) the lede gets updated to reflect them being a former player. If the standard is going to changed, the proper place to have this discussion is WT:NFL.--Rockchalk717 02:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The lead violates the guideline MOS:DATED. Per WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope.
More to the point, I couldn't find any discussion of this issue in the project's archives relevant to MOS:DATED, with one exception.
Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Football League/Archive 20 § Proposal: remove "free agent" from infoboxes permanently, which found unanimous support: This is a simple enough change that will help eliminate the endless "former or free agent" debates and future-proof these infoboxes. (my emphasis) Paradoctor (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
P.S.: Notified the Wikiproject NFL of this discussion. Paradoctor (talk) 02:31, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's not even remotely close to a DATED violation, especially since these articles are updated as soon as something changes and you have been provided what the practice is. By that same logic, a team listed violates DATED for players whose contract is about to expire or players on the trading block. Just because there's never been a direct discussion doesn't mean it isn't a standard. A change to the infobox with free agent isn't the same as changing the lede. If we try to apply the same thing to the lede using DATED then that doesn't solve the issue that you're claiming violates DATED because unknown players will go years without being touched still when their career is clearly over. Dated says "Except on pages that are inherently time-sensitive and updated regularly (e.g. the "Current events" portal), terms such as now, today, currently, present, to date, so far, soon, upcoming, ongoing, and recently". None of those are used when a player is a free agent. When a transaction occurs, the paged is updated within minutes. An example, Mecole Hardman was traded last week. The news broke at 12:26 pacific/Arizona time. The page was first updated 14 minutes later, while this update was reverted because it was done before it was officially announced, the point remains. When the trade was officially announced at 4:30 pm, I personally updated it 4:59 pm. Player pages are not subject to DATED because they are updated as news breaks. Same goes when a player retires, is cut, or when they are signed by a new team. Players whose pages are untouched are ones who never sign with anybody who eventually have the page updated to say former player.--Rockchalk717 02:59, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I'm way off base here, if so, I apologize in advance. This going back and forth with myself, Yankees10 and Bears247 is uncalled for. We reached out to Bears247, he eventually responded and we seemed to be getting somewhere. Then no more correspondence and a weekly .. and sneaky may I add, a change to free agency appeared on pages. I can wait in the bushes until the end of time and continue to revert what's done, I live for this. But it's not professional. Someone will say the wrong thing one day and someone will be offended. Honestly, I'm trying to save my own *** here. Being diplomatic only goes so far. Am I alone in this bucket of nonsense? Bringingthewood (talk) 21:15, 25 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Paradoctor: From this edit, it appears that your preference is for "is currently a free agent" vs. "is a free agent"? However, is implies present tense already, making currently redundant.—Bagumba (talk) 02:32, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's the reason I remove 'currently' whenever I see it. It's also by many coordinators/assistant coaches etc. I'm sticking with free agent only, not to ruffle more feathers. Bringingthewood (talk) 06:49, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bagumba and Bringingthewood:: your preference Is not important. All I want is to bring the article in line with MOS:DATED. Personally, I'd remove this guaranteed-to-become dated minor detail from the lead and mention it in the career section, if at all. But that's me. As long as MOS:DATED is satisfied, I'm satisfied. Paradoctor (talk) 19:59, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Arriving from WT:MOSNUM with no knowledge of our NFL articles, can I suggest:
  • @Paradoctor's right that it's good practice to date "is" statements that might become outdated, per MOS:DATED
  • @Rockchalk717's right that there's an exception for articles that are updated regularly, and I'd read that as including suites of articles such as those on NFL players if we can indeed have confidence that status changes are regularly and quickly incorporated into those articles
  • MOS:DATED offers an alternative approach which here might produce became a free agent in August 2023 (is that the right date? I may have misunderstood). That'll remain true for ever, and it's more informative too. Could something like that work? NebY (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @NebY: Adding anything extra is flat unnecessary because they are updated quickly. A player is technically still a free agent if they are actively seeking another team so until they sign with another team saying they are a free agent is still an accurate statement without any identifier being necessary. We just have the "year without a workout" rule to set a timeframe to reflect the player being a former player.--Rockchalk717 21:43, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding anything extra is flat unnecessary because they are updated quickly.
    That is flat out wrong. I already pointed it out above, you seem to have missed it:
    WP:LOCALCONSENSUS: Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope. (my emphasis)
    MOS:DATED makes no exception for articles that are "updated quickly". So, if you want that exception start a discussion at MOS with the goal of changing the guideline. Until and unless that happens, stating "is a free agent" unqualifiedly is in violation of the guideline. Paradoctor (talk) 19:43, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    It's been a few days since you notified the MOS talk page, but there has yet to be consensus for your interpretation. —Bagumba (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no interpretation involved. The guideline says Terms likely to go out of date, which "is a free agent" is. It is actually guaranteed to go out of date, because players outlive their careers. It's like stating "is waxing" in the lead of Moon. Paradoctor (talk) 23:54, 29 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it is a community standard to have lead sentences of living people being written in the present tense, with the expectation that they will receive timely updates. For example, Rishi Sunak's lead sentence reads ...is a British politician who has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom... and not is a British politician who has served asbecame the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom...—Bagumba (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks both of you. Small point: that Rishi Sunak article does say has served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and Leader of the Conservative Party since 2022 and I think that date's useful, allowing the reader to see how long - or how briefly - he has been PM. Likewise our readers won't necessarily know that a player described on WP as a free agent must have only gone a year without a workout, otherwise we'd call them a former player, so without digging deeper into the article, they've no way to know how long he's been a free agent. Still, I've made my suggestion, you've considered it, and I'll happily back away! NebY (talk) 10:43, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Re: Sunak and most other bios, if we're going to be strict about DATED, the "has served" risks being dated once he's no longer PM, because it's in the present tense, regardless of whether a date is mentioned or not. Barring a community consensus discouraging present tense in all BLP lead sentences, I think "is a free agent" is consistent with other non-NFL bios re: present tense, and is fine. —Bagumba (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh yes, "has served"/"has been" is often a sign the statement's outdated. But it's fine there and this article's fine. NebY (talk) 12:05, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Colt_McCoy&oldid=1204924660"