Template talk:Current sports transaction

Further customization
Is there a way to customize the message from Information regarding... onwards? I've found a situation at Chris Kaman in which I would like some more flexibility. Thanks. Zagal e jo^^^ 02:26, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

How players use the media for their own ends
This Deadspin piece on Jordan Cameron shows pretty clearly how a player can use the media for their own benefit, which we have to deal with in regards to premature announcements. It's an interesting read that illustrates the problems we deal with here when a player is in a "reported transaction". – Muboshgu (talk) 14:17, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Wording needs to be more assertive
I think we should prioritize the "advisory to editors" aspect of this template rather than "advisory to readers." The template's wording should give clear instructions to editors rather than the passive wording it has now. I'm also thinking we add "CITE SOURCES" in bright red (possibly flashing) 500% Times New Roman. Lizard (talk) 22:00, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The current wording was already more preachy than Template:Current. Honestly, I slap on Template:uw-sportstrans on many user talk pages, and there'll always be "that group" of editors that just wont't get it or care about "reports" until they are blocked.  I'm also being more aggressive with applying extended protection to pages. —Bagumba (talk) 00:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * I've been fairly aggressive in protecting pages as well. I'm open to strengthening the wording, though I'm inclined to agree with Bagumba it probably won't prevent the "wikijournalists" who want to "break the news". It always reminds me of this The Onion article. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think with sports Wikipedia has built a reputation as being up-to-the-second. So people still expect it to be that way. I remember Wikipedia used to be as quick as ESPN in reporting trades and transactions. Of course, by "reporting" I mean simply updating the infobox. Lizard  (talk) 14:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)
 * The other thing I'm thinking is that (hopefully) more readers see the message than editors, so I'd rather not be too editor-centric. For what it's worth, that seems in line with the other templates at Current event templates.—Bagumba (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Deals that fell through / didn't happen
The specific problem of "reported transactions" being added to articles prematurely by those who want to "break the news" is something we strive to prevent. See WikiProject Sports/Handling sports transactions for transactions that were not completed as reported. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions
I've started a discussion that mentions this template at the idea lab village pump. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 23:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For convenience, the archived link is at —Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Proposed template wording change
This template currently doesn't communicate to readers or editors why using anonymous sources/breaking news can be problematic, nor does it explain what to do when people navigate to the page and want to update it. Instead, it hides the reasoning behind links (effectively a MOS:EGG issue).

I'd propose the following updated wording:

"The subject of this article is in the news regarding a reported transaction. Information regarding the transaction may be based on anonymous sources or breaking news, which may be unreliable or inaccurate which Wikipedia treats with caution . Please explicitly cite reliable sources by name in the text or wait for an official announcement. If needed, discuss changes on the talk page."

The new wording changes two things that can be considered separately:


 * 1) The first handles the why and is pretty simple: we would now explicitly state that we treat anon sources/breaking news cautiously. We could add additional details, but I was trying to keep things short...
 * 2) The second proposed change covers the what by calling out that we prefer official announcements and require explicitly citing sources by name. The latter aligns with the "If anything is to be presented at all ..." line in WP:SPORTSTRANS. Ed [talk] [OMT] 08:07, 4 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Instead of "which Wikipedia treats with caution", I'd suggest being more specific "which may be unreliable or inaccurate". "Please explicitly cite reliable sources by name" is ambiguous. I assume you mean WP:INTEXT attribution, and not just the citation having the name of the cited work? In any event, it hasn't seemed to be common practice to cite breaking news in these situations. Personally, I'm not a stickler for requiring the "official" announcement—a named person closely involved in the situation or even a team tweet can do for me—not sure how others feel.  But sure, an official announcement is not going to be disputed.—Bagumba (talk) 11:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I've changed to that wording! I was trying to write succinctly, but that's not too much longer.
 * That's a good flag! I've tweaked the proposal to link out to WP:INTEXT. And no, it hasn't been common practice, but the requirements of WP:SPORTSTRANS are themselves unusual. Off the top of my head, I don't know of another area that requires in-text citations in this way. It's also difficult to establish a common practice when the primary resource doesn't explain what can be done in a policy-compliant way. (There will always be people who ignore this, but we can't expect anyone to do the right thing if we revert/lock/ignore!)
 * "An official announcement" ought to be pretty flexible. For example, as far as I can tell the Brewers don't have a website where they print press releases. A tweet is about as good as it's going to get. :-) Ed [talk] [OMT] 16:15, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Given Talk:Shohei Ohtani and all the disussion about his eventual signing with the Dodgers, there was no consensus to cite breaking news sources before his confirmed signing. It was even a struggle to get Ohtani's own announcement about his intention up there. A banner should not recommend practices that are not commonly accepted. Editors will be more frustrated. —Bagumba (talk) 04:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * More recently, in-text attribution of breaking news was reverted and contested for Doc Rivers (see ) —Bagumba (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I've reverted as WP:CRYSTAL specifically doesn't apply to this situation. At some point, this ought to be the subject of a RfC at RSBREAKING to get wider community input. But as it stands, the wording there is easily within the policies and essays that apply. Ed [talk] [OMT] 05:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * At a related RfC, consensus was against changes from reports at . —Bagumba (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm aware; I started that. ;-) But a discussion with four editors isn't much of a consensus. (Frankly, I probably should have realized that trying to host a RfC on an obscure wikiproject talk page wasn't the greatest of plans!) Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:03, 26 January 2024 (UTC)