Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Racecar notability question

Hello, I'm a wikipedian from it.wiki. I don't know whether there's a WikiProject for racecar, thus I post it here. This article is about someone who lacks notability. In fact, the author attempted to pass it on it.wiki (but they got it deleted several times) and later created it here in order to have the ground for recreating it there. Please have a look. For our standards it wouldn't fit for the encyclopedia, but you decide. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 12:23, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

the driver in question is to be considered 100% encyclopedic has been deleted on it.wiki because the page was created incorrectly without references and also had not yet made his debut in the most important touring car championship in Italy, winning in his debut, for this he has many articles on the most important motorsport sites in the world, as well as a successful career in karting with the victory of the world championship. TouringCarRacing1 (talk) 20:08, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Please don't write incorrect things. Not being provided with sources is not per se a cause of deletion on it.wiki. The page was deleted because its subject is not notable, not because lacked sources. As you said, the biographed has not a major win, thus I don't see how it might be anywhere notable. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 17:52, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability is determined by the existence of sources, if there are sources they are notable, whether the team has a major win or not doesn't actually enter into it as long as WP:GNG is met. -DJSasso (talk) 14:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm not writing wrong things now I will show you why, to begin with, how do you doubt that the subject in question does not have important victories in the palmares that make him encyclopedic, to start with he won Italian Open Masters the Italian karting championship , in addition to this he also won a race in the Karting World Championship where he was the youngest in the history of karting to participate in the highest category or the KZ1 and was part of the most important official teams in the kart world or Tony Kart and CRG in addition to these results has many others in international competitions that are proven by a large number of sources on the major motorsport sites for example Motorsport.com. In addition to this Giardelli has a relevant career with cars as he raced in official tests with Formula Renault and Formula 4 with one of the most important teams in the world for formulas, namely Prema Powerteam Drivers such as Charles Leclerc and many others have raced in this team, currently Giardelli races with touring cars and currently participates in the most important touring car championship in Italy, the TCR Italy Touring Car Championship and in this championship Giardelli has achieved important victories and is part of MM Motorsport team officially supported by Honda JAS Motorsport also in this case has sources on major motorsport sites in the world and beyond. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] TouringCarRacing1 (talk) 09:23, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Ok but none of those wins are relevant. As for sources, @DJSasso:, they are not per se an index of notability. Not anything that appears on a source is notable. In order to be notable one must have relevant win and he has not, and rightfully should be deleted like it is her. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 16:16, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

You are wrong @Black Cat: the racing driver in question has achieved many rilevant and important victories in international and national races, for example currently race in the TCR Italy Touring Car Championship the the Italian touring car championship this championship is relevant and professional and the driver has achieved victories in this championship, in addition to this he has won Italian Open Masters the Italian Karting Championship this too is a relevant and very important victory, and he won a race in the Karting World Championship also this is a relevant and very important victory. Many other relevant victorys isfind written on the wikipedia page with relevant sources. Given the numerous relevant and important victories and sources, the page is not to be deleted but to be kepp. Legendsneverdie123 (talk) 13:50, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

American handball and (team) handball conflict

Hello. Recently I saw some biographies about American handball players which were categorized in Category:American male handball players. But this is false because this category is for team handball and not for American handball.

The same happened to two photos for American handball players in commons. There I created the commons:Category:American handball players and the old category commons:Category:Male handball players from the United States is for team handball players.

Now I have the problem that at the Englisch Wikipedia the Category:American handball players descripts team handball players from the USA. How should I name a category for American Handball players?

I hope you understand my dilemma.--Malo95 (talk) 11:57, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm glad we don't have the same issue with say American Snooker. I did like that the article suggests that it heavily influenced Squash (sport), despite it being a game that was first played afterwards. I don't see an issue with Category:Male handball players from the United States being a thing in this instance. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:01, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

This is one solution but im not really glad whit this because alle other (team) handball categories of the other countries starts with Category:Country handball players: See: Category:Handball players by nationality.

There is the same issue with the Category:American handball clubs. Whereas the Category:Handball competitions in the United States has the country at the end. What a mess. User:Lee Vilenski you think we should do an exception for the US categories and name them allway in/from the United States?--Malo95 (talk) 13:44, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

The short answer, in my mind, is "yes." If a naming system doesn't allow for the most accurate naming of a certain category, then we should use a more accurate name. If there are concerns about uniformity/consistency, then that can be brought up as a larger discussion about the entire group. In other words, I'd say go for it. Primefac (talk) 15:45, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

• @Kante4, LeFnake, Bjcook, and Dellux mkd: Ping.

Whether we need to change all of the categories, or just have one that is different is another question. The other way to do this is to have Category:Players of American handball to avoid confusion. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

RfC about Sherdog.com at RSN

There is a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Responses (Sherdog.com) regarding the reliability of Sherdog.com which is going to affect thousands of sports articles. I would like to hear your opinion on that. Thanks in advance. Best, Lordpermaximum (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Edit war

Hello everyone,

I'm seeking consensus here, otherwise I might be punished later when I bring this matter to the administrator's noticeboards.

The thing is, Hartley Jackson recently went through an AfD that arose a lengthy of discussion.
Jammo85 had asked me for assistance in find sources to a certain fact, and I did find sources, but we are still facing opposition from another user in Hartley Jackson and The Mighty Don't Kneel (TMDK).

We would like to state "Hartley Jackson was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel in 2015 and 2016."

I have found two sources from websites of official pro wrestling events (they are archived, please give it a few minutes to load):

• https://web.archive.org/web/20170303035516/http://melbournecitywrestling.com.au/2016/06/18/hostile-takeover-2016/
• https://web.archive.org/web/20160502062934/https://wrestlerampage.wordpress.com/ which despite being wordpress, it was and still is the official website of the event

and Hartley appears on the TMDK side on both.

Also, there is also a listing of his appearances as TMDK here, which corroborates the above:

• https://www.cagematch.net/?id=29&nr=1293&page=2

but this website is listed in one unofficial list of reliable sources as being Marginally reliable. Strictly used for match results and not other information. Takes user submissions but is reviewed by regional editors that verify all submissions before they are added to the database. The other party uses this against us, but I actually think it supports us, as we are actually only using results here. That is, we are not using the blog posts produced in cagematch (see [15]).

Auxiliary sources are:

• [16] Article from a podcast on wrestling. It mentions Hartley as being part of TMDK.
• [17] Another member of TMDK claiming that Hartley was once a member of TMDK.
• [18] Users commenting on a pro wrestling forum. They don't show any doubt that Hartley was part of TMDK.
• [19] Official "wrestling rampage" advertisement.
• [20] Another official ad from "wrestling rampage", referring to the match June 20th 2015 match shown in the Cage Match source above as being TMDK (Hartley Jackson, Jonah Rock & Marcius Pitt) defeat The Brotherhood (Chris Vice, Damian Slater & Havok). The picture here shows Hartley on the same side as Jonah Rock and Marcius Pitt.

Do you guys think these sources back the statement "Hartley Jackson was part of The Mighty Don't Kneel in 2015 and 2016", or not?

Best, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 19:03, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

• You're citing blogs, Twitter feeds, photo captions and unreliable sources. Unless you come across a genuinely reliable source supporting your position, I'd advise you let this one go. The world will not end if Wikipedia doesn't certify that this (somewhat obscure) wrestler was briefly part of this (somewhat obscure) stable. Ravenswing 16:27, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
  • Ravenswing, thanks for the feedback. Lately I found this source. Can you tell me your opinion about it? Thanks, Walwal20 ^{talk ▾ contribs} 04:54, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
    • Vice magazine is a perfectly good source, and that article looks sound to me. Good work. Ravenswing 14:41, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Canadian and U.S. leagues' number of games in infobox

This is, plainly and simply, supposed to be the number of games played in the season, for all teams, not per team (It's not labeled as "Number of games per team"). Currently, it is shown as the number of games played per team (so for NBA and NHL, it's 82, NFL 32, MLB 162; and these do not include playoff games). This is in stark contrast for leagues played elsewhere where it is indeed the total number of games the league played in that season. (Granted, the infobox templates are different.) See for example, the 2019 Major League Baseball season's "162 games" played in the season... then compare it to 2018–19 Premier League's 380. Interestingly, 2019 Major League Soccer season gets it right. I suppose we can't live in an encyclopedia where the exact same thought is expressed differently in different articles, isn't it? Howard the Duck (talk) 13:02, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Different articles can indeed display information differently, especially across different sports. To be honest, I would say the soccer infoboxes are the ones that are incorrect, the information most readers would be looking for when looking for number of games would be per team. In other words the length of the season. I think very few would be looking for the total of every game played by every team. I know in in North America at least if you asked an average person what the number of games was in relation to a season you would always get the per team number. The total of all teams is a relatively useless number as opposed to the per team. I would also note different sports use different templates so the templates can be used differently as they aren't the same subject. Maybe in soccer people would mean the total but I am skeptical that is true. It is most definitely not for the four other sports you mention. -DJSasso (talk) 13:30, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I presume this is not really a per sport but a per country issue? Basketball leagues elsewhere such as 2019–20 ACB season (using the same template as the 2019-20 NBA season) do show total games played in the season. Soccer leagues in the US+Canada and Mexican leagues of any sport follow the standard elsewhere. The big 4 leagues and their sports are the ones that are different. There can't be two ways of showing the same information. Howard the Duck (talk) 14:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sure there can. The notion that every sport in every area at every level must be in lockstep conformity is cracked. Should we -- for instance -- change all the European soccer tables to display W (wins)-L (losses)-T (ties) instead of W-D (draws)-L, because that's the traditional way it's done in North American sport? Of course not. Ravenswing 14:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That's completely different -- that's presentation of information; in some sports, ties and draws are different. "Number of games" is universally understood to be the number of games in a season, not a "Number of games per team in a season", otherwise it'll be labeled "Number of games per team in a season". Howard the Duck (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Ambiguity (& resulting confusion) would be avoided if simple notes were added explaining what the number stated actually refers to. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:53, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Would suggest adding "per team" after such occurrence in US+Canada leagues that are wrong in this, or another parameter specifying this. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:15, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: As someone in North America, I would also suggest that it is far more common here to refer to season length in games played by a team. Some examples: [21], [22], [23], [24]. It seems somewhat rare for a season length to be discussed in combined games (one example is here, which actually says "1,271-game regular-season schedule - 82 games per team"). This is probably due to most sources discussing seasons length in number of games for playoff qualifications and team standing purposes, both of which are entirely based on total games played per team. I am no expert on European usage, but per team is certainly the most common application here. I would suggest also avoid saying "US+Canada leagues that are wrong in this", that seems to imply that different varieties of similar vernaculars cannot co-exist, which they very clearly can (such as MOS:ENGVAR). Yosemiter (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I suppose a separate parameter should be used for such instances. "Number of games" is quite simply, the number of games played that's within the scope of that article, without modifiers; so if the infobox is on a league's seasonal article, you should expect the number of games the league played in that season. If you're in a team's seasonal article like for example, the 2020 Houston Astros season (and they don't even show this explicitly though you can add up the wins and losses), you'd expect the number of games they played in the season. If you guys prefer "Number of games per team", do that instead, as per User:Wjemather's suggestion. Howard the Duck (talk) 16:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

@Howard the Duck: I would suggest that the infobox should adhere to WP:SURPRISE. Based on the common usage in reliable sources, the readership of the North American subjects would likely less surprised to see games per team in that generic parameter than a combined total. Yosemiter (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

That should not preclude the use of explanatory notes. We should be aiming to surprise no-one, not just minimising the numbers. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 19:39, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I dunno. If we'd be adding explanatory notes to all NBA, NFL, NHL and MLB seasons, we might as well change the parameter to something else that would make it not need one. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:52, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Sports analytics and advanced metrics

I've been looking at the organisation of sports statistics and analytics articles on Wikipedia, and I came across these two articles which seem to cover near-identical subjects.

• Advanced metrics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sports analytics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Compare the lead sentences:

• Advanced metrics is the term for the empirical analysis of sports, particularly statistics that measure in-game productivity and efficiency.
• Sports analytics are a collection of relevant, historical, statistics that can provide a competitive advantage to a team or individual.

The article bodies also cover similar topics, examining analytics in baseball, ice hockey and basketball.

Is there some sort of subtle distinction I'm missing, or are these essentially duplicate articles? – Teratix ₵ 09:19, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Stanley Cup

FYI, wikt:en:Stanley Cup has been nominated for deletion. There is additional discussion on whether sports championships should be on Wiktionary. I though that you may be interested in this. -- 67.70.32.97 (talk) 23:42, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

How important is religion in sports?

Is "first Muslim" in a sporting event a thing? I don't see that for other religions. Even Template:Infobox person removed the religion parameter from it. Please discuss at Talk:Khabib Nurmagomedov#First Muslim to win UFC title. Share your views.--2409:4073:97:E01:9437:2B45:4023:AA9 (talk) 08:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• I suppose a trivia point barely worth mentioning in the body of the article -- in Nurmagodov's case, for instance, in the discussion of his first title -- but not otherwise. And even there, this could get silly pretty fast. First Muslim to lead the NL in RBIs? First Muslim to be a starting goalie in the NHL? Ravenswing 10:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Looking for archivists

I've been editing netball articles recently. The equivalent project page is inactive, so I thought I'd look for some expertise here. Recently started Australian Institute of Sport (netball). However in the last week or so, a load of links to www.clearinghouseforsport.gov.au disappeared. This was a valuable resource. I have left messages at various archivists looking for help but got no reply. Any help would be appreciated. Djln Djln (talk) 13:30, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Have you tried using the Wayback Machine? Ravenswing 15:24, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Ravenswing, I haven't. To be honest I do know how. Djln Djln (talk) 20:36, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, go to https://web.archive.org/ and see if the page has been archived. Primefac (talk) 20:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Looks like User:Hack has sorted it. Cheers. Djln Djln (talk) 20:41, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:NSPORTSEVENT has an RFC

WP:NSPORTSEVENT has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 03:31, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Lida Fleitmann Bloodgood

The article Lida Fleitmann Bloodgood has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Not notable.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mathglot (talk) 01:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

ESPN

Please visit at [25] to join the discussion on the addition of ESPN in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources and it's reliability. Thank You.--Atlantis77177 (talk) 15:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Help with David Sillman draft

Hi, I am a COI editor that has been working to get an article about Daniel Sillman, the CEO of Relevent Sports Group, a major promoter of soccer in the USA, admitted to Wikipedia. It is now in draft form, and has been rejected for inclusion in Wikipedia due to lack of notability. I wonder if anyone from this project would mind looking over the draft, perhaps make some beneficial edits, or give me some suggestions of how to improve the article enough to get it accepted. There is also a draft of a Relevent Sports Group page, if you would not mind looking at that one as well. Thanks so much in advance. SylviaatRSG (talk) 08:19, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Templates for Blue/Red/Yellow card

The template {{Sent pause}} is used in several sports to indicate a blue card (like e.g. a yellow or red card.) See blue card. However the meaning of a blue card differs for these sports.

• Bandy: a ten-minute timed penalty
• US indoor soccer: To signify that the offender must leave the field and stay in a penalty box (usually 2–5 minutes), during which time their team plays down a man
• Quidditch: To indicate a technical foul. The fouling player is sent to the penalty box for one minute or until a goal is scored against the fouling player's team.
• European indoor soccer or Futsal: a blue card was used to send a player off the court; however the team was able to replace him with another player.
• Handball: First the Red Card is shown, then the referees can, after a short discussion, show the blue card. Following that a written report will accompany the score sheet and the Disciplinary Commission will then decide on further actions against the player. For details, see end of section 16.8 of the IHF game rukes

Especially for handball, the name "send pause" which is displayed when hoovering the blue card icon, is totally inappropriate.

The following XXXbox templates are used for match details in these sports:

• Bandy: {{Football box}} (see e.g. 2014 Bandy World Championship.
• US indoor soccer: {{Football box}} (see e.g. 2018–19 Major Arena Soccer League season.
• Quidditch: Couldn't find a match report using a XXXbox template.
• European indoor soccer: Couldn't find a match report using a XXXbox template.
• Handball: {{Handballbox}} (See e.g. 2019 World Men's Handball Championship)

In {{handballbox}} there're parameters (blue1 and blue2) to indicate the number of blue cards given to each team. In {{Football box}} there're no specific parameters to indicate a blue card. Howeever the parameters goals1 and goals2 could be used to indicate besides goals, cards as well. This is done on NL-Wiki (see: Europees kampioenschap voetbal 2016#Groep F)

All and all, the only XXXbox template which really offers specific parameters to indicate blue cards is {{handballbox}}.

And exactlty for handball, the description "sent pause" is totally inappropriate.

The same applies more or less for the template {{Yel}} and {{Sent off}}. When hoovering the yellow card icon it will show "booking" where in handball the yellow card means a "warning". When hoovering a red card it will show "send off (straight red)" ({{Sent off}} ) or "send off (second booking)" ({{Sent off|2}}  ). Straight red applies for handball as well, but in handball the second option for a red card, is not a second booking, but a third 2-minute penalty.

So, none of the cards (yellow, red and blue) apply for handball as is. These cards are basically implemented for football only.

Therefore I see 2 options:

1. Add an optional parameter to the templates {{Yel}}, {{Sent off}} and {{Sent pause}} to define the string(s) to to be displayed when hoovering the icon. The default display string(s) can remain as is.
2. Create seperate templates specifically for handball.

--Sb008 (talk) 07:06, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

Naming convention for sports stadia

A request for comment is open regarding the use of parenthetical disambiguation in relation to articles on sports stadia here: Wikipedia talk:Article titles#RfC Naming convention for sports stadia. Input is welcome. Stevie fae Scotland (talk) 20:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

team infobox

There is a newish article Norway national alpine ski team that is using {{Infobox national basketball team}} which doesn't seem quite right. I just noticed Italy national alpine ski team is the same. If anyone wants change these to something better, please do so. MB 02:48, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Category:Former Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association members has been nominated for merging to Category:Former Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association schools

Category:Former Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association members has been nominated for merging to Category:Former Mid-America Intercollegiate Athletics Association schools. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Place Clichy (talk) 10:51, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Regarding Indian Esport Article’s

Hello, I was exploring wikipedia/video games and i was surprised to find that there are none india related esport articles, for eg. esport teams/organisations in india while as india has a very huge esport industry and worth being on wikipedia, like indian teams/organisations who have played major and notable tournaments, while as other countries which are less notable have these articles present on wikipedia, also since my first article’s subject was related to esports i have had done some research so i would like to contribute, looking for someone who can guide me with the writing style. Thanks. Hums4r (Let's Talk) 08:00, 30 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for Gillette article re: athletes

Hello! Erin here with the public relations firm Ketchum Inc. I've submitted a request here to replace unsourced text about professional athletes in the Gillette article with sourced text. Does someone from WikiProject Sports have a quick moment to review, please? Thank you! EA.Ketchum (talk) 18:38, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Regional sports

Feel free to comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Television#Regional_sports_networks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:50, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment#FAQ

Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment#FAQ lists under point 9:

9. What if I don't agree with a rating?
You can list it in the section for assessment requests below, and someone will take a look at it. Alternately, you can ask any member of the project to rate the article again.

There is no section for assessment requests on the page. I don't agree with the assesment of the 2020 European Women's Handball Championship page. The person who assessed the article (Rfl0216) doesn't, when asked twice already, motivate what his/her assesment is based on.

So, 2 questions:

1. Where's the section to list the article for a motivated re-assesment?
2. Why is someone, who isn't willing to motivate his/her assesment, allowed to perform assesments?

--Sb008 (talk) 16:27, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

• I'll answer the second question, anyway: there is not a whole lot on Wikipedia -- save for admin actions -- that editors in good standing are not allowed to do. We might strongly encourage that editors provide edit summaries or answer questions on their talk pages; no policy or guideline insists that they do or suffer sanctions. Certainly insulting the editor, as you did on their talk page, isn't likely to provoke a productive response.

  That being said, the editor's contribution list shows continual activity, and that s/he's rating articles with an automated rater. Nothing enjoins you from changing the article's assessment, in sober thought, to something you find more reasonable. (That being said, to what rating to you object, and why?) Ravenswing 03:49, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

• The low importance rating is entirely consistent with the rating scale ("examples include previous years' annual event articles"). I don't think there are many who would assess it differently. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 09:36, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I looked at some assessments from UEFA Women's Championship. For example: Talk:UEFA Women's Euro 2013. In me view the handball assessments should be the same levels except that Wikipedia:WikiProject Football is clearly Wikipedia:WikiProject Handball This would mean:

• WikiProject of the host country - Mid
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Handball - High
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Women's sport - High

As one of the most watched women's team sport European championship the importance is clearly not low --Malo95 (talk) 15:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Higher ratings may be appropriate for the main/parent tournament articles (e.g. European Women's Handball Championship), but not for (past) individual editions with nothing remarkable about them. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 15:48, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I think the're 3 (4) kind of ratings

• Quality scale, here it doesn't really matter whether it's within the scope of sport in general or within the scope of the (single) sport the article is about. For quality the topic is basically irrelevant.
• Importance scale within the scope of the (single) sport the article is about. If I look at national teams, in general one could say the Olympics (if it's an Olympic event) are the most important, next the world championships, and then continental championships (e.g. European championships). In general, national team championships are more important than club championships. But in general doesn't mean by definition, there're surely a lot of exceptions. Like in the US, what's considered to be more important, winning the Super Bowl or the IFAF World Championship? Or in football (the real football, the sport called football by all nations but one), winning the Worldchampionship is considered more important than the Olympics.
• Importance scale within the scope of sport in general. What's more important, football or American Football? In the US the answer will surely be American football, but on all other continents the answer will be football.

So, quality can be defined in general for all sports kinda equal, even compared to non sport topics. For quality the topic is basically irrelevant. Importance however is far more complicated. Within the scope of a single sport, it's probably still well possible, although even there continental/regional differences have to be considered. The national championship table tennis will be considered far more important in China than in Zimbabwe. Within the scope of sport in general it's a nightmare to compare the importance of different sports. I refer to the football, American football example above.

Which criteria to use to determine the importance? The current table, the number of visitors at the event itself, the number of tv viewers, the media coverage, or whatever? From whose perspectative, the sport itself, the athletes, the viewers? Some examples, international governing bodies is listed, in the currennt table, as of top importance. For the sport itself, it will most likely apply, but the average viewer will probably care little about the governing body, they only care about the match. Another example, the number of visitors at an event. This is highly related to the size of the stadium. It's too easy to say that the size of the stadium is an indicator for the popularity/importance of the game. The stadium the Super Bowl is played in, is far more bigger than the hall in which the Chinese national championship table tennis is played. To build an equally sized venue for table tennis wouldn't make much sense. From a distance of more than 25 meter it would be hard to follow a game of table tennis, contrary to game of American football. But if we would look at the people interested in buying a ticket, it wouldn't surprise me if more Chinese are interested in buying a ticket for their national championship table tennis, than Americans for the Super Bowl. For the Super Bowl you can even ask why people buy a ticket, for the game or for the performing artist? Also, You would have to ask yourself, if people can even afford to buy a ticket. For Western nations it will be in general no problem, but in some countries people will worry more about whether they have food on the table today than about buying a ticket. In India there will be probably more people extatic if they win the (field) Hockey Champions Trophy or the Cricket World Cup than there will be extatic Americans about winning the World Baseball Classic. If India wins one of these events it could be that half the newspaper is about it, where in the US it maybe would be at most a 2 line article on page 48.

So what are the criteria? Wikipedia is supposed to be written from a neutral point of perspective. So how are we going to asses importance if we've to consider all these aspects? I don't have the answer but I do know that the way it's done now, is totally flawed, especially when comparing events of different sports.

Specific examples:

• Who can explain to me why the 2009 Copa do Brasil de Futebol Feminino gets a B quality rating and the 2020 European Women's Handball Championship only a C quality rating? I know which page has more information and details.
• Who can explain to me why the 2019 AFC Cup with an average attendance of 3,373 (the third tier national German football league has a higher attendance average) gets a Mid importance rating and the 2020 European Women's Handball Championship only a Low importance rating?

@Ravenswing: There's a major difference between saying "you're an idiot" or "you act like an idiot". The first statement would be an insult unless I provide solid psychological independent reports showing it to be correct. The second statement would be an assesment of someone's behavior and not the person itself. I know I act at times like an idiot, but that doesn't make me an idiot. Second, the subject of my sentence is "your rating". Meaning I don't asses the person but the quality of his rating/work. Are you telling me that if someone says "you did a bad job", it's an insult as well? If your boss tells you "you get no raise, because your results are disappointing" it's an insult as well? Do we like to hear someone making a statement like that about our work? Probably not, but that doesn't mean it's an insult. If critisizing someone's work/actions/behavior is an insult, most of us will probably insult a dozen people each day. Should I consider your assesment of my statement as an insult as well? Don't worry, I don't. I believe that everyone is allowed to have their opinion about my actions. Actually, as far as I'm concerned, people can even express an opinion about my being. If you would like to call me an idiot, be my guest. As my grandfather would say "Those who try to insult you are not smart enough to do so, and those who're smart enough, will not try to". I know, not considering every negative remark about me, my behavior/actions as an insult, makes my life a lot easier.

@Wjemather: The event took place previous calendar year, but that's not what I consider to be a previous years' annual event. It's the most recent event in the sequence of the women European championships and ended not even 2 months ago. What's year definition of a "previous years' annual event"? All those events which aren't in progress? Should all previous years' annual events be rated equally. Should the the EC of 1994 be rated with a lower or the same importance as the EC of 2012? What about the Olympics which isn't an annual event but a 4 year event? For that matter, the EC handball isn't an annual event either, but a 2 year event. So is it an annual or a repetative event? Should WW I get a lower importance rating than WW II, because it's a previous event. Should WW II even get a lower importance rating because it's no longer in progress? And yes, I know WW's are no sport events, but if you consider "previous" a criterion, it doesn't only apply to sports. Should all previous editions of the EC handball get the same importance rating as all previous editions of the 1st tier US handball league? If I mention handball, most Americans don't even know which sport I'm talking about. They think it's American handball aka Wallball. Wouldn't you say "previous years' annual event" is a pretty absurd criterion? I would!!! Why not give the EC a high importance rating? Why doesn't "Examples include former pro world champions, pro world championship top-16 contenders, current amateur world champions, major international events (overview articles), high-profile dedicated venues" apply? Because it's an EC and not a WC? But then, at the 2019 World Women's Handball Championship the top 9 were all European teams and 12 of the top 16 were European teams. And that's no exception at the WC 2017 it was the top 12 and 14 out of 16, at the WC 2015 the top 9 and 13 of 16. I even dare to say that the average level of the teams is higher at an EC than at a WC. At an EC you don't see results such as 47–16, 51–23, 46–7 like at a WC. Most of the non European teams at a WC only qualify because they compeat against teams of their continent and not against European teams. At basketball, the 8th national team of the US would probably beat most 1st teams of other nations. A WC handball is decided by European teams, and therefore an EC should get the same importance rating as a WC. Please feel free to explain the logic in the criteria for the importance scale.

@Wjemather: "Higher ratings may be appropriate for the main/parent tournament articles (e.g. European Women's Handball Championship), but not for (past) individual editions with nothing remarkable about them." What is that based on? The current rating table, your personal opinion or an onjective criterion? If I look at the pageviews for the main tournament article and the individual 2020 event article, I would say the 2020 article is more important!!!

I see a rating system which is not logical, very subjective and totally flawed.

A very remarkeble statement in Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Assessment#FAQ under point 10:

10. Aren't the ratings subjective?
Yes, they are somewhat subjective, but it's the best system we've been able to devise. If you have a better idea, please don't hesitate to let us know!

Somewhat? I would say "very"!!! Do I've a better idea? For sure not like that. Maybe, if I would give it some long thoughts, but I doubt I would ever be able to come up with an objective rating system. For quality it should be possible to come up with criteria. For importance within the scope of a single sport, probably as well though it should be defined for each sport individually. For importance among different sports, I think the debate would never end.

That being said, let us consider 1 of the 5 Wikipedia pillars:

Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view

How can one write a neutral (objective) assesment report, if the criteria used for writing such a report, are anything but objective, and at least strongly open for debate? I think I raised more than enough valid questions.

That being said, I rate the current assesment page of extremely poor quality and something of extremely poor quality should have no importance at all. And before some consider this to be an insult, I asses the rating system, with the focus on the importance rating system, and not the people who designed it.

A subjective (importance) rating system doesn't belong on an encyclopedia which says it's objective is to be neutral. --Sb008 (talk) 12:20, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• You certainly raised some questions, but I predict that very few editors are likely to plow through a nearly-2000 word essay to answer them. In your boots, I'd trim three-quarters of that.

  That being said, I'll answer your final statement: we use subjective judgments all the freaking time on Wikipedia. What constitutes a reliable source? Why is a person deemed notable with two such sources, as opposed to needing three or four? By what possible standard of common sense is playing a single game in a small city (if it's a top-flight club in the early years of the National League or the NFL) automatically notable, and five hundred games for a club in a major metropolis not (if it's a minor-league team)? And so on and so forth: there are hundreds of such judgments, many crystallized through long-standing consensus and the input of many dozens of editors, many made only with the input of the four editors who gave a damn at that given time. Anything else just won't work. Ravenswing 17:33, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

• Comment from passerby: This entire discussion isn't helpful, which is a sign that these "importance" assessments aren't improving Wikipedia either. One of the most successful Wikiprojects, MILHIST, sidesteps the issue entirely by just not ranking by importance - see Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment , they only rank by quality rather than invite flame wars over whether a particular battle was mid importance or low importance. The original goal of importance was to figure out what articles should be "kept" on a CD version of Wikipedia that had limited space, an entirely moot concern now. The importance rating doesn't matter, so we can avoid debates like the above by just deprecating it. It does not matter at all whether a particular tournament is rated Low Importance or Top importance, this is invisible to readers. So my modest proposal is to deprecate it. If kept, I recommend both sides to just concede immediately and do what the other side wants, because it doesn't matter. SnowFire (talk) 23:03, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I basically agree with you completely. You managed to express my thoughts better than I did myself. Quality can more or less be defined by objective criteria. If the initial goal of importance was only related to the CD version of Wikipedia, it serves no real purpose any more. So deprecating this rating sounds good to me. And it can be implemented easy, just remove all lines related to this parameter from the template(s). My primarely reason for starting this debate wasn't so much that I disagree with the rating given, even though I do, but by the unwillingness of the rater to motivate his rating. Fully in favour of deprecating the importance rating. --Sb008 (talk) 13:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd sign off on that. Ravenswing 15:23, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

So how do we proceed in this matter? Is it required to organize an official poll/vote? --Sb008 (talk) 01:19, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

@SMcCandlish: A question, wouldn't you say that "quality" and "priority" (as explained by you) are inversely proportional? An excellent article doesn't need much energy focus (priority), whereas a poor article could use some serious energy focus. So, basically both scales would express the same, just in reversed order. --Sb008 (talk) 10:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

NPOV and sports plays

Hi. A lot of what I do in Wikipedia is removing POV (generally positive, just because there's more of it) from articles. I've noticed a lot of these are sports articles, so I don't want to trample over established norms, so I thought I'd ask: At what point does a description of a player/team/etc's performance become POV? (I did a search in the archives and the only thing I found was a discussion of the word "earned," which is kind of along the same lines but less blatant, in my view.(

For an example of what I mean, here are two anonymized, more-or-less randomly selected sentences:

On (date), (name) played all six (events) and batted superbly in an appalling summer with his only (event) century against (team) being a highlight.

While playing at (school), he played against a great high school coach, (name). After graduating, (name) played for another legendary coach, (name), at (school).

Both of these paragraphs are unattributed and do not contain direct quotes. In the first, it seems that "superbly," "appalling," and "highlight" all introduce non-neutral POV. In the second, the "great" and "legendary" seem to be subjective value judgments, and also somewhat diluted given the sheer number of coaches described as such,

But this kind of writing is everywhere -- it's not contained to a single sport -- so before going too ham on editing I wanted to gather feedback. Gnomingstuff (talk) 00:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: Both above examples are definitely MOS:PEACOCK if unattributed and should be pared down. Many enthusiastic, but uniformed, editors like to write Wikipedia like it is a sports journal or a personal editorial when it comes to pretty much all WP:BLP's, but certainly sports in particular (they are "fanatics" after all). The best we can usually do is clean up and attempt to educate the other editors. I have only once had to take an editor to ANI over those kind of persistent edits, but they were both prolific and unresponsive to any kind of even slightly negative feedback (which then became tons of negative feedback from multitudes of editors). Yosemiter (talk) 02:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@Gnomingstuff: What Yosemiter said, with this caveat: superlatives pass muster if phrased as a highly sourced opinion: "Soandso is widely held to be one of the greatest left wings of all time" Follows, a half-dozen high quality sources, preferably themselves quoting several authorities, as well as backups in the article itself -- if our aforementioned left wing was a ten-time First Team All-Star and had a couple of MVP awards under his belt, it's tough to argue with the assertion. Ravenswing 05:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. I'd say 90% of the times I see this kind of thing it isn't sourced and the opinion isn't attributed to anyone. Gnomingstuff (talk) 15:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Deprecate importance parameter for assessment for Sports

See above conversation. Figured should make a breakout section since this should get some feedback, since just 3 editors isn't a huge number of people and it's possible it'd get lost in the shuffle.

I propose we formally deprecate the "importance" criteria - the Sports Wikiproject can rank exclusively on quality, similar to what many well-established and successful Wikiprojects already do. Importance always was an optional parameter, and should be a simple, one-line change - just remove from {{WikiProject Sports}} the line |importance={{{importance|}}}. See the documentation at {{WPBannerMeta}} ; the bot should just automatically handle the update.

Reasoning:

• The usefulness of categorization by importance is minor. The original goal was to curate the most important content for a CD edition of Wikipedia, but this concern is moot now. Theoretically, it makes it easy to find high-importance articles with low ratings for a clean-up minded editor interested in that kind of work, but I think this case is very rare. It's a case that can be served in other ways anyway - it'd be trivial to create article alerts or a task with a list of the 50 most important sports articles to get to GA or the like if that's a goal, starting with the initial list of Top-importance articles. So nothing would be lost. (I would happily volunteer to create such a list if people actually want it.)
• The cost of such categorization in wasted editor time and effort is notable, and can generate more heat than light (also see above). It's especially awkward for an umbrella project like sports, which has to handle a wide variety of disparate events. While it might be feasible to consistently rank importance for a focused topic, it gets wacky when attempting to compare a minor basketball tournament with a major badminton tournament with a multi-sport TV broadcaster or the like. It's not clear there's a good answer even if said answer was useful (which, per above, it isn't useful either).
• This wouldn't affect importance ratings in subprojects, which may or may not have something more objective. (In other words, articles that are classified as pertaining to both Sports and another Wikiproject won't have the other WP's importance rating be affected.)

Thoughts? I'll mention this on Template_talk:WikiProject Sports as well. SnowFire (talk) 00:15, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

To avoid people from complaining afterwards, they didn't know about this proposal, I'll "ping" all people, who made at least 1 edit after 1 January 2020, on the projects' active participants (40 of 71) and former participants (4 of 10) lists. If you think more people should be notified, feel free to add a "ping".

@P64, SMcCandlish, SheffGruff, Shootmaster 44, Carlosguitar, Armbrust, Sean, Rauterkus, Sellyme, TechnoBladeSPX, Fungbregas, Jweiss11, GuzzyG, ZappaOMatic, CUA 27, Dpchalmers, Fbgpwns5277, Sirpottingmix, Bbabybear02, Kostas20142, Abishe, Luxic, Malo95, DENAMAX, A Simple Human, Sue Kastle, Drat8sub, Eliyili00, Spaceboy900, Raavimohantydelhi, Phikia, Phosphor, GDLenny123, EliteArcher88, Bhockey10, JurassicClassic767, Figureskatingfan, Faycal.09, Ken Tony Peter, Erokhin, R-HIT, Alaney2k, HawkAussie, and ProfCara:

Please use this section only to express your opinion and the previous section if you want to discuss the proposal further. This to avoid we need to organize a search party for your final opinions.

--Sb008 (talk) 17:02, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree to deprecate the importance parameter. --Sb008 (talk) 00:41, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree to deprecate the importance parameter. Several other WikiProjects that cover a broad topic also don't have it. JurassicClassic767 (talk | contribs) 18:21, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Heck, this parameter ought to be booted Wikipedia-wide. I agree that it's entirely subjective, a prime source for pointless argument, and contributes next to nothing to the encyclopedia. Ravenswing 21:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree I do agree on deprecating the importance parameter as it doesn't really help in classifying the article for that particular section. HawkAussie (talk) 01:40, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Rename it. At least one project changed it to something like priority. I.e., it's about what the wikiproject's participants think the project should focus energy on, not how "important" the subject should be to members of the reading public which would be much more subjective. Editing-work priority was really the intent of this parameter all along, it's just unfortunate that "importance" was the word originally chosen. I would thus rather keep the parameter, but renamed |priority=, and with |importance= as an alias of it.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  01:59, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Even that, though, is quite subjective, and I'd suggest not really useful: what you feel like improving is what you feel like improving, and if you go on to do that, well and good. Ravenswing 17:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
  • Based on you definition of "priority", I would say "quality" and "priority" are inversely proportional. An excellent article doesn't need much focus ("priority"), whereas a poor article could use some serious focus. So, basically both scales would express the same, just in reversed order and therefore "priorty" wouldn't be an added value. --Sb008 (talk) 20:15, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

    Not really. This is the classic distinction in project management between "urgency" and "importance". If an article is really crappy, it is urgent (time-sensitive) that we improve it to at least baseline standards of an encyclopedia article. However, the project-level importance/priority of the topic, it's "majorness" if you will, indicates how much project resources should be spent on it. E.g., the articles on rugby league and on ice hockey, as top-level articles on major sports, are more important for us to work on in the long run (e.g. to get to FA quality eventually) than the article on netball (top level article for that sport, but not a major sport) or the article on Michael Jordan (high-level importance for a sports bio, but of lower importance than more general articles on the sport). It's all relative. I'm skeptical that almost every wikiproject on the system finds this sort of thing useful but that it's somehow not useful in this specific topic area.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:11, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

    What you describe is time-management, which of course plays an essential role in project-management. However, you can't apply time-management to a type of Wiki-project we dealing with here. Normally a project has a project-manager who can decide how to deploy his resources based on an urgency/importance priority. But no one can "order" volunteers what to. It's different for WMF who can tell their paid resources what to do. So you can define an urgency/importance matrix, but if no volunteer is willing to act based on that matrix, the priority becomes wishful-thinking. You can use it for your private (Wiki) tasks, but not for Wiki-projects. Within the Wiki-scope, besides the infra-structure, not much will be urgent anyway. --Sb008 (talk) 19:12, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

    I'd be skeptical myself that every WikiProject would find this sort of thing useful. I'm going to work on what I feel like working on when I feel like working on it, within my own areas of expertise and interest. I'm not interested in someone else telling me what I should be working on. I expect that 95% of the editors on Wikipedia work from a similar paradigm. Ravenswing 20:00, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

• Agree I'm good with this proposal; go for it. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 05:14, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree No objections on my part. Luxic (talk) 11:26, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Malo95 (talk) 15:56, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
• Agree Not useful for most WikiProjects in my opinion, and especially not here, where it's too vague. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:06, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

Resolution

This looks like enough consensus for me - it's been a week, nobody's commented in the past ~4 days, and there was only one dissent. I'll make the editprotected request to the template tomorrow if there's no last minute objections.

Based on the existing top and high importance categories, adding a few obvious omissions, and not including articles on topics better dealt with in more specific Wikiprojects or just clearly misclassified, I've created this box of important articles so that if some cleanup-minded editor in the future who really does work via looking for important articles in bad states, they have something to start with and this information wasn't lost. Feel free to change it - yes, I know, it's inconsistent, especially in the list of individual sports as to which sports make it and which don't, but the underlying dataset was pretty inconsistent too, which makes sense since it wasn't centrally managed before. Doesn't have to be perfect anyway.

I will say, from looking at the existing categories, we could probably use a Glossary of sports terms article and merge some of the perma-stub "concepts" in there... stuff like Offense (sports) and Defense (sports) has been a violation of WP:DICDEF for some time despite being marked as High Importance, but merging them to a list article, along with some of the other more basic concepts, might make them more salvageable. Just a thought though. SnowFire (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Naming Conventions re: Gender

Several national men's teams are titled X national team, while the women's team is titled X national women's team. On several of these pages there are several talk sections devoted to changing the name of the men's team to reflect that it is in fact the men's team. Some of the objections to the change revolve around consistency across sports (despite the fact that some sports already have clear and precise gendered titles, such as US men's national soccer team and US women's national soccer team. But it does make sense to, in one fell swoop, simply change the naming conventions for all national sports teams to reflect gender. Can this be done? (Also, there were recommendations to add the subject here, but I can add it to Wikipedia talk:Article titles if that would be more appropriate/useful.) SanDWesting (talk) 04:26, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

It's unlikely you would be able to change all sports articles in one go. One of the issues I foresee is that many men's teams aren't referred to as "men's team" in secondary sources, and so the WP:COMMONNAME of many wouldn't include men. e.g. I've never heard the England national football team referred to as the England men's national football team, and so WP:COMMONNAME is likely to come into conflict with this proposal to standardise/remove gender bias. We follow what reliable sources call teams, which means unfortunately that if sources used biased names (England team and England women's team), then it'll be difficult to get a community-wide consensus to refer to them as England men's team (and similar with many other countries I guess). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Mm,Joseph2302's argument is persuasive: we call things what the preponderance of English-language reliable sources call them. Correcting cultural biases is beyond our remit. Ravenswing 11:34, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

The England women's national football team is also commonly referred to simply as the England national team. Unsurprisingly it's a contextual thing in news coverage. If you look up "England team" and "England women's team" in one search, the results are all about the women's team, and the former term being used for them. All the publications I see referring to both, gender both. And most Wiki articles that use these non-gendered naming conventions for male teams have to have a clarification link at the top for the women's team, because unlike in specific news coverage the context isn't self-evident. Changing the Wiki titles seems very unlikely to do much for changing society, but it will be very useful for WP:Precision and clarity. Furthermore, at what point does the gender specification become considered commonplace enough? Wikipedia certainly doesn't need to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS but it'd be pitiful if it was in fact behind the times. And it's not like adding the gender is going to confuse users. WP:COMMONNAME is important for recognizability and clarity, not in and of itself. There's a reason "Google search," is the name of the page even though when most people say 'Google,' they mean the search and not the company. Are we worried people won't recognize the team because it specifies "men's?" Is that going to be somehow confusing?

The five criteria for article titles are 'recognizability, naturalness, precision, conciseness, and consistency.' There is currently no consistency on gendering national sports teams pages. Precision and conciseness are defined by 'identifying' and 'distinguishing,'as briefly as possible, and non-gendering male teams fails to do the later, and require the extensive clarification I mentioned above. Is WP:COMMONNAME the only argument against gendering men and women's teams? Because considering the many failures of not gendering men's teams, it seems more a cop out than anything.

I also don't know about the feasibility of changing all the names in one go, but since its been used as an argument against changing individual article titles, it seemed worth addressing. It would certainly be easier than having the same trite back-and-forths on each individual Wikipage.SanDWesting (talk) 07:08, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia is behind the times; that is the very nature of an encyclopedia, as opposed to an advocacy group. You appear to wave off WP:COMMONNAME and WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS as if they were all very well and good, but not all that important in the grand scheme of, well, righting great wrongs. Indeed, "recognizability" and "clarity" are best served by COMMONNAME, in naming articles by what readers will most recognize -- if they didn't, the titles wouldn't be "common names" -- as opposed to what smaller advocacy groups might want them to be called. (And who decides? You? Me?) Ravenswing 10:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

This topic does seem a bit like WP:FORUMSHOPPING after this topic. I'll reiterate that we aren't here to right any wrongs in culture, and there are examples of sports where the men's and women's national teams are seen as on par. However, especially in the football case, hundreds of years of history being changed to "men's" doesn't fit COMMONNAME. I suppose we could have England national football team (women's) as a disambiguation, but it's less natural than the current title. There is certainly a WP:RECENTISM bias on wikipedia, with pages being moved the moment there is a name change, which isn't how COMMONNAME works. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

I literally brought up the question of what forum would be best for this discussion, and noted that the main reason I placed it here was due to the repeated suggestions on pages like this topic, so accusing this of being WP:FORUMSHOPPING seems very odd, and unhelpful. Moreover, your moving target attitude toward this topic - once the WP:COMMONNAME aspect was thoroughly addressed on said page, you changed your argument to that of the relative histories of the teams - implies that you're more concerned with keeping the end result than actually exploring the best option.

I "wave off" WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS precisely because I have objections to the current system for precision, clarity, and stylistic reasons, not social ones. It would be nice if those points were actually addressed, rather than seeing the previous ones simply repeated. Changing, for instance the above example, to England men's national football team would be far less cumbersome than the current set-up, and than any of the other suggested changes. This would be true across the board. The WP:COMMONNAME issue for that particular example has also already been addressed with sources on this topic. It's odd that the COMMONNAME of each individual national team is supposed to be a factor and yet individual article changes are also decried. It's also odd that a widespread suggested change has immediately had its focus redirected to one specific example. In any case, the fact that women's teams are also often referred to as simply as their country's national team has not yet been addressed. All in all, the above discussion of COMMONNAME makes it seem as though the slight gender inclusion would fundamentally affect recognizability, and makes it seem like a monumental change, despite the fact that it would allow for far more consistent naming conventions. Frankly, the arguments against the change seem far more driven by ideological reasons than those for. SanDWesting (talk) 11:59, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Riiiiight ... because there couldn't possibly be any reason to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines beyond sinister intent, while your own motives are of course disinterested and -- no doubt -- pure. Ravenswing 14:57, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Kabbadi cleanup

Please see WP:ANI#Disruptive new user. Help in cleaning up edits related to Kabbadi, e.g. use of the OR term "kabbader", will be appreciated. Fences&Windows 01:48, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Looking for archivists

I have archived some Netball Queensland Annual Reports at Queensland Firebirds using Wayback. However I can't find 2012 and 2015-16. Also tried unsuccessfully to archive 2007 and 2009. Is there another internet archive that Wikipedia uses ? Any tips/help would be appreciated. Djln Djln (talk) 18:09, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Naming conventions for national sport governing bodies

Does this WikiProject have any recommendations on what titles to use for articles on sporting governance bodies? Particular relevance for names in languages other than English, but using latin alphabet. Please ping with reply. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 10:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Draft:Surfing etiquette

Was wondering is someone from this WikiProject could take a look at Draft:Surfing etiquette. I came across it via WP:THQ#Adding chronological history and material to Surf Etiquette article and after looking it over it does seem to be a WP:NOTGUIDE type of draft in which some of the content might be OK to incorporate into the main article Surfing, but probably isn't sufficient for a stand-alone article on its own. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:06, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I took a look at the draft, and tend to agree with Marchjuly that there is useful content, but perhaps not enough for a stand-alone article yet. If it develops enough it could be split out again. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 11:14, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Let's talk about Communist Romania...

I've noticed that athletes who competed for Romania during that period, in articles where they are listed and also in their own articles, are given as representing modern Romania. The country listed in their infobox is Romania, rather than Socialist Republic of Romania. In some cases the infobox uses the Communist flag, but still links to Romania. Are there any Wiki conventions on this that I should be aware of? Because this really does not seem right to me, it feels...wrong. Inaccurate. Perhaps this is just me, as recently I've been heavily studying Communist Romania. But, gentlemen, let me tell you: post-Cold War Romania and Communist Romania, are worlds apart! So different, in so many ways, that to me, it would feel right to refer to the state as it was at the time, rather than the country of today. That's just me. Transylvania1916 (talk) 13:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Transylvania1916 I agree, articles should use the countries and flags at the time they competed. So instead of using Template:ROU or Template:ROM (which is for post-Soviet Romania), we should be using Template:RSR (or {{flag|Socialist Republic of Romania}}), which links the country as Socialist Republic of Romania, and uses the flag of that era. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:09, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

They are internationally recognized as being the same country, both de facto and de jure, and in sport as well ... heck, the difference between the Cold War and post-Cold War Romanian regimes aren't in the same league as the differences between Imperial Germany, the Weimar regime, Nazi Germany and present-day Germany, all of which are lumped together in the IOC's eyes. That flags in infoboxes change as countries, well, change flags is likewise something that widely applies throughout biographical articles Wikipedia-wide. Ravenswing 06:17, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Nevertheless, we should be showing the correct flag for the country at the time, in my opinion. Same as how for South Africans we would display the old (apartheid) flag for athletes who competed when it was used, or for some old Greek athlete articles I created, I used the old Greek flag. It might seem like a minor issue to some people (because the flags are similar), but it's still inconsistent with much of the rest of the encyclopedia to use the current Romanian flag. And people who competed in the 1970s and 1980s would have competed as an athlete for Socialist Republic of Romania not modern day Romania. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

We are talking about two different things here. If we are talking about an event, the flags and other information should be correct as of when the event was held. On player/athlete bios, I would assume this would be updated to the latest one they used. This would match players who change nationality/sporting country in the middle of their careers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If someone only represented Communist Romania, they should use that flag. If they represented both Communist and post-Communist Romania then the newer flag should be used. This would be entirely consistent with other countries e.g. USSR --> Russia, or South African pre and post-1994 flag change. But many athletes who only represented Communist Romania have the current Romanian flag in the infobox. E.g. almost every medallist linked from Romania at the 1976 Summer Olympics only competed for Communist Romania, but most of them have the post-Communist Romanian flag. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that there is a question as to what we mean by the flag in the infobox. There are plenty of athletes who have never actually represented their country (in an official capacity), but we still have a flag for them. The above talks about competing at the Olympics, but who is to say those athletes didn't represent Romania at a lower level. I think some policy should be wrapped around this. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:19, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Request for Comment on SSN at WP:Notability (sports)

There is a discussion on SSN (sport specific guidelines) at RFC on Notability (sports) policy and reliability issues. Feel free to go there and post your comments. Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Michigan State Spartans GA Reassessment

Michigan State Spartans, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Pbrks (talk) 03:36, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Proposed change in sports notability policy

A proposal is pending that would prohibit the creation of sports biographies unless supported by "substantial coverage in at least one non-routine source". In other words, articles supported solely by statistical databases would not be permitted, and at least one example of WP:SIGCOV would be required to be included before an article could be created. Also, article creation based on Wikiproject Guidelines would be curtailed. If you have views on this proposal, one way or the other, you can express those views at Wikipedia talk:Notability (sports)#Fram's revised proposal. Fyunck(click) (talk) 09:05, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Players taking breaks from their club

Should players taking breaks from their club be described as playing for their club? If it’s indefinite, is it better to remove the words about her current club? --Heymid (contribs) 02:05, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Also, should years played for a club in the infobox include exhibition matches? --Heymid (contribs) 02:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

University logos in the infobox?

Hi. Please see this discussion. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Toronto Raptors for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:23, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Deutscher Ringer-Bund and German Wrestling Federation

(cross posting also at Wikipedia:WikiProject Germany) Cleaning up some interlanguage links, I came across the above. The former, de:Deutscher Ringer-Bund is about the guiding organsation of German wrestling clubs, established in 1972. German Wrestling Federation is a professional wrestling promotion founded in 1995, with a de article at de:German Wrestling Federation. Following the general standard, our en article on "Deutscher Ringer-Bund" would be expected to be at "German Wrestling Federation" (as per German Cycling Federation, German Equestrian Federation). But that title is occupied by the 1995 promotion. The questions I ask are:

• Is there a primary topic, and if so is it occupied by the right article?
• What should the organisations be titled - if the 1995 is moved to different title, or the 1972 one should have a different title?

As an aside, National Olympic Committee of the GDR has an article on de as de:Nationales Olympisches Komitee der DDR, whereas here it currently redirects to East Germany at the Olympics. Should the ill be retained in anticipation of an article on the Olympic Committee, or is the redirect to East Germany at the Olympics (i.e. assuming that we will not have an article on the 'National Olympic Committee of the GDR' in the future) the better option? Spokoyni (talk) 21:10, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

If we are suggesting the German title is a no-go, can we not just use (professional wrestling) and (amateur wrestling) as disambiguation? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:12, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Is "(amateur)" for the 1972 or 1995 one? And if for the 1972, is it the best way to describe a Sports governing body? This is not my specialty, so these are genuine questions. Spokoyni (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Relevant or not?

Do National Champion titles are relevant for an International Successful athlete? Some, by the way very prolific Users say that those titles are not relevant. I do consider that the National medals of an International athlete are precisely relevant to complete his/her profile. Is there a common rule about those? --Arorae (talk) 19:11, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Name parameter {{Infobox sportsperson}}

The guideline says: «If this parameter is omitted, the name of the article is used.» Which in my way of understanding means that, in the event that the name of the person is the same as that of the article, it is recommended to omit it. However, I am undergoing systematic reverts by a user who instead believes it is necessary to add it. How should I behave? --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

You’re right. Put twice the same info is redundant.--Arorae (talk) 19:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC on flags

A RFC is underway which might have a considerable effect on the usage of flags in the articles in this WikiProject. Any input is welcome and you can join the RFC here.Tvx1 17:54, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Women in Red hosting Olympics and Paralympics

Greetings from WP:WikiProject Women in Red! Starting 1 July, we’re going to have a three-month focus (July, August and September) on the women of the Olympic and Paralympic Games. Your participants are warmly welcomed to join us for the event, documenting as many women as possible; additionally if you have relevant lists of red links that we should encourage participants to take up, we’d love to know. Thanks very much!--Ipigott (talk) 15:17, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

Nationality in infoboxes

I initially raised this concern at the talk page of Template:Infobox basketball biography, where other editors said that other sports bios had the same issue as well. In most cases, stating a person's nationality is redundant, as it will be the same as their place of birth. When this is the case, per WP:INFONAT, the nationality parameter is omitted. The guideline is non-ambiguous; however, when I made some of these edits to sports bios, I was reverted per "longstanding convention" [26]. Convention should not supersede policy. If this is truly the convention across sports bios, it should be reconsidered. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

• Well ... you're shading things a leetle bit in claiming that it's "non-ambiguous," don't you think? INFONAT is not "policy," but a guideline. It also holds that "When needed, for example, due to change of nationality after birth, dual "citizenship", or other unusual scenarios, use |nationality= unless |citizenship= is more appropriate due to uncommon legal reasons." This is often the case in the sports world, with (a) the many changes in borders that have had players born in a country which no longer exists, (b) citizens of one country who due to various factors play internationally for another, and (c) dual-citizenship cases where players have played for more than one nation internationally.

  Several countries bolster their international/Olympic teams through generous rules -- Italy, for instance, has in the past allowed players onto their international squads who can claim an Italian-born ancestor. I can also think of hockey players who were the children of Canadian hockey players, born in the United States, carrying Canadian citizenship but who have played for the United States.

  Outside the sports world, I imagine the distinctions matter a lot less. Ravenswing 03:57, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

  • Right, but this doesn't matter in a case like LeBron James, for example, where I was initially reverted. I agree that when helpful, it should be included, but I disagree that this represents that majority of cases. AllegedlyHuman (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
    • Disagree based upon what? There are about 170,000 articles on soccer players alone, the overwhelming majority of them non-North American. I don't want to even think of how many articles on Olympians there are, but it has to be a measurable percentage of articles on Wikipedia. There are 244 categories of "sportspeople." If you've actually done the legwork to ascertain what percentage of sports bios are safely and unambiguously North American, color me impressed ... but I rather doubt it. Ravenswing 07:41, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
      • Many sportspeople compete for a country other than that of their birth. But if it's the same, then it does seem redundant- e.g. for someone born in the US whose nationality is American. Joseph2302 (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
• Yeah, I don't really see how it is a big deal to include it. We have quite a percentage of sportspeople who represent other nations than where they were born. It does need to be universal. There's plenty of countries where their nationality and sporting country are two different things (See how someone may be British, but represent Scotland - see Andy Murray who represents both at different times, listed as British, but someone like John Higgins is not. There's also times where it changes, which is important to note, such as Kurt Maflin. The thing about basketball, is there isn't much of an international scene, but not a thing full sale. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:40, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed template merge Template:Nashville, Tennessee sports venues into Template:Nashville, Tennessee

There is a discussion on whether to merge Template:Nashville, Tennessee sports venues into Template:Nashville, Tennessee: Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 July 3 WhisperToMe (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Number of team rosters in several sports at 2020 Summer Olympics

Hi. Please see and join the following discussion related to association football/field hockey/handball/rugby sevens/water polo at the 2020 Summer Olympics:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics#Number of team rosters in several sports at 2020 Summer Olympics

Thanks. --Phikia (talk) 13:02, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

Cannabis and sports

Improvements welcome! Cannabis and sports ---Another Believer _(Talk) 16:58, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Winner's stand

Do we have an article about a winner's stand? Interlanguage links are de:Siegertreppchen and no:Seierspall. Utfor (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Yes. Podium. Sorry for not checking better. Utfor (talk) 17:45, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

Full event names when context makes it obvious

Is there some kind of consensus whether this kind of simplification is allowed? As someone who doesn't really edit sports related articles, the event seems obvious, maybe in case of events that have more significant recognizability per edition like the Olympics I would still retain writing the full event name. Note that the WLs still point to the specific year of the event.

In 2018, he also competed (...)at the 2018 Asian Games held in Jakarta, Indonesia. In 2019, he competed (...) at the 2019 World Wrestling Championships.

In 2018, he also competed (...) at the Asian Games held in Jakarta, Indonesia. In 2019, he competed (...) at the World Wrestling Championships.

Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 20:50, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

That's pretty normal. I've also seen "competed at the World Championship" to avoid stating the name of the sport, but I'm less happy about that. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

As a member of WP:SPOKEN; we tend to leave the 2nd year out anyway... Try reading it out-loud to yourself... If it sounds funny, fix it! Mjquinn_id (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Maybe it depends on the exact event. But usually at tennis articles, if the header is 2017, we'd say a player was eliminated in the 4th round of the US Open not eliminated in the 4th round of the 2017 US Open. If there is no header to distinguish the year then of course we would retain the 2017 in the front. Fyunck(click) (talk) 22:21, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

If the years need to be removed then I've produced a lot of content that needs to be updated ;) One thing to consider is that people may not read the article, they only scan it to get a sense of what's going on, so I don't know which is better. Simeon (talk) 09:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I wouldn't put it that "it needs to be removed" but rather it doesn't need to be there. Slowly but surely it will get changed. Fyunck(click) (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Sport section in Danish municipality articles

Hey. This is a question not really related to this WP, but I figure this would be the best place for advice on this question. I have recently added a sport section to the Nyborg Municipality article. I figure it's relevant to the culture of the local area, but I'm not entirely sure if this is information that belongs on Wikipedia or if it would be better to handle sports on municipal level differently. Perhaps with an article called "List of sport venues in Nyborg Municipality" or something along those lines. Or maybe by just listing venues, and not mention sports organizations unless they're notable. I figured this would be the best place for this question, since you guys probably have a better understanding of notability within sports than the Denmark or Cities WPs. Thanks! Kaffe42 (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Muncipalities have sports sections all the time. They tend to focus much less on venues, however, than on mentioning the various sports teams playing there, as well as notable defunct teams, and significant sporting events played there. Take a look at Quincy,_Massachusetts#Sports for an example; that's my hometown, Boston's immediate southern suburb. There are a few paragraphs on the professional teams that have played there, a paragraph of local collegiate programs, and a paragraph discussing high school programs and that Quincy's been the host of the Babe Ruth League amateur teen World Series a few times.

Looking at the section you've included, it's certainly long for the population of the municipality and its apparent lack of professional sport, but given the length of the article itself, one can't claim that it bumps heads with WP:UNDUE. Ravenswing 16:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Understood, that makes sense. I will rewrite the section with all that in mind. I will cut down the venue paragraphs significantly, though I feel it's important to still mention that there is a large venue in the municipality. I'll keep the section about the golf club, it being notable for hosting the first Danish championship outside Copenhagen, and change the sailing paragraph to instead be about the annual championship for the island. I appreciate the feedback, and if anyone else wants to chime in with suggestions before I rewrite, go for it. Kaffe42 (talk) 16:23, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Also, one thing to consider: if the venues are notable enough and pass notability muster (I'd certainly think that a golf club that hosted the national championship would qualify), you can always do up independent articles on them, and link shorter bits to the section. Veterans Memorial Stadium (Quincy, Massachusetts), for example. Ravenswing 19:57, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on Olympics at ITN

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news § The next Olympics: Appropriate article target(s) for ongoing items and other questions. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 20:27, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Cycling national records lists / requested move + copyright vios

• List of Indonesian records in track cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Singaporean records in track cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Thai records in track cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kazakhstani records in track cycling (now List of Kazakhstani records in track cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))
• Indian records in track cycling (now List of Indian records in track cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))
• Emirati records in track cycling (now List of Emirati records in track cycling (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views))

The above are all inconsistently titled, so something needs to be done about that. Additionally, all of them seem to be based solely on primary sources, which is a surmountable problem; but sadly all of the links are to a website which is essentially hosting documents that we can't verify if they have been legitimately uploaded by the copyright holder (see the recent discussion on the blacklist requests page). Since copyright violations are taken seriously, I've gone ahead and removed all of the links. The information should however still be available in the page history for editors with the free time on their hands to go and look for the actual documents from the official websites of the competitions. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:37, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

Well, the first issue was simple to fix, and I've updated your list accordingly. Primefac (talk) 12:11, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

@Primefac: You might want to take a look at Template:Records in track cycling - the naming scheme is inconsistent across the whole. Seems like the preferred scheme is simply whichever appropriate demonym. Should I just go around and move the whole lot to "List of ..." titles? RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:16, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Ugh, didn't notice that. There are "List of" for area and "games" records exclusively, with about 40/60 with/without "List of" for individual nations. I don't think anyone is going to complain about standardizing, so I would shift them all to "List of <name> records in track cycling" and if someone complains then file an RM for the lot to keep it consistent. Primefac (talk) 17:48, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

TFD

Your comment is requested at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2021 September 9#Template:Infobox cricket series begin. Izno (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Afghan flag

Hello, can a script of some kind can be prepared such that all the sports tournaments between 2013 and 2021 can use the old Afghan flag. Changing all of it manually does seem like a bit of hassle as there are a lot of pages over different sports in the given timeperiod. Had started a discussion here and as per the discussions shifted this topic to the wider topic. Pinging @GiantSnowman:, @SuperJew:, @Stevie fae Scotland:--Anbans 585 (talk) 05:05, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes - ask the clever people over at WP:BOTREQUESTS. GiantSnowman 07:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

ReDraft talk:Kreeda Bharati

please check current revision and leave your feedback in a similar format to what currently is on the draft talk for its previous version? it would help the draft author. i help to review drafts, but this is not my strong topic. hope you are able to assist. --Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 09:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

College Sports

Has there been a discussion about a sub-task force around "College Sports"? Maybe even another project? I thought there was one? Mjquinn_id (talk) 17:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a separate WikiProject for college football, but apart from that, I haven't seen other college sport project/task force. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:56, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Mjquinn id, what article are you thinking of, for example? Gryllida (talk, e-mail) 09:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Just wanting a place to send people to consolidate conversations about College sports templates (Teams, Players, Seasons, Stadiums), Categories, et al. It seems horrifically dissimilar across multiple state projects... Standards on which sports are included, etc. Maybe just a Task Force? (and "No", I do not want to run it...) - Mjquinn_id (talk) 22:24, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

List of Pro Sports Teams considered the worst

I first asked this in the treehouse, and it was suggested I post the question here. Considering that we have pages dedicated to music and movies considered the worst, should/could we do one for sports teams. There are many viable well researched articles that we can use. Some teams, like the 1899 Cleveland Spiders were so terrible, that there are books and documentaries dedicated to them. I feel there is an interest in this topic and would like feedback. I do say that if this page goes forward, I'd like to seek out help. I've never started a page from scratch before. Sportsfan1976

This sounds like an interesting idea. I am also new to editing and am contributing to current pages as there seem to be lots of what I see as fundamental holes. As long as the execution is somewhat neutral with the best as well I don't see an issue.DannyHatcher (talk) 16:58, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants game article feedback

I have just put an article up in the main space for the first time and am looking for feedback. A user has proposed it for deletion because of notability concerns, but I really feel that the game was important even if it was only played during Week 2 of the regular NFL season. As of right now, I would still love to add a game statistics table, some pictures, and fans' reactions to the outcome. However, I want to take the notability concerns seriously and would love to hear whether people agree that it should be deleted! Thank you:) Washington Football Team vs. New York Giants Game September 2021 Pippalenderking (talk) 20:37, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Unremarkable regular season game with no significance. Does not meet WP:SPORTSEVENT" says it all. The level of notability that would raise an unexceptional regular season game between two non-contenders to article threshold would have to be beyond astonishing: not even with a stadium collapse, an epic riot or a promotion gone infamously sour (each of which had major repercussions that stretched out over years) were the underlying games more than mere mentions. Nor is that level of detail what you'd find even in newspaper coverage by the respective hometown papers. The best you would get is a small section in the respective season articles of the teams; take a look at 2020_New_York_Giants_season#Game_summaries for examples. Ravenswing 20:58, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

WikiProject Judo

I've suggested on WikiProject Martial arts, residing under this WikiProject, to establish a WikiProject Judo to discuss and formulate Manuals of Style for articles relating to judo. For example, MoS' for judoka, judo competitions etc. Hoping for your participation. Deancarmeli (talk) 10:15, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Country by Sports Representation

This beastly thing was created in 2016 and has basically been abandoned since. Is it something that ought to be kept and perhaps reworked, or should I take it to AfD? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Goodness. I think you could even get away with a PROD if you're lucky, given that it's an orphan. Primefac (talk) 09:48, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Gah, nuke it from orbit ... Ravenswing 10:27, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

By your leave, gentlemen, PROD missile launched. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:38, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Lifesaving

I am after wider input to further develop the article List of world records in life saving, a sport with a history of more than 100 years and recognized by the IOC since 1996. Wikipedia:Make_stubs suggests: "So, you just wrote a killer new article, and you see lots of red links. You're surprised, because these topics would probably satisfy the notability guidelines and Wikipedia seems to have articles on every single topic imaginable. Instead of letting that red link sit there doing nothing: Make it a stub! Replacing red links with stubs helps to grow the encyclopedia..." Yet, all the stubs I created have been removed by @Fram: who quoted 'unproven notability of the individuals' and 'unreliability of sources' as reasons.
I am not suggesting that all sports should benefit from a similar presence on Wikipedia, but this project neither should carelessly feed the vicious cycle of [1] increasing the disproportionate amount of meaningless visibility that some sports already get, while [2] preventing other sports, that receive almost no attention, to grow.
I argue that a world record proves notability - at least in that specific sport environment - because the person has accomplished something that nobody else did in the history of the sport. Regarding sources, there might be articles published on local newspapers, but the most reliable source we should look for is in fact the governing body of that particular sport. Creiamo (talk) 19:32, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• And my response is that how in the merry hell is Wikipedia "preventing other sports to grow?" It is not our job to become cheerleaders for obscure "sports" or competitions, or somehow to regulate the amount of visibility certain sports get. It is our job to reflect what the world notices and cares about. My longstanding stance is that I will support any proposed notability guideline where 90%-95%+ of the athletes who meet it can be demonstrated to meet the GNG.

  I appreciate your passion for this competition, but all NSPORTS notability criteria are underpinned by the likelihood that those who meet them can meet the GNG. Ravenswing 20:50, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

• @Ravenswing: The world notices what's in the news (or in a Google search) and nobody is asking you to become a cheerleader, but just to be objective. Athletes like Lucrezia Fabretti, who are the best in their sport (which by the way counts thousands of participants in multiple countries) meet the GNG much more than literally the hundreds of American football players who appear on Wikipedia for having played briefly and sporadically in minor leagues. By making these decisions we clearly impede the trajectory of a minor sport out of 'obscurity' and at the same time promote the extreme visibility of a 'local sport' that few people follow outside of the USA. Creiamo (talk) 17:55, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

• In which case you are badly misunderstanding what the GNG is. The GNG doesn't measure the relative importance of a subject in a tiny, obscure sport that only a handful of people have ever heard of (however much that tiny handful might be widely scattered). It is based on whether the subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent, third-party, reliable sources. Maybe this is not what you would want Wikipedia to enshrine as a notability standard, but it is what it does enshrine as one, and knee-jerk prejudice against the US does not change that. Ravenswing 18:20, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Adding importance onto the articles

Hi all. I am fairly new to editing and would like to start contributing a little more to this project but apart from the subs and start pages I am not sure where to start. I have noticed there are lots of unassessed articles which I can help with but having importance on the articles would help with priority. What do you all think? (I don't know how to add it) DannyHatcher (talk) 23:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

• Welcome to Wikipedia, @DannyHatcher:, and thanks for your offer to help! And honestly, for my money, diving into subs and start pages are some of the best places to start. Many new editors want to create new articles, but they don't often have a good handle on the pertinent notability criteria, and get frustrated when those articles are deleted. Nor would I bother in your boots with assessing unassessed articles right now -- that's pretty subjective at the best of times, and doesn't hugely improve things.

  One good thing to do is seek out the Wikiprojects which deal with your favorite sports; they'll have editors that can give specifics on what most needs doing. They may also have lists of the articles that most need help; for instance, the ice hockey project has Hockey Mountain, a comprehensive list of every member of the Hockey Hall of Fame and other notables, with their assessments, so anyone can pick out the stubs and Start-level articles and go to work.

  In any event, please feel free to hit my talk page if you need any assistance or advice. Ravenswing 03:55, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Combining same sport finals

I am going through some of the event pages and have noticed there are articles for each year of finals for certain sports. I was thinking of combining them all together in a table article. The references in the pages seem to be the same website just a different search. Thoughts ? DannyHatcher (talk) 21:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

I suppose it depends on the length of each page, and the number of entries. If they're all stubs basically saying "on X date in Y venue teams A and B played each other, and the score was M" then sure, they could probably be merged all into one. If each page is more than 3-4 sections, though, you might run into bloat issues.

Basically, "it depends" is the best I can give you without more specifics. Primefac (talk) 21:31, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Yeah some of the events have have descriptions of the game which are not cited but most just have team a played team b and x venue with y score. I am going through them and most are stubs. DannyHatcher (talk) 00:20, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Sporting goods store

I have added sporting goods store to Wikipedia:Requested articles/Sports. Utfor (talk) 20:53, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Who is active in this project?

Hello all, from what I can see most of the people working in this project are doing so because they are part of a more specific sport project. Is there anyone working in just this project? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DannyHatcher (talk • contribs) 00:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

There aren't really all that many articles that only apply to the main sports wikiproject. I've always thought about this as being a suitable venue for things effecting lots of different sports projects. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: that makes sense. I have noticed most of the articles are either sport event stats or are in other projects. I will have a look around, thanks for sharing. DannyHatcher (talk) 10:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

CFL team division titles

Having looked at the sections on division winners at East Division (CFL) & West Division (CFL). I don't think the current team numbers are adding up correctly. Also, not certain what I'm suppose to list as division champions at each of the nine team articles. Should I list regular season division champions? or playoff division champions? GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

RFC that could affect this project

There is a titling RFC at Wikipedia talk:Article titles that will affect many articles at this project. There was discussion of making the RfC handled bit by bit before all projects understood the ramifications with entertainment being singled out next in a deleted draft, and other projects after that. Whether you agree or don't agree please join in the discussion for this massive Wikipedia change. Fyunck(click) (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

IIHF: Czechia, not Czech Republic

If the 2022 World Junior Ice Hockey Championships is any indication. The IIHF has begun using Czechia, instead of Czech Republic for that country's team entries, beginning with the 2022 tournaments. Should we reflect this, in those 2022 IIHF tournaments? GoodDay (talk) 05:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No, we should not. You have said that you are not anymore concerned about this subject, and you subsequently starting this another topic. We now have two same discussions resolving same topic at the same time in WikiProject_Ice_Hockey#IIHF:Czechia. WP:COMMONNAME says that we name country according to discussion, which resolved common name as the Czech Republic in Talk:Czech. IIHF is independent legal association as any others. "Czechia" is for example also used by Basketball team member of FIBA, which is on Wikipedia still concern of WP:COMMONNAME resolved through consensus rule. If even United Nations usage of "Czechia" is not purpose, to usage of "Czechia" in international policy articles and WP:COMMONNAME disentangle results is used on Wikipedia, then some organizations usage of language cannot be pattern for change of common same name usage of this word. --ThecentreCZ (talk) 06:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just bringing this up here [27] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 16:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ummmm ... @GoodDay:, on exactly how many talk pages are you going to argue this issue? I pinged the naming conventions talk page not because it needed to be discussed there as well, but because they might have some insights for us. Ravenswing 19:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Here or WP:HOCKEY will do. GoodDay (talk) 19:26, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Consistency or lack there of, in handling pandemic cancelled tournaments or events

Should we have an across-the-board agreement on how to handle such articles about cancelled tournaments, events etc. Should such articles be deleted, re-directed or left alone. GoodDay (talk) 01:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

• We already do: it's called the GNG. Such events that can be shown to meet the GNG stay; those that can't are better redirected. Ravenswing 03:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Indeed. There are clearly events that are notable enough that they deserve an article even if they didn't take place, some where they should get a mention in a parent article, and others where we don't need a mention anywhere. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:58, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Most don't meet GNG in my opinion. Redirect is better than deleting, as it means it can be categorised, and people can find some information about the cancelled event. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
      • The Boat Race 2020 for example is an event that was cancelled, but clearly notable. Realistically, we shouldn't be creating articles before they meet GNG anyway, so there shouldn't be much to redirect/delete. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
      • Most reoccuring events that previously would meet GNG likely still meet GNG after being cancelled because finding three independent sources talking about how they were cancelled that year would likely not be difficult. At least that would be the case for the below mentioned Memorial Cup. -DJSasso (talk) 13:42, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

The re-direct method definitely preferable to the delete method. For example, as it should be, we've got 2020 Spengler Cup & 2021 Spengler Cup redirecting to Spengler Cup. Likewise, we've got 2020 Memorial Cup & 2021 Memorial Cup redirecting to Memorial Cup. In very few cases where such cancelled recurring events/organisations that don't have an article? Such articles should be created as re-directs toward the main article. GoodDay (talk) 13:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

{{Hue}}

Template:Hue (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) has been nominated for deletion. Is this coloring scheme still in use? -- 65.92.246.142 (talk) 20:09, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Word order in article titles

Notice the following two examples:

• Argentina men's national junior handball team
• Argentina men's junior national softball team

Which article has a better word order? We should rename one of them and the whole category, too. Maiō T. (talk) 19:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Neither. We go by WP:COMMONNAME, so they don't need to be consistent. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Besides youth softball, I've only seen "national junior". In softball, the other way around is more common? Pelmeen10 (talk) 23:25, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I have googled today and it looks something like this:

"national junior" softball team — 250,000 results

"junior national" softball team — 150,000 results

So I'd like to rename those softball articles. I think we should use default (consistent) article titles for every kind of sport in Wikipedia. Maiō T. (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And the reason why we don't impose unnecessary "consistency" over every sport is that customary usages vary hugely, not only between sports, but between leagues, nations and sanctioning bodies. Ravenswing 18:50, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

And languages. We name these articles the same (or as close as we can) in the same way that the organisation does. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

FAR notice

I have nominated Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 07:01, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion notice

There is a new proposal at the RfC on NSPORTS the under "Subproposal 8" subsection to Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. and Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist". Your thoughts would be appreciated there. -Indy beetle (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Infobox difficult to edit

The editing window for the infobox at Russia at the Olympics, doesn't show the "other related appearances" section. Thus one's unable to make a correction to it. GoodDay (talk) 05:13, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

There are parameters in that infobox call that do not always trigger a response, depending on the event and country. Primefac (talk) 10:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The parameter being used to populate the "Other related appearances" is called "seealso" in the infobox. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Indeed. But one can't correct the "ROC (2020-2022)" entry, to "ROC (2020–2022)". GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Fiiiiiiiiine, I'll change the easily-typed - to – everywhere. Primefac (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Footer Big 12 Conference Athlete of the Year and Template:Big 12 Conference Sportsperson of the Year navbox

I've nominated two templates for deletion that may be of interest to this WikiProject. You can weigh in at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2022 February 12#Big 12 Conference templates. Thank you. SportsGuy789 (talk) 02:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Divisions, groups, pools

We should clarify the terminology in tournament namings. Some tournaments in Wikipedia are called "Divisions", some - "Groups", some - "Pools". I think divisions are superior to each other, while groups are equivalent. Pools? I don't know. Maiō T. (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

• We call them what the individual leagues and competitions call them, and nomenclature's changed over the years in many of them. Any measure of comparison, even within a sport, is a mug's game. Ravenswing 22:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah, no reason why we should make this uniform. In football, a division and a group are two different things. There's also a league or a bracket. We go by what the the sport is, and what the tournament calls it. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the when of IIHF tournaments. The terminology "Pool" has gradually disappeared, while "Group" & "Division" are still used, afaik. GoodDay (talk) 03:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

In Handball it's always group and not division. I'm not a native english speaker. But I think in the USA division is used more often and in Europe group. 🤾‍♂️ Malo95 (talk) 15:52, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the sport and the country, as different countries/sports use different terminologies. As for example, in association football division is normally a hierachy (with promotion/relegation) whereas groups tend to be part of a competition that has a knockout phase as well. Whereas for e.g. American football, divisions are used for a different meaning (similar to groups in soccer). Another example would be that at the Rugby (union) World Cup, they call the first section the "pool stage" but in Cricket World Cups, they call it the "group stage". We can't apply a one-size-fits-all mentality to this, and should just follow what sources call the stages. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

OK. Maiō T. (talk) 21:27, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

User interest categories for old sports teams

Should we have separate user interest categories for sports teams in the past when they operated under a different name? Please check out this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:32, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Request on The Players' Tribune page

Hi editors, my name is M and I work with Minute Media. I had made some requests over at The Players' Tribune talk page and hadn't heard from anyone. I was hoping someone here might be kind enough to review it! I know I can't make changes myself because of my conflict of interest. Thanks in advance for your help. M at MinuteMedia (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:UT Arlington Mavericks § Proposed merge of University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy into UT Arlington Mavericks

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:UT Arlington Mavericks § Proposed merge of University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy into UT Arlington Mavericks. 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC) 🐶 EpicPupper ^{(he/him | talk)} 23:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

• Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sports teams)#RfC regarding article titles of relocated professional sports teams in North America

An RfC relating to relocated teams' article titles using "History of" has been opened and may be of interest to this Wiki Project. The RfC will add language to the WP:GUIDELINE and will affect multiple article titles. Please join the discussion at the above link. Rgrds. --Bison X (talk) 13:53, 27 February 2022 (UTC)