Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Lacrosse/Archive1

message: My personal belief after 11 years of playing the sport is that there is no difference... just another name for it... just like Boxla... I'd like to see the two articles merged under Box Lacrosse and then have a little write up about the different names.. also, the article is in desperate need of being expanded... as an example we might want to look at: American football.  DMighton 10:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree. I didn't even know there as a difference... atleast around these parts, the terms are used interchangibly. Vote to merge Stoneice02 20:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well... the argument from an old discussion was that Indoor is different because 3 years ago they switch back to the old 4 quarter rule over 3 periods... and that they use turf.  These rule changes are basically only for the top tier of the sport... the NLL... and mostly for aesthetics... green turf looks less ghetto than a cement floor... and four quarters allows for a halftime.  DMighton 20:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the basic question here is: Are box and indoor lacrosse different sports? Field and box lacrosse are fundamentally the same, but there are lots of differences, and the differences are big enough that they are considered two different (though related) sports, and thus require different pages to describe them. The differences between box and indoor lacrosse are relatively minor — the differences mentioned above aren't differences between sports, they're differences between leagues. The AL and NL use different rules (the designated hitter is one, but there are others), but nobody would say that they play two different sports. I don't think the differences in playing surfaces is relevant enough — some baseball teams play on grass and others on artificial turf in the same league. I vote to merge as well. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 22:43, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Box lacrosse]] versus [[Indoor lacrosse]]

message: There are very few images on any of the lacrosse pages. Most NLL/MLL team pages have a logo, and there are a few other pictures on some of the team pages, but there are very few pictures on the player pages. I know very little about what images we are and are not allowed to upload. For example, can we upload pictures from the NLL web site, or individual team sites (eg. www.torontorock.com)? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 17:22, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly, it isn't so simple.  Most pictures you find on web sites are copyrighted (i.e. someone owns the rights to use it.)  For further information on this, see the image use policy.  The best way to add pictures, is often to take them yourself.  Sometimes you can find pictures online that have been release with a license compatible with Wikipedia.  These are usually from other amateur photographers.  For example, you may be able to find some on Flickr (e.g. search within http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-2.0/).  I see that this one is compatible.  But be careful, not all pictures on Flickr are free.  -- JamesTeterenko 19:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: (You can also search within http://www.flickr.com/creativecommons/by-sa-2.0/) Both  and  are sets with a lot of good action shots. --Yarnalgo 03:41, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: There are categories for :Category:Lacrosse players as well as ones for Canadians, Americans, and Australians. Should there be one for players of native heritage? If so, what should it be called?
:I created :Category:National Lacrosse Hall of Fame inductees and added it to all the players currently linked on the list of inductees. Stoneice02 02:04, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lacrosse player categories 

message: Talk:Lacrosse#Position (team sports) may be provocative for your project. Anyway, Position (team sports) should at least list lacrosse (genus). --P64 02:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Positions of players 

message: Right now, Pittsburgh CrosseFire, Baltimore Thunder and Washington Power all redirect to Colorado Mammoth, the current name of that franchise. I think we should have different pages for each team. They'll obviously mention the history of the team and where it is now and such, but I would like to remove the automatic redirect. This goes for other teams that moved as well: Columbus, Syracuse, New Jersey (twice), etc. Note that Albany (now San Jose) and Montreal (now Minnesota) already have their own pages.
Any objections? --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 16:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: Actually the Bayhawks moved to DC (Washington Bayhawks) --Yarnalgo 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I believe that the old team has its own identity and deserves its own page, whether it lasted one year or five. Forcing the Washington Power into the Colorado Mammoth article restricts the ability to focus on Washington itself - where they played, how they did, what the fans were like, etc.  Wikipedia is not paper.  There is no reason why such restrictions should exist. Resolute 06:29, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NLL teams that moved

message: Hey guys... I just got the stats for the OLA Junior B Lacrosse League from 1985 on... I will be adding them progressively and adding histories later.  DMighton 04:26, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Stats for the Eastern Conference are posted and base pages created.  DMighton 17:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: OLA

message: Some of the schools and affiliations in this article are red links. Please feel free to write articles or stubs!!!! Stoneice02 04:05, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Red Links in [[Members of the National Lacrosse Hall of Fame (alphabetical)]] 

message: are they relocating to DC? Smith03
:Yes, it has already been announced (see Washington Bayhawks) but the move section needs a little work. --Yarnalgo 01:08, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Baltimore Bayhawks

message: Hello, all. It was initially my hope to try to have this done as part of Esperanza's proposal for an appreciation week to end on Wikipedia Day, January 15. However, several people have once again proposed the entirety of Esperanza for deletion, so that might not work. It was the intention of the Appreciation Week proposal to set aside a given time when the various individuals who have made significant, valuable contributions to the encyclopedia would be recognized and honored. I believe that, with some effort, this could still be done. My proposal is to, with luck, try to organize the various WikiProjects and other entities of wikipedia to take part in a larger celebrartion of its contributors to take place in January, probably beginning January 15, 2007. I have created yet another new subpage for myself (a weakness of mine, I'm afraid) at User talk:Badbilltucker/Appreciation Week where I would greatly appreciate any indications from the members of this project as to whether and how they might be willing and/or able to assist in recognizing the contributions of our editors. Thank you for your attention. Badbilltucker 19:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia Day Awards 

message: I wanted to create a page listing all of the weekly award winners in the NLL, but that's 12-16 winners per season, times 22 seasons, and in the last four seasons, there have been FOUR winners per week. This would be a rather huge table of players. Does anyone have any ideas on how to condense it a little, eg. maybe break it up into sub pages (i.e. Weekly Winners of the 1990's / 2000's)? 
Thanks for any input. --MrBoo (talk, contribs) 19:10, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The decades sounds good, however that is still, as you said, 12-16 winners per season for 10 seasons. You could also break it up between Eagle Pro, MILL, and NLL, only the problem is that the NLL would keep growing and it is already at 10 seasons. One last idea is to do Eagle Pro, MILL, NLL (90's), and NLL (00's). What do you think? --Yarnalgo 07:16, 17 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NLL Weekly Awards