Talk:Elite 11

	College football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject College football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of college football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.College footballWikipedia:WikiProject College footballTemplate:WikiProject College footballcollege football
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

American football

	American football portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject American football, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of American football on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.American footballWikipedia:WikiProject American footballTemplate:WikiProject American footballAmerican football
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

uwdawgs

are you serious dude? I individually verified each of those. None of the teams on here are sourced. You might as well delete every edit on this page if you want to verify each team for each player. You can go to the player pages of each of those players I edited and look at the team history in the navbox and the player team history in the professional section. And how about discussing it on the talk page before reverting my edit?Edday1051 (talk) 04:22, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:UW Dawgs Just read the verifiability page. Do you dispute any of the edits that I made? These are transactional information pertaining to colleges and NFL teams that these players played on. This is easily verifiable from the players own pages and various other sources that detail transactional info. It isn't my opinion that player x attended school x or NFL team x. Secondly, the page notes that you should give adequate time for me or any other editor to include citations if you insist on it before reverting edits. This page has been edited by muliple users over several years without any issue pertaining to "verifiability" of pretty basic information. Now you decide that this information needs to be verified and quickly revert this one particular edit? This was my first edit in over 6 months and right away you are reverting one of my edits? You plan on hovering over every single one of my edits? You stalk others online or just me? Edday1051 (talk) 04:44, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

restored good faith edit of basic information. Although I feel it is overkill to have to add inline citations for such basic uncontroversial information pertaining to the schools and NFL teams that these players have played for, I will work on adding citations in the future. I surmise that getting citations for some of the older players, especially those that were signed as undrafted free agents and appeared briefly for some NFL teams will be difficult to find, but will do my best. User:UW Dawgs Feel free to add to the conversation before reverting good faith edits Edday1051 (talk) 02:57, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:V and WP:BURDEN. UW Dawgs (talk) 03:58, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

from the burden page: "In some cases, editors may object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step." First off, is there any part of that edit that you find objectionable? I've already stated that I plan on gradually adding citations, which I will provide in due time. In the mean time, I would love for you to point out any inaccurate content or anything objectionable about my edit. My pov of the WP:V and WP:BURDEN that you cite are mostly pertaining to controversial and/or extraordinary claims made in an edit. My edit of this page is not even remotely controversial as the entire edit was just adding NFL teams and college teams the players in question played on, which you can find on the player's own page. You have not given me due time to add citations and in good faith, you should not have reverted the edits. Let's bring this to an admin board and get a third opinion on this because this is only going to result in an revert war and obviously you just have some weird obsession with me and you and I know this is nothing but provocation on your part. Edday1051 (talk) 06:37, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging

@UW Dawgs: I'm trying to understand the tags you've left on the article, do you want to discuss it? The "needs additional citations" tag would be better as inline {{cn}} tags if there is particular information you think is poorly sourced or unsourced, other than the sections I had tagged earlier. For being factually incorrect/out of date, what information do you think is out of date? Some of the older tables show players "in school" or "undrafted/uncommitted", do you think these should be updated and do you know of any sources? And as for disputing the factual accuracy of the 2017 table, if that's because the source indicates 12 selections who have not yet been declared "Elite 11" or whatever, then I agree with you, but the thing to do would be to remove the table until the selections are announced/confirmed, not tag it as inaccurate. What do you think? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:21, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and as for formatting as a list, this basically is a list already. Do you think it should be bullets instead of tables? Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:22, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for attempting to resolve some of Edday1051's numerous and ongoing violations of our policies. I disagree that this is a LT solution, especially given the response, but it did address some of the ST issues local to this article including BLP.

The Elite 11#2017 section is now tagged with Template:Disputed section because some of the content in the citation you added to this section on June 10 differs significantly from the June 9 article. Explicitly, this edit did address the section's BLP issues as none of these 2017 attendees currently have articles. Articles are not a requirement and some might have GNG issues, but there was no prior attempt establish these people exist, attended or the section was a complete list of attendees. (WP:V, WP:NLIST)
Template:Update says "To explain that the article now has inaccuracies (not just missing information) due to being outdated, use |inaccurate=yes:"; The 2017 section and the ongoing article edits including around player movement demonstrate this article has inaccuracies (out-of-date and otherwise).
Template:Create list reflects that another option, explicitly also with issues, would be creation of List of Elite 11 attendees since the article's focus seems to have morphed from the camp to tracking ongoing minutiae of attendees' football careers requiring up to 20 years of ongoing updates. This seemed preferable to Template:Inc-sport and Template:Dynamic list, since the attendees are finite and likely can be sourced. re bullets vs tables, that would address some of the temporal format issues such as columns for NFL Draft and NFL Teams for players who aren't yet in college.

LMK if you have any other questions. UW Dawgs (talk) 15:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]