Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 13

Official stadium names

How do we deal with stadium names which are officially "[Sponsor] Field at [Normal Name] Stadium" or some variation thereof but are more commonly known by their normal name? I was looking into this after the home of the Potomac Nationals was renamed Northwest Federal Field at Pfitzner Stadium earlier today. I looked at other stadiums I'm familiar with, and Harry Grove Stadium redirects to Nymeo Field at Harry Grove Stadium while the home of UConn football is Pratt & Whitney Stadium at Rentschler Field with Rentschler Field being an article about the former airfield at that site. However, Scott Stadium's full title is Carl Smith Center, Home of David A. Harrison III Field at Scott Stadium, which isn't even a redirect to that article. Also, Husky Stadium is listed at that title despite its official name being Alaska Airlines Field at Husky Stadium, which is a redirect. What is the policy in situations like this? Perhaps significantly, the Potomac stadium was previously known as G. Richard Pfitzner Stadium and the "G. Richard" appears to have been dropped from the name entirely. However, Frederic Scott's first name was never on that stadium, Harry Grove's still is, and the other two aren't named after people so they kept their full name, it was just added to. Smartyllama (talk) 16:21, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

@Smartyllama: I normally go with the long-term common name of the stadium. Sometimes that will involve a sponsor (Emirates Stadium) and sometimes it won't (City of Manchester Stadium). I've seen lots of wasted time on the subject of stadium names, principally by people who place a lot of importance on official stadium names, which is why you get things like Arsenal Stadium instead of Highbury (stadium). We already have sufficient guidelines for this at WP:NAMINGCRITERIA. I don't know why, but some people interested in stadiums frequently deviate from what is one of Wikipedia's most followed standards. SFB 18:08, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

RSN discussion notice

A discussion related to this project, regarding AR-15 style rifle, has been opened at Reliable sources noticeboard. –dlthewave ☎ 15:00, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Request additional input at AR-15 style rifle

There is a debate about several sections on this article that could use some outside eyes. One is the appropriate mention of mass shootings in the article lead. Another is how the 1994 Federal Assault Weapons Ban should be covered in the article. Thanks! Springee (talk) 18:32, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Help with Kevin Plank edit request

Hi there! I recently posted an edit request for the article on Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank that might interest members of WikiProject Sports. I'm seeking to update the article's section on his early life. While there are no major issues with the existing section, there is room for improvement, including clarifying the details about his youth and college football career. I'm hoping to add citations where none exist, clarify some details that aren't accurate, and a few other clean-up items. This is laid out fully on the article's Talk page.

As I do have a financial conflict of interest here, since I'm making this suggestion on behalf of Mr. Plank via agency SKDKnickerbocker as part of my work at Beutler Ink, I won't make any edits to the article myself. Instead, I welcome input from uninvolved editors and assistance taking live changes as appropriate. Thanks in advance, 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:18, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

Jweiss11 and ZappaOMati: Since you are both members of this project and interested in football articles, would either of you be willing to look at this request? I'm hoping to help create a more developed article of Under Armour CEO Kevin Plank, and that includes information regarding Plank's early life and developing the details about his football career. Thanks in advance! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 16:20, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

FIS Freestyle/Snowboard World Championships

The above two events were held separately until recently. They have since been merged as one event, however both Wikipedia articles continue to indicate this, I believe there should be a separate article for the merged championships. What is everyone's thoughts on this? Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Are they merged or are they just held at the same time/place (pardon my ignorance). I would say if they are considered separate championships I would continue on with two pages. If they have come together under a new single name then I would create a new page with that name from the time the merged forward. But if they still use both names it somewhat would indicate they are still separate but being held at the same location/time. -DJSasso (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

They are considered separate in terms of the results page of the FIS, but the name is merged. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:29, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

I would consider them separate as they are considered separate disciplines within the FIS. We have the discipline-based results separated for the Olympics already, this isn't much different. From the FIS point-of-view, it probably just started making more financial sense to hold them at the same place/time. So similar to the Olympics, one page for the main event, keep the disciplines separate. A bit WP:CRYSTAL, but perhaps one day they separate them again, especially if they had chosen to only award the Freestyle to Deer Valley (where snowboarding is not allowed) in 2019, we would have to re-split again. Yosemiter (talk) 21:09, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

That is basically what I was thinking spelled out much better. -DJSasso (talk) 23:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Sportswear (activewear) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Sportswear (activewear) to be moved. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:31, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Is there a specific "word/term/expression" for a ranking system like this in a tournament?

I'm looking for a word/term/expression (if it exists) for a system like this:

It's something like a knock-out system, however with a major difference. Losing doesn't mean you eliminated but you continue for the lower ranks where winning means you continue for the upper ranks.

Suppose I have 8 teams, playing in a 3-round system. The table below shows the consequence of winning (W) or losing (L) in each round:

1st round	2nd round	3rd round	Final rank
W	W	W	1
W	W	L	2
W	L	W	3
W	L	L	4
L	W	W	5
L	W	L	6
L	L	W	7
L	L	L	8

So winning in the first round means continue for rank 1 to 4, where losing means continue for rank 5 to 8. (Winners of the first round continue playing each other and losers of the first round continue playing each other, so in the second round, a team which won in the first round will never play a team which lost in the first round.) Winning first and second means continue for rank 1 to 2, winning first and losing second means continue for rank 3 to 4 etc.

So not knock-out, but maybe something like knock-down (knocking your competitors to a lower (down) ranking).

Anyway, I'm looking for a word/term/expression for a system like this.--Sb008 (talk) 12:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I know this sounds like a bit of a cop-out, but I'd read through tournament and see what sticks. What you're describing sounds like a combination of round-robin and ladder, with a bit of promotion and relegation mixed in. Primefac (talk) 13:06, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't know a name for the whole tournament structure but handball calls it placement rounds and placement matches when knocked out teams play further matches for a final position. See e.g. http://www.ihf.info/MediaCenter/News/NewsDetails/tabid/130/Default.aspx?ID=1160 and 2015 World Men's Handball Championship#Knockout stage. PrimeHunter (talk) 13:32, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

(I already started typing what's below before PrimeHunter responded. It's actually meant fir handball. But if I use "placement tournament, probably no one knows what it implies. So I'm hoping there's a more general word/term/expression).

Thanks for the reply, but none of the formats on the tournament page apply. Actually it's part of a more complex system. Let me try to describe it with an analogy.

Suppose Spain and England would decide to introduce a new league for next season, the SP(ain)EN(gland)-League.

Next season the Premier League would be split in 2 phases and in the Primera División would be done the exact same. In the first phase the 6 best teams of both the English Premier League and the Spanish Primera División (of this season) would be separated from the other teams and play each other in this new SPEN-League. Not in a tournament format but as a full competition. Meanwhile the remaining 14 teams (in each country) would play a full competition as well.

So in the first phase there would be 3 leagues, the SPEN-League (with the 6 best teams from both Spain and England, total 12 teams), the Premier League (with the remaining 14 English teams) and the Primera División (with the remaining 14 Spanish teams). In the SPEN-League there would be 22 rounds, and in the first phase of the English Premier League and the Spanish Primera División 26 rounds each.

Pretty clear the season would be very short compared to the 38 rounds right now.

So in the second phase both the 6 English and Spanish teams would "return" to their own country.

I'll only continue for England, similar would be done in Spain.

* The 5 best English teams in the SPEN-League continue for the English Championship (and who qualifies for which European tournament). Those 5 teams play a double full competition (16 rounds). These 5 teams are also qualified for the next edition of the SPEN-League.

* The lowest ranking English team in the SPEN-League together with the 4 best ranked teams in the Premier League (first phase) would play a double full competition for 1 spot in the next edition of the SPEN-League (as well as remaining spots for European tournaments).

* The 2 teams at the bottom (13 and 14) of the Premier League (first phase) would play some kind of play-off system with teams of the Football League for relegation and promotion (instead of 3 teams directly relegated right now).

That way these teams would play something like 38 matches a season as well, except for those teams ranked 5 to 12 in the Premier League (first phase).

To let them play more matches we let these 8 teams play in a system as described above. They don't play for promotion, relegation, qualification or whatever any more. Just for their final ranking (rank 11 to 18, after the 5 teams who played for the Championship and the 5 teams who played for the spot in the next edition of the SPEN-League). Also the teams are not coupled like that. In the first round, 5 will play 12, 6 - 11, 7 - 10 and 8 will play 9 (based on the ranking of the first phase of Premier League).

Now for these 8 teams the total number of matches in a season will still not reach something like 38, but that's kind of irrelevant for the scenerio.

A total setup like this exists for the Belgian and Dutch (team) handball leagues (BENE-League). The number of teams in the leagues is different and all teams end up playing a similar amount of total games.

So it's not round-robin, nor ladder. It's not related to promotion or relegation, nor is it actually for rank 1 to 8 (but in reality for rank 9 to 16).

Compare it to the World Championship. Forget all before the quarter final. Normally teams who lose in the quarter final are out. Those we lose in the semi final play for 3rd/4th, and those who win play the final for 1st and 2nd. But now assume we let those who lose in the quarter final continue for 5 to 8. We would have 2 kinda semifinals again. Those who lose continue for 7th/8th and those who win for 5th/6th.

It may sound like a crazy system, but top teams in England and Spain and most football fans would probably welcome it. In the 1st phase each round 5 top matches with a lot of extra revenues for those teams. Other teams than the top teams probably will be less enthusiastic cause they get less chance to play top teams.

The objective in Belgian and Dutch handball however was not to create more revenues for top teams, but to push the handball to a higher level by letting the top players play more top matches.

Since I want to create the pages for the BENE-League I want to know if there's a specific name for a system as described.--Sb008 (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sb008: I would call this a multi-bracket tournament. If you're looking for a pre-existing well-known term for something you've just invented then I'm afraid you may be disappointed! SFB 21:11, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

I didn't invent it, it's used in handball. But apparently there is no word for it, so it seems my only option is to describe it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sb008 (talk • contribs) 01:33, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

@Sb008: Single-elimination tournament does describe it with classification matches, so I would link to that. This is a quite common system to use in quite a few places. CRwikiCA talk 02:02, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Hot-hand fallacy listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Hot-hand fallacy to be moved to Hot-hand (sports). This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 03:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

ESPN+ listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for ESPN+ to be moved to ESPN Plus. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 20:01, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

WikiProject collaboration notice from the Portals WikiProject

The reason I am contacting you is because there are one or more portals that fall under this subject, and the Portals WikiProject is currently undertaking a major drive to automate portals that may affect them.

Portals are being redesigned.

The new design features are being applied to existing portals.

At present, we are gearing up for a maintenance pass of portals in which the introduction section will be upgraded to no longer need a subpage. In place of static copied and pasted excerpts will be self-updating excerpts displayed through selective transclusion, using the template {{Transclude lead excerpt}}.

The discussion about this can be found here.

Maintainers of specific portals are encouraged to sign up as project members here, noting the portals they maintain, so that those portals are skipped by the maintenance pass. Currently, we are interested in upgrading neglected and abandoned portals. There will be opportunity for maintained portals to opt-in later, or the portal maintainers can handle upgrading (the portals they maintain) personally at any time.

Background

On April 8th, 2018, an RfC ("Request for comment") proposal was made to eliminate all portals and the portal namespace. On April 17th, the Portals WikiProject was rebooted to handle the revitalization of the portal system. On May 12th, the RfC was closed with the result to keep portals, by a margin of about 2 to 1 in favor of keeping portals.

There's an article in the current edition of the Signpost interviewing project members about the RfC and the Portals WikiProject.

Since the reboot, the Portals WikiProject has been busy building tools and components to upgrade portals.

So far, 84 editors have joined.

If you would like to keep abreast of what is happening with portals, see the newsletter archive.

If you have any questions about what is happening with portals or the Portals WikiProject, please post them on the WikiProject's talk page.

Thank you.    — The Transhumanist   07:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

Personal transporter requested move notice

Greetings! I have recently relisted a requested move discussion at Talk:Personal transporter#Requested move 7 June 2018, regarding a page relating to this WikiProject. Discussion and opinions are invited. Thanks, Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Olympic Games listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Olympic Games to be moved to Olympics. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 11:15, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Haverford College Fords listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Haverford College Fords to be moved to Haverford Fords. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 23:32, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

U Craiova 1948 CS listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for U Craiova 1948 CS to be moved to CS Universitatea Craiova. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:02, 22 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Pato (game) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Pato (game) to be moved to Pato. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:14, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Screen sports

Any better categories here? An interesting phenomena, that seems to be using a Konglish term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:20, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Xare: Is this a hoax? Is it notable?

An unreferneced stub from 2009. Is this notable? Could it be a hoax? I see a few non-wiki mentions but they could have been inspired by a long-standing hoax. If it is not a hoax, maybe it should be merged somewhere? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:35, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Never heard of it, until now, but this YouTube video seems to show us the game - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jEedhJGg5Tw HiLo48 (talk) 08:11, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

If it can't be verified it should be deleted. It doesn't provide any cultural context, nor sufficient detail to distinguish it from pelota.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:21, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

No thoughts on the video? HiLo48 (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

People posting self-published videos on YouTube isn't reliable sourcing, and it's not enough to figure out if it's actually a different game from pelota. We just don't have information, so there's no substance to work with. Even if we had a rulebook, etc., there still the notability matter. There are at least tens of thousands of games and sports around the world, but only a tiny fraction should have articles here.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:56, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's mentioned among several other rules variants at Basque pelota. I've removed my {{Prod}}, and {{Merge}} tagged it instead.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  03:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

It's verifiable (https://books.google.com.au/books?id=jcUIDAAAQBAJ&pg=PA36) and is also spelt "share", which is a bit tricky to search for. It's questionable as to whether it meets the notability bar but it might. Support merge and redirect to Basque_pelota#Xare_(official_international_specialty), on the possibly dangerous presumption that the es-wiki article accurately reflects its sources. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 03:10, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Xare is most definitely not a hoax, some of my friends play it's probably one of the most spectacular versions of Basque pelota I've tried it myself and it is not easy! That said it's a very little known version. Also the article was not written by anyone who has seen the game played because there is no net and the players do not face each other but face the front wall of the court and the game is played like squash. There is nothing really to merge into the article except maybe the description of the movement which is similar to the joko-garbi. The pelote is half caught and then flicked out of the net in the same fluid movement. If you can imagine cracking a whip the backward mouvement is the phase where the pelote enters the net and the forward movement is the one used to flick the pelote out. Dom from Paris (talk) 05:08, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

How "spectacular" it is has nothing to do with whether it should be a stand-alone page. That's a matter for WP:GNG. Personal anecdotes about how the game is played don't have anything to do with the discussion, either; we need sources for that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:47, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• 110 pages of coverage in this journal from the University of Malaga.
• Quite a few articles from Lecturas educación física y deportes (Buenos Aires)
• A monograph, possibly self-published but by a legitimate historian (so at least the bibliography should be treated as pointing to evidence of coverage)
• There's an international competition, and evidence of some news coverage.

With what's visible plus the indications from the bibliographies, I reckon there'd probably be enough out there to pass GNG if someone fluent in Spanish (+Basque?) were inclined to save it. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 14:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

• Possibly, but zero harm of any kind is done by merging it, and doing so won't prejudice against a full article's later re-creation the way an AfD would.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:33, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

RfC on the treatment of team colors

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Milwaukee Bucks#RfC for team colors

This is really beyond the Milwaukee Bucks or even sports in particular, and relevant to coverage of organizations and their house styles generally. This touches on all of: MOS:CAPS, MOS:TM, WP:NOR, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE, in various aspects (see the more detailed discussion below the !vote section).
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:20, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Authorised Neutral Athletes listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Authorised Neutral Athletes to be moved to Authorised Neutral Athlete. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 16:48, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

IAAF World Youth Championships in Athletics listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for IAAF World Youth Championships in Athletics to be moved to IAAF World U18 Championships. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:46, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Flag templates linking wrong country

Just found out that there's some sports articles (mainly athletics & swimming) that link to {{ANT}} for Antigua and Barbuda (their IOC code), but link goes to Netherlands Antilles (per ISO code). See also Wikipedia:Inline templates linking country articles - maybe the same problem with {{BRN}} (Brunei) while meant Bahrain. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 10:26, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Pelmeen10, could you please give some examples? Primefac (talk) 00:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I fixed it ANT at 2018 IAAF World U20 Championships, 2016 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 50 metre butterfly and 2016 FINA World Swimming Championships (25 m) – Men's 50 metre freestyle. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 03:32, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

It is rather annoying that every organization has a slightly different code for the various countries (you'd think they would throw out the old ones and just agree with a new set), but I don't see there's anything to do other than fix bad template calls when we find them (there's no way we could guarantee accuracy via template). I mean, we could throw in a preview-only warning (much like infoboxes do with bad parameters) but the likelihood of anyone seeing that is rather slim. Primefac (talk) 13:19, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to me; some of use preview a lot, especially when dealing with fiddly templates and double-especially when they're being laid out in tables.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:29, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

Use of "host city" for events held in multiple neighbouring municipalities?

There's an RM I'm following at the moment in order to move Nagano, Nagano to the base title Nagano, but I think the base title is ambiguous and has no primary topic, so I've been going through the pages that link to it, many of which related to Winter Olympics events. 1998 Winter Olympics refers to "Nagano" as the "host city" but 1998 Winter Olympics#Venues indicates that only five of the fifteen venues were located in Nagano City.

Obviously if all the reliable sources refer to "Nagano" as the "host city" we can't contradict them, but I'm wondering if the "official" sources actually do say "host city" when it is not technically accurate. Has this kind of thing been discussed before? I hardly ever edit sports articles so I don't even know where to start with the research.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)

It is quite common for Winter Olympics to be spread out, outside the host city, although that city is still commonly refered to as the host. I can't comment on the merit of the move itself. CRwikiCA talk 02:13, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

RFC on the use of notable games sections

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Non-admin closure Closing this AfD with No result and without prejudice, on the basis of serious technical faults. Per WP:RFCQ and WP:RFC, the RfC question should [be] as specific as possible, yet the question posed here is hopelessly vague. It's in reference to "many sports," without defining which sports exactly, or at the very least which category of sports, e.g. track and field. The subsequent discussion has focused mostly on Chess but it would certainly be a mistake to suggest rules about "many sports" articles on the basis of one sport only, no matter what that sport is. The enormous variety of sports demands that a specific question about a specific sport be submitted. From then on, and depending on the RfC outcome, the path is to be defined.
It should be clarified that the notion of notable "games" (a completely different notion altogether from "matches" in Chess, incidentally) does exist, per abundant sources. Whether or not a section dedicated to notable games and matches should be constructed in Wikipedia articles is a matter that could be discussed in properly formulated RfCs. -The Gnome (talk) 09:18, 27 July 2018 (UTC)

---

In many sports articles there are sections dedicated to listing or detailing notable games. I am looking to gather some opinions on how these sections should be handled, particularly in biographies. Should they be included at all? If so what should be the criteria for a game to be designated notable? AIRcorn (talk) 07:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Additional notes: The majority of these I have come across relate to Chess Players and Baseball Umpires. I will leave messages at their wikiprojects, but if there are any others editors think should be contacted feel free to do so. Also while notable games are used for lots of different sporting articles, I am most interested in there use on biographies, where our sourcing requirements are stronger. However I welcome opinions on the other articles. AIRcorn (talk) 07:37, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

You will find a lot more such events if you search for "matches", as well as "games". In the game of cricket, it's quite normal, and actually expected, for particular highly successful innings or bowling performances (all within single games) to be mentioned in a BLP. HiLo48 (talk) 07:50, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not worried about mentioning them in their career, it is more having a dedicated section where we are deciding what constitutes a notable game or match. I searched "notable matches" and could not find a cricket one. Do you have an example. It seems to be common for football referees though so I will leave a message at their wikiproject too. AIRcorn (talk) 08:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

Might be good to take into account already-existing lengthy thread WT:CHESS#'Notable games' inclusion criteria. --IHTS (talk) 08:44, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• Preferably not included. As a general section I find these to be a poor implementation of describing the games someone has participated in. Any games mentioned in this section should easily fit into their career section given that they are deemed by us to have been important in their career. Often these are just presented in list form, which brings undue concerns as not all games are equally notable, something a list does not usually distinguish between. It also raises original research questions. Mostly we are deciding if a game is notable, instead of letting secondary sources do so. By incorporating them into their career we can still have much the same information, but are not calling special attention to them as being extra notable. If it is decided that such a section is valid I think it should only contain games a source has designated as being notable. For some examples of biographies with notable games sections see Magnus Carlsen (which lead me to asking for a RFC) and Ángel Hernández (umpire) (which I incorporated a year ago, but has since been changed back). AIRcorn (talk) 07:56, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I think there is a difference to be made between some of these 'notable games' listed in some of the examples (which appear to just be exciting matches at most) versus things like Bobby Moore winning the World Cup having its own subsection to his career (not that I think his article is in a good shape currently). To carve out a section entirely for notable games for a club, or player, you would think that (within the context of the clubs career in particular) this would be likely to justify its own standlone article if it is in fact so notable (and be referenced via a "See main", or "See also"). If it isn't notable enough for its own article, then it should instead be summarised within the annual section of each team, and then treated in context for the club history. Koncorde (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

They should just be mentioned within the prose. However, I wouldn't be against them being in a section in a stub or something since its just an "unfinished" article at that point. -DJSasso (talk) 13:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• There is remarkable destructive power in the acceptance of user Aircorn's proposal. One tiny example, take a look at Genrikh Kasparyan. The logical conclusion to Aircorn's idea w/ result in the removal of sec "Sample study". And that would be absurd. (Therefore, something is decidedly wrong in this original proposal.) p.s. Please don't argue sechead "Sample study" is not equivalent to sechead "Notable games", there is no substantive difference. (WP:CHESS bios often have sechead "Example game[s]" or "Sample game[s]" or "Illustrative game[s]" which often become renamed to "Notable games" for cross-bio uniformity and MoS requirement for the plural case in such secheads.) --IHTS (talk) 15:48, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I doubt that is the case. The sample cases are often more like "playing style", or specific points of interest. Aircon is clearly not referring to chess, and inferring that 'notable games' (which are often unsourced, or weakly referenced not notable games) would somehow sweep away chess is a stretch of the meaning of 'logical conclusion'. Chess, and many other sports and games have very distinct inclusion criteria for what is notable or significant enough to warrant splitting matches away from the core narrative. Koncorde (talk) 17:53, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I have no idea what you mean. This whole issue started w/ chess, user Aircorn states that above. Aircorn *is* speaking about "Notable games" secs in WP:CHESS articles. (Why do you say he isn't?) What means "sweep away chess"? I was clear in the example I gave about secs equivalent to secheads "Notable games". I'm not familiar nor do I have to be in this discussion re sports matches & splitting them, this thread is 1/2 about WP:CHESS bios. I think you don't comprehend this thread or what I wrote above.

For WP:CHESS bios, are you suggesting "Notable games" secs list "playing style or specific points [games] of interest"? I suppose many times that is true. And on that basis I w/ have little problem w/ "Notable games" secs in WP:CHESS bios renamed to "Playing style" or "Games of interest". But that's unfortunately not what those secs are most often named. If I understand you correctly, you are claiming a substantive difference based on word choice ("notable" versus "style" or "point of interest"). The same arguments c/ be made against those secheads. ("What makes the games included more representative of playing style [or more interesting than] the subject's other games?" This topic has built-in confusions that haven't been dealt with, and plowing forward to a "solution" when the problem isn't well defined or understood can never be a good idea. --IHTS (talk) 18:43, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

• On the specific point of inclusion of notable matches in biographies, I would say that if an event warrants its own article, then it at least deserves a paragraph summary of the event's relevance to the subject. If the subject's role in that event was minor (e.g. uneventful umpiring of said match) then a sentence or two will do.
• In terms of notability of the games, I think lots of this is covered under general notability. Major finals in major sports receive lots of contemporaneous and retrospective analysis and discussion by sports media. Top level, non-final games with particularly unusual outcomes, happenings or innovations receive the same treatment (e.g. Isner–Mahut match at the 2010 Wimbledon Championships). Everything I see in Category:Sports matches falls into one of those two categories. In my opinion, greater coverage of both these match types is warranted based on level of third party coverage (and is desired by readers). Clearly we should avoid whole-article-level coverage of routine fixtures (which is better briefly summarised in team-by-season articles or under rivalry articles), and I've seen little evidence of that happening often. Having worked on numerous Olympic event articles, I think other sports would really benefit from that approach. For example, I find it pretty crazy that we have almost as many articles in Category:Berlin Marathon as we do in Category:Tennis matches. Major sports finals, in particular, deserve better coverage. Category:FIFA World Cup finals should be the standard, not Category:FIBA Basketball World Cup Finals. SFB 21:11, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
• In the context of chess biographies, this concern has already received recent and extensive discussion at WT:CHESS, so this is just forum shoppping since Aircorn didn't get the result they desired there. You can talk about baseball umpire biographies here if you like, but this discussion won't change how chess biographies are handled. Also, as a note, general notability has nothing to do with this question. Notability concerns whether a topic should receive a standalone article. Article content is not controlled by notability guidelines, different standards apply. Anyway, this was all hashed and rehashed at WT:CHESS. 03:11, 26 May 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quale (talk • contribs)
• The inclusion criteria should not be as stiff as notability (which applies to article topics, not items in articles), but there ought to at least be sources pointing out a game as being particularly important, unusual, or representative for us to include it as such. Dicklyon (talk) 05:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)
• Keep the sections as per consensus at WP:Chess, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 08:13, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
• I won't speak to chess, but for any sport, I would consider a list of "notable matches" to be a flaw in the article. Such notable events should be covered in prose form as part of the athlete's main biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Resolute (talk • contribs)
  • I agree with the above – this is what the career section is for. If a major player has many notable games, then this could be span out into a list article. SFB 01:34, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

King University Tornados listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for King University Tornados to be moved to King Tornado. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 17:35, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2018 in ice sports listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2018 in ice sports to be moved to 2017–18 in ice sports. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 08:03, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

2018 in ice sports listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for 2018 in ice sports to be moved to 2017–18 in ice sports. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 18:04, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

World Championships in XXXX navboxes

Hi all,

I've recently been doing a lot of updating/creating World Pool championship articles, and saw there is a Template:World championships in 2014 to Template:World championships in 2018 navigational boxes. However, there are obviously a lot of world championships that pre-date this, and a lot of them follow a naming convention. I'm quite happy to create some of these going backwards, however, I'd want a little consensus on what constitutes a world championship. For instance, does the FIFA World Cup qualify as a world championship? This seems like the most notable type of world championship, but is omitted from the template. Is this because it's known as a "World Cup", rather than a "World Championship"? Many Thanks, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:29, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The FIFA World Cup is listed as Association football under Summer sports. There are many football codes and "Association football" is the name Wikipedia generally uses in articles which are not country-specific. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

By the way, I once started on {{World championships in year}} but abandoned it after realizing how often World championships change name and year cycle. PrimeHunter (talk) 09:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

That makes a lot of sense, I didn't realise this was under Association football (I was simply looking for football). Good shout. I'll try my best to backdate some templates. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: It's inefficent to make a large number of yearly templates. Each time a new sport is added, it has to be added to every year there was a championship. If I write more documentation for {{World championships in year}} then would you be willing to add data about the name and years of World championships in various sports? PrimeHunter (talk) 10:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter - I would be happy to give it a go. Sadly, this sort of this will always be rolling, this looks like a good solution Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I see you are already off to a good start. {{World championships in 2013}} could simply contain {{World championships in year|2013}}. Then {{World championships in year}} uses its data to determine which links to add for that year. It takes time to add the data but then we could immediately make yearly templates going back to 1930 or whatever. PrimeHunter (talk) 11:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

- Indeed. Seems like a phenominal idea! I'm having a slight issue with the conditional formatting, as I'd like it to look similar to how it already does in {{World championships in 2015}}, with disciplines in brackets from the original sports. This is fine to do if they are all played in a year, such as pool for:

However, when one isn't played, it creates an open bracket such as:

Any ideas? I'm sure it's something super easy to fix, but I'm a little dim when it comes to this sort of stuff. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

The list rendering works better without empty asterisks.[1] PrimeHunter (talk) 11:49, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah! I did try that, but for some reason, I changed it back. Thanks for your help. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I have a question - can the indoor sports really be called "summer sports"? Basketball, futsal, volleyball, gymnastics, swimming, table tennis, different martial arts/combat sports etc. The competitions are often held in winter also. --Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:51, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

PrimeHunter - I'm not entirely sure what I am doing incorrectly. This edit seems to destroy the template; and I can't work out why. I've tried removing the conditions, and all sorts, but the template seems fine with single letters, but not full words or links. Any ideas? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:15, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Fixed by reducing test cases in the documentation.[2] The template was actually working when it looked broken but the documentation was unable to display 89 years at the same time due to Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. PrimeHunter (talk) 10:27, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

I figured it was an issue with size limits, but I couldn't work it out. Thanks. I've now completed the Winter sports section (all sports from the 2015 Template). Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Update - I've put on all of the tournaments from the 2015 template, and is nearly finished {{World championships in year}}. Is there any other world championships that need adding? - The template needs some older dates changed, and I feel it may be in flux quite a bit, but looks good to me. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:04, 28 August 2018 (UTC)

Great work. I guess we still miss some 2016–18 championships which were not held in 2015. I don't think events from the World Table Tennis Championships should have separate links when they were at the same time and place. Imagine if every event at the athletics and aquatics championships had separate links. PrimeHunter (talk) 00:22, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

- Makes perfect sense. I'll adjust. There will also be other events that are not covered by this (Such as retired world championships), but I feel like these will simply be added over time by editors. I can see an issue regarding spreading the template though, I'm not sure on the best way to attach these to the thousands of articles it covers. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:50, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work on this template. Biathlon appears in both summer and winter in the 2017 template. Also should para athletics be moved into a bracket after athletics like swimming? GhostOrchid35 (talk) 11:41, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

No idea on the Biathlon - After a while, all the sports merge into one! Changed. - As for the para athletics, it's an odd one. Usually, this is fine, but I'd have to have some thoughts on how to actually implement this. We have athletics world championships, and this would be fine, as a bracketed option, but this isn't always the case. There are some years where there is para athletics, and no athletics. I'll have a bit of a play. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:51, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

 Done Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:02, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

Lists of sportsperson are now obsolete

In my opinion lists as this, like many other similar lists created at the dawn of Wikipedia, today no longer has any reason to exist. before I ask for the deletion, I take a survey here. --Kasper2006 (talk) 09:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)

Seems to duplicate a potential category with the exact same content. CRwikiCA talk 01:51, 24 August 2018 (UTC)

See WP:NOTDUPE. Both have their purposes and advantages. Both are good to have. -DJSasso (talk) 02:31, 31 August 2018 (UTC)

Nicholls State Colonels listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Nicholls State Colonels to be moved to Nicholls Colonels. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 06:02, 2 September 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

RfC at Talk:Sport in Australia

There is an RFC on Population-Wide Metrics at Talk:Sport in Australia Should the sport in Australia page have participation statistics from Ausplay, a study funded and led by the Australian Sports Commission on sport participation. Join in the fun and frolic. Fyunck(click) (talk) 05:45, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Template:Infobox field hockey team

Regarding UCD Ladies' Hockey Club, anybody here know how to add skirts to Template:Infobox field hockey team. Thanks in advance for any help provided. Djln Djln (talk) 19:03, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Page names

Hey project. I was moving a file File:Sialkot-Stallions.jpg. In the process of moving the file and fixing links while I'm at it, I came across pages like 2006–07 ABN-AMRO Twenty-20 Cup, which according to WP:DATERANGE should be 2006–2007 ABN-AMRO Twenty-20 Cup. If there is consensus to move these pages I found Category:Domestic cricket competitions in 2006–07 and {{Pakistan Twenty20 League}} that have a bunch of pages listed, but obviously I don't edit sports pages I don't know if there's more pages not listed. I just wanted to notify someone of this. I wouldn't mind helping moving these pages, just give me a ping. :) Cheers, - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 11:16, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime Phone: While I am no expert on cricket, many sports seasons that occur over two year dates fall under MOS:DATERANGE: Two-digit ending years (1881–82, but never 1881–882 or 1881–2) may be used in any of the following cases: (1) two consecutive years; (2) infoboxes and tables where space is limited (using a single format consistently in any given table column); and (3) in certain topic areas if there is a very good reason, such as matching the established convention of reliable sources. Essentially, the XXXX–XX season is often the WP:COMMONNAME in the sources for those sports seasons. Yosemiter (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

No problem, I'm no expert either. :P - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 18:26, 1 October 2018 (UTC)

Template talk:Infobox sportsperson: "National caps" line

What do you thonk about? Would it be possible to add the caps in national team line, as is, for istance, in {{Infobox football biography}}? For example in Alessandro Del Piero in the {{Infobox football biography}} is |nationalteam1 = [[Italy national under-17 football team|Italy U17]] and |nationalcaps1 = 3. In {{Infobox sportsperson}} there is only the line "national_team" I would that we have also the line "national_caps". --Kasper2006 (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

Reliability of Ultimate articles?

In response to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 American Ultimate Disc League season, I’d like to question the opinion of the WikiProject on whether common sources used for these articles such as Ultiworld are reliable for use in these articles. 99.203.30.242 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

WikiProject Creation

Can a wikiproject page for soccer (not football) please be created? SportsFan007 (talk) 03:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)SportsFan007

There is! Wikipedia:WikiProject Football --Kasper2006 (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

WP:RM discussion at Talk:Diving

A move discussion at Talk:Diving regarding the re-naming or re-purposing of that page may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. power~enwiki (π, ν) 02:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Lake surfing, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 3 December 2018 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

CFD: Proposed renaming of Wikipedian sports fans categories

At Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 December 5#Wikipedian_sports_fans I have proposed renaming 718 sub-categories Category:Wikipedians by interest in a sport, to use the phrase "interested in" rather than the word "fans".

The discussion will consider how this proposal fits with Wikipedia's categorisation guidelines. Please add your comments at the Categories for discussion page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:35, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

VERBAL AND SEXUAL ABUSE

I have no other means to bring this issue here, recently from a ip address, an edit had been done at the article of Saina Nehwal. The edit was nothing but a verbal and sexual abuse in "Hindi" to defame the sport person. Please if anyone know how to request for the blocking of this ip-address please do it. Thank you. Dey subrata (talk) 12:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

 Done GiantSnowman 12:53, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

RM: Ice resurfacer

A requested move discussion is taking place at Talk:Ice resurfacer, and your input would be welcome. Mathglot (talk) 08:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

Ingemar Stenmark

Extra eyes at Ingemar Stenmark would be welcome. Boeing720 is continuing to edit war (and refusing to discuss on the talk page) in order to include some egregious WP:PUFFERY and incomprehensible English. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 19:04, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Bowls

Hi all,

As there isn't a WikiProject for the game of Bowls, or anything active that covers the subject matter; I thought I'd ask the question here. I've seen quite a few BLPs with the disambiguation X (bowls); such as Paul Foster (bowls), or current indoor world champion Stewart Anderson (bowls). Is this really the suitible disambiguation for these pages? I suggest X (bowler), or X (bowls player) similar to other sports such as Mark Gray (pool player), or Stan Smith (footballer).

Is there a more suitible place to talk about this, and is this something that would need administration help to make wholesale changes. It should also be noted this would only be for BLPs, as I'm sure there are articles for bowls related things. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:27, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Discussion of Dai Sport (dai-sport.com) at the reliable sources noticeboard

There is a discussion on the reliability of Dai Sport (dai-sport.com) at the reliable sources noticeboard. If you are interested, please participate at WP:RSN § dai-sport.com. — Newslinger talk 02:41, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Notability question

I had discussed notability of Amit Chhetri at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions/Archive_914#Notability_question. Is he notable?-Nizil (talk) 04:31, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Guidelines question on governing bodies

Hello my question concerns project guidelines relating to governing bodies of sport is it correct to merge information relating to a world governing body of a sport with a national governing body of the same sport who is just one member nation of the world body. For example this navigation template now lists all ranked events of the world body with the ranked events of just one national member of that body when there was two separate ones Template:BDO Tournaments and Template:WDF Tournaments. There are 80 other national members of the World Darts Federation regardless of whether there is an overlap of tournaments surely global and national level sports bodies should be kept separate any thoughts anyone.--Navops47 (talk) 04:18, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:ABC's Wide World of Sports for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:ABC's Wide World of Sports is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:ABC's Wide World of Sports until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Gym, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article was scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

A new newsletter directory is out!

A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.

– Sent on behalf of Headbomb. 03:11, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Winter Paralympics for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Winter Paralympics is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Winter Paralympics until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:38, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Canadian football for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Canadian football is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Canadian football until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:35, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Figure skating for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Figure skating is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Figure skating until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:14, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

chalk line drawing roller cart thingie

Hey, sporty colleagues! I am working on The Tempestry Project and a related article, and both mention an artist who used a 'chalk marker' to draw lines through and around a city. I had zero idea what that meant until I found her website and realized it's that little roller cart thing they use to draw the lines on sports fields and pitches. You guys here are probably thinking this is just too obvious, but I don't sports. If possible I'd like to be able to provide a helpful wikilink for other idiots like me. There doesn't seem to be an article, though a check at References/Entertainment show there doesn't seem to be a standard term for this thing, either, so maybe I'm just not finding it. At any rate, with no standard term, I have zero ideo how to google it accurately enough to show enough notability to even write a stub. I kind of feel like with all the stuff that's been written about sports over the past 100+ years, someone must have written about this thing. Like, somoene somewhere invented the darn thing; someone must have been commenting on it at the time, as it must have been a kind of major deal in sports circles. But I have no idea where even to look.

So: long story short: Would anyone here know of sources -- maybe some book or article on the history of fields and pitches or something -- that could be used for this? If I can find even ONE source that mentions this thing, I'd try to start a draft in userspace, but as a 100% non-expert in sports I kind of hate to start work on this if everyone here thinks I'd be out of luck finding any sources at all.

Thanks for any help! --valereee (talk) 12:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

I've started a draft at Draft:Line marker (sports) and would appreciate some more-expert eyes. --valereee (talk) 16:44, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Nice article! Primefac (talk) 19:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks! --valereee (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Volleyball for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Volleyball is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Volleyball (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:33, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Requested move

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Case Western Reserve Spartans that would benefit from your input and opinion. Please come and help! Paine Ellsworth, ed. ^put'r there  16:41, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

WP:FAC - 2018 World Snooker Championship

An article in this project space 2018 World Snooker Championship has been added as a Featured Article Candidate. Please see the nomination page to discuss. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:59, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Need to reduce 2019 in sports now

I see there have been previous discussions on the talk page about the size of 2019 in sports but this is becoming an urgent issue. This is the 7th largest article on Wikipedia (see Special:LongPages) and it is only June 3rd. This article can't double in size before the end of the year or it will approach 1M bytes! How can this article be split up? Or are there simply sections that can be removed or reduced?

I'm not a sports fan so I don't feel like boldly going in and hacking away so I'll just try to rejuvenate this discussion and add a little urgency to the decisions that should be made before July starts up. Even if the year was divided up (Jan-June, July-Dec), this article would STILL be too big. What are some feasible but substantial changes that wouldn't cause a revolt in sports-minded Wikipedia editors? Change needs to happen, sooner better than later (autumn). Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC) (cross-posted from Talk:2019 in sports)

More Year in X articles is the way forward, and only put down the really notable events. Particularly things like Handball and Ultimate Frisbee could do with a prune. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

It's been trimmed a fair amount, fwiw. Primefac (talk) 12:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Snooker for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Snooker is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Snooker until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:33, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Women in sports

WikiProject Women in Red is devoting the next two months (July and August) to a virtual editathon on Women in Sports. Please take this opportunity to improve articles about women who lag far behind men on Wikipedia's coverage of sports.--Ipigott (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sporting histories

Hello, all. I've just become interested in this project as something of a social historian but perhaps more so because I'm a footy fan who also likes sport in general and is known to have cue and (try to) pot a few; as well as sometimes losing a few quid at Aintree and Haydock Park.

Anyway, I see in your project page that you say: "Currently, there are relatively few general histories about individual sports and most sports have their histories within the sport's own article (e.g., the history of boxing is in the main boxing article, whereas baseball has a history of baseball article). Until such time as a general history of the sport can be created, the main article must be included in the sports history category".

It struck me that the category presents a decidedly limited number of sporting histories because of their inclusion in the main articles so I've set up several redirects within Category:History of sports by sport to the history sections of the more prominent sports which don't have historical categories. When I say "more prominent", that infers a limit to what I've done so far and in fact there are countless other sports which deserve historical coverage and recognition so this is just a start. Ideally, I think we should aim to have a "history of x" article for every sport within a "history of x" category for every sport.

Thank you. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:30, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

FA requiring attention

An Featured Article nomination that might concern this project at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2018 World Snooker Championship/archive2 requires additional commentary and support/opposes. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:48, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Also this one Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/2019 Tour Championship/archive1, will close soon. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:51, 20 August 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Portal:Olympic Games for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether Portal:Olympic Games is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The page will be discussed at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Olympic Games until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the page during the discussion, including to improve the page to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the deletion notice from the top of the page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:27, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

20XX in sports

I opened a discussion a couple of weeks ago in the talk page of 2020 in sports and invited everyone interested in this project to participate. Since this project is often heavily overloaded with information and needs some important changes for what concerns the page content, I newly invite everyone interested in this project to participate, otherwise those changes will be made necessarily. --151.50.223.199 (talk) 14:15, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Women in Red's stub contest is starting now

Our three-month stub contest is starting now and will continue until the end of the year. Although there will be no physical prizes, each month (October, November and December) recognition will be given to the winners of two different sections: one for new stubs, the other for enhancing existing stubs to start class and beyond. The contest is open to all registered members of Women in Red. Join in now and help us improve coverage of women in sport on Wikipedia.--Ipigott (talk) 19:22, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Planned Edits to Women's Sports Article

Hello! I plan on editing the "Women's Sports" article as part of a class project. I will be restructuring the article, such as combining smaller sections together into larger ones; editing sections so they include the experiences of athletes in a greater number of non-Western countries; and adding new sections, like "Professional Sports," to further enrich the article. If you'd like to learn more about my plans, please visit my Sandbox, where I have included an annotated bibliography and more details on my plans. Thanks! Emilymohlin (talk) 03:19, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Merger discussion for Portal:Sports

An article that you have been involved in editing—Portal:Sports—has been proposed for merging with another article. If you are interested, please participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Guilherme Burn (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

RfC on brain damage

There is an RfC currently underway about where a section on brain damage should appear in a biography of a football player. Your contribution would be welcome. --Slugger O'Toole (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

ball game needs major improvement

I've just stumbled upon ball game, which is almost a disambig, but I think it has a tremendous potential for growth, if anyone is looking for good major topic to work on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:14, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I think it fits more of a WP:CONCEPTDAB really Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:21, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

FAC reviewing of sports articles

It seems sports articles are a difficult proposition to get through the FAC review process. My recent experience has proven that it can be something of a grind to find reviews rather than a process of simply ensuring the article is of sufficient quality. The comments of one of the FAC coordinators Laser brain at the FAC review for 1982 Formula One World Championship seem to strike a similar cord where they state "I understand sports articles often struggle for reviews". But why? In my experience, sports have just as many active participating editors as most other topics, football possibly even more, yet improving an article to featured status is rarely achieved.

Right now there are three sports articles at FAC which have generated two reviews between them despite all being listed for over a month, while sports and recreation articles have almost double the backlog of any other category at good article nominations. Perhaps the fact that we have separate WikiProjects for individual sports dilutes the pool of willing editors somewhat. Would there be any merit in something like a task force, a newsletter for interested parties to sign up for or even an individual WikiProject for sports reviews? MILHIST has a core of editors who frequently participate in GA, A-class and FAC reviews, often following the article through the promotion cycles, and this is something I'd hope to replicate. I'm just looking to float ideas and judge interest really. Kosack (talk) 08:02, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I've always found that FA reviews are flawed in that there isn't much of a benefit unless you have your own FA that you want QPQ. There's also a short period of time (say 6 weeks) for a review to be done by lots of people before the nom closes. I think rewarding users for doing reviews is by far the best way to go. As you know, I promote a lot of snooker/cue sport articles to GA and then to FA. I pretty much rely on directly asking users who might do a review for me. If there was a list of reviews done per month (or overall) for sports article - which is something we already have stats for - and promote this it'll help draw in more willing reviewers. I'd be up for helping out with anything that helps draw in FAC reviewers. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:08, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

I also have found it an issue, having struggled to get several sports articles through the FAC process. I know that for ice hockey-related articles (which I've focused on), there is relative apathy from users at WP:HOCKEY. I don't say this to begrudge anyone there, as they are focused on other tasks that are equally important for a project like that, but it does of course mean that any hockey-related FAC articles are going to suffer. As noted above though, I do try to make an effort to review sports articles whenever I have one of my own at FAC, in hopes of a reciprocal action, but it is not a sustainable way to do things (and I'll even admit I don't try to review every article, but ones that catch my interest, so I'm equally guilty). I realise this doesn't really give any advice on how to solve the issue, but I hope it gives perspective on what is going on for others to understand. Kaiser matias (talk) 18:06, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps visibility is a problem, other than physically checking FAC on a regular basis, the only way I know of to find genre specific FACs is on the WikiProject front page. I'm not sure how often these pages are read and most projects have a bot that updates the article alerts so it doesn't move up people's watchlists. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Rugby union includes its article alerts on the project talk page and the page views for this and the talk pages of both WP:FOOTBALL and WP:HOCKEY as a comparison are all significantly higher than the project page. Maybe this provides a more visible outlet for articles?

Not many projects have their own newsletters unfortunately and the ones that do are defunct. Whether reviving one of these or creating an all-inclusive sports newsletter is worthwhile, I'm not sure. Or a sports newsletter that posts to the talk page of every sport WikiProject? Kosack (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Partly for this reason, I have drifted away from sports articles into MILHIST. The A-class review system, which polishes articles until they are more or less Featured quality works very well. Trialling a similar system at WP:SPORTS, if enough editors who work on Good and Featured quality articles are interested, might be worth a go? Harrias ^talk 10:45, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

If we could find a core of regular reviewers, this could be worth a shot. Kosack (talk) 12:06, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I don't know that it is necessarily apathy. I know for one I do not review ice hockey articles specifically because it is an area I edit heavily in so I treat it as being too involved to review. I know a number of people do similar. -DJSasso (talk) 13:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:UST Growling Tigers#Team rosters. — Marchjuly (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Article issues

There are comments at Talk:National Hockey League#Article issues for anyone interested. Otr500 (talk) 13:56, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

ATP Cup teams/countries

Isn't the country link should be the national team like Spain Davis Cup team instead of the whole country. See in e.g. 2018 FIFA World Cup. I suggest to change Template:ATP Cup box to a format like in Template:Hopman Cup box so that the countries as a whole no longer associated to the tournament but instead the team representing each of them. Flix11 (talk) 09:43, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Inviting @Yimingbao: @BundesBerti: @JWD126: to discuss. No hard feelings. Flix11 (talk) 04:16, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Split or at least restructuring proposed at Sports league (along pro vs. am lines)

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Please see Talk:Sports league#Needs to split or at least re-organize along pro/am lines. Summary: The present article is overwhelmingly dominated by pro-sports material (all of which has its own articles already), meanwhile there is not much about amateur/recreational leagues nor really room to put it in there due to how the article is structured and scoped. These really are not the same topic (just the same term, "sport[s] league" – this is a bit of a WP:DICDEF problem), and they either need sharply delimited sections or probably separate articles, along WP:SUMMARY and WP:SETINDEX lines.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:18, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Icelandic league articles

Articles on Icelandic football seasons have been given titles in Icelandic, making them opaque and ill-suited for English Wikipedia. They don't even mention "Icelandic" in their titles, as though it's Wikipedia readers' responsibility to infer the subject of an article in part by the language in which the title is written (assuming they even recognize the language). These titles don't even mention the sport, and even the word for "men" ("karla") is in Icelandic. We don't do this for other countries: we don't title articles "hommes" for the French leagues and "мужчины" for Russian leagues.

I think, for example, that Úrvalsdeild karla (football) should be named Icelandic Men's Premier League (football) 2019 1. deild karla should be named 2019 Icelandic Men's First Division Football, 2018 3. deild karla should be named 2018 Icelandic Men's Third Division Football, and 1. deild karla (basketball) should be named Icelandic Men's First Division (basketball).

I think we should have an RFC for this, but I thought I'd start by getting some initial feedback to get a sense of where it might go and to see if it would help me formulate the RFC properly (or maybe someone else with more experience would want to do it, if they agree with me). Largoplazo (talk) 12:29, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Strongly disagree per WP:COMMONNAME - the Úrvalsdeild is the proper name of the competition, and calling it the "Premier League" would be a fiction. For instance, Soccerway calls it Úrvalsdeild, and it's referred to as such in English media such as [3]. Other leagues in other languages tend to use direct translations if they're not used for the name of the league, for instance the Prva HNL in Croatia directly translates to Croatian First Football League in English (though I'd prefer it be Prva HNL, but that's just me.) We've even been going away from English-langauge titles in Spanish-language countries recently. But yeah, I strongly disagree with any name changes. As to the karla, that's an official part of the name as Iceland tends to refer to leagues, at least officially, as the men's league and the women's league. SportingFlyer T·C 12:49, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• Without commenting on the rest of your remarks, I'd like to point out that your first sentence contradicts itself. The whole point of WP:COMMONNAME is that what anyone considers to be the "proper" name isn't the determining factor. Largoplazo (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think it is contradictory. My basic point stands: per WP:UE and a Google news search, Úrvalsdeild is pretty well used in English-language news sources, but "Icelandic Premier League" is not. SportingFlyer T·C 14:20, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
• Mm, I'm with SportingFlyer. WP:COMMONNAME indicates that names should be rendered per the most common usage in English-language sources. If there are readers interested in a league for which they don't actually know its name (???), they can certainly go for the template at the bottom of every European national league article which lists every European top-level league by nation ... a template I didn't actually know existed two minutes ago, but expected would probably be there. Ravenswing 18:03, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:BOLD split of 2018 in sports and 2019 in sports

Both pages were in Category:Pages where template include size is exceeded. After reading both talk pages and noticing that 2017 in sports had "sub-articles" for each month, I created 2018 in sports by month and 2019 in sports by month. I figured one "by month" sub-article would be easier to manage than 12.

I recommend that the most important events from the new pages be put back in the old pages' "calendar by month" section.

It is very easy for list-type sports articles to wind up in the "template include size exceeded" due to the large number of flag-icon templates. Care should be taken to only use flags where appropriate, and to consider splitting articles if the HTML file sent to the web browser is approaching the software limit of 2MB. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 02:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)

Rfc for a template for Stanley Cup winning NHL teams

There is a clear consensus against having templates for NHL teams that won the Stanley Cup with the list of players and coaches who won the championship in their respective seasons.

Cunard (talk) 02:00, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

For the purpose of gaining WikiProject consensus, I'm starting a discussion regarding a proposal about whatever or not we should have templates for NHL teams that won the Stanley Cup with the list of players and coaches who won the championship in their respective seasons. We got templates for Super Bowl winning NFL teams, NBA teams who won the NBA Finals and MLB teams who won the World Series. Plus, we got a template for the hockey players who won the Triple Gold Club. For those reasons, it is possible to have templates for NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup.

Discussion

The discussion of this proposal are about putting in navbox templates for NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup in their respective seasons, like the ones we have in teams who won the Super Bowl, NBA Finals and the World Series. Option 1 is Support for inclusion of the templates. Option 2 is Oppose of not having them. Neutral is for those who are indecisive. Please state your comments about the proposal of having navigation boxes of NHL teams who won the Stanley Cup in their Stanley Cup winning seasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 06:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Can you clarify if you are proposing a navigation template, and if so, a navigation box or a sidebar? isaacl (talk) 07:17, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

It's a navigation box that goes on the bottom of the pages. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Just a tip: it would be helpful if you would follow the guidance at Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines § Editing own comments, so the context for my question would be preserved. Also, I strongly suggest that you should notify WikiProject Ice Hockey of this discussion. isaacl (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Right. It's my first time setting up something like this. I also notified WP:ICEHOCKEY about it. BattleshipMan (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

@BattleshipMan: This comes up every year or so, but the ice hockey wikiproject is against clutter such as template creep (per WP:NAVBOX under Disadvantages of having way too many). This was last discussed in January 2018, there is a good image of there what template creep looks like with a multiple championship winners footer looks like in baseball. Someone like Wayne Gretzky#External links would only get much worse with the footer clutter. Yosemiter (talk) 19:44, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

I actually don't really see that as a problem. There are reasons of having championship winner navboxes to make things easier for readers and it would more of a convenience to click on the link of the players who won the Stanley Cup while looking at the article of one of the players who did won the Stanley Cup. We have footers with teams who won the World Series in baseball. So I don't really see that as an issue. BattleshipMan (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

If we go by the guidelines we aren't actually supposed to have navboxes for World Series winners. You aren't supposed to include items in navboxes that wouldn't already be included in every page the navbox is used on (if the article was complete). And every player a player played with on a given championship team wouldn't be found on every page it was used on. Really the action here is to start removing them from other sports. You make the assumtion that it is a convenience having them on the bottom, quite the opposite is true when you start having too many navboxes with indiscriminant links in them. Suddenly a reader is opening many different navboxes looking for the link they want, when in almost all cases it would be easier for them to find it in almost any other manor. It is almost always quicker to click on their championship season link which will always be in their article, and then look at the roster there, then to open up the colapsing box on the bottom, then open up the individual navbox only to then have to find the link in the box. It is even worse if they have multiple championships to figure out. -DJSasso (talk) 18:45, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't need any clutter on our ice hockey bio & team articles. GoodDay (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Support

• Support I know I'm late to the game and am going against consensus but these are fairly common to have, help readers interested in specific teams navigate between players well, and can easily be hidden or minimised. SportingFlyer T·C 04:23, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Oppose

• Oppose As noted this has been brought up before, and WP:HOCKEY has consistently been against it, myself included. My opinion of it has not changed, and feel that it really doesn't add much, and only bloats articles. Kaiser matias (talk) 20:41, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose Per Kaiser matias, these sort of navigation articles just bloat articles needlessly. Harrias ^talk 20:59, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't think it really bloat articles at unnecessary levels. What about other NHL player articles that don't have that problem? Also, it's rather an inconvenience in some levels to not have the navigation box that reveals players and coaches who won a championship, like the Stanley Cup for example. BattleshipMan (talk) 22:21, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, as I always have. A list of teammates/officials for a given year is, bluntly, trivial and irrelevant on player biographies. Resolute 00:02, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: I think navboxes have gotten out of control on Wikipedia generally and in sports pages specifically. There are places already where a reader can get the complete rosters of Cup winning teams, such as the Stanley Cup Finals pages for any given year, or the season articles for the specific teams. The (putative) inconvenience to the theoretical reader unwilling to navigate to such pages is outweighed by the inconvenience to every reader of overbloat. Ravenswing 01:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose: - A navigational box for teams that have won the stanley cup? Sure. One with the players - clutter. We have a history for deleting navigational templates based on players in a team, or navigational boxes on players based on seasons. I don't think these particularly help, and should be in prose. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:45, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. As already noted by other users, this has been discussed more than once. In addition, WP:HOCKEY takes minimal approach regarding the navboxes so there are very few of them. – Sabbatino (talk) 18:31, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• We don't need any clutter. PS - Why are folks putting 'oppose' in front of there posts? This is the 'oppose' section of the survey. In this situation, we're suppose to number are posts. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per much of what is said already. WP:NAVBOX and WP:EMBED already say you shouldn't use navboxes for this purpose. -DJSasso (talk) 18:42, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Neutral

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Missing conceptual article: Invitational competition

We don't seem to have an article on this, but it's apt to be something people want to know about (especially kids who are not yet fully steeped in sports stuff). Redirects from Invitational tournament and even just Invitational would be good, plus the plurals.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  17:46, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Notice of RfC for use of "Gaelic footballer" vs "footballer" in disambiguators for Gaelic football player articles

Participants in this WikiProject may be interested in participating in the RfC at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#RfC: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople)#Association football (soccer), in regards to players of Gaelic football. The question has been raised regarding whether to use "(Gaelic footballer)" or "(footballer)" for the base/default disambiguator for Gaelic football player article disambiguation. Steel1943 (talk) 19:54, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Australia vs England in rugby league

Hello! I am starting to look at new articles someone recently created about Australia, but sports is not exactly my thing.

This draft contains over a dozen references from the same site. Is it necessary to link to these individual pages? If so, I would be happy to go ahead and correct their titles. Otherwise this would be unnecessary effort. It would be appreciated if you could kindly confirm this.

Also, do you consider this amount of coverage sufficient for moving this to mainspace?

Thank you and best regards, --Gryllida (talk) 00:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

2013 European Karate Championships

There are some problem with 2013 European Karate Championships. See old version and it:Campionati europei di karate 2013. Can you check and correct? --Dispe (talk) 10:46, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Dispe, the old version is from 2013, and uses some templates that have since changed. What is problematic in the current version? Primefac (talk) 20:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

@Primefac: The problem is that England has not won 6 gold medals. Someone changed the results.--Dispe (talk) 21:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

Is there a wikiproject sports shooting?

Pretty much exactly what it says in the title. Jasmine Ser could do with being looked at by more knowledgeable eyes. Three different sources all disagree about her 2010 Commonwealth Games results. Red Fiona (talk) 22:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)

No. Take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Directory/Culture/Sports and see what might help the most. Harrias ^talk 07:40, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Category:Sports events postponed due to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic

Considering adding proper subcatgories as the category is overcrowded. Unnamelessness (talk) 10:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

It's not clear if this category should include sporting seasons. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean "not clear"? We can categorize by sports. Unnamelessness (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

I meant league seasons, football for example. Not all of them were (are) in this category. Should articles such as 2019–20 Eerste Divisie even be there? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the question is - was it postponed? Strictly speaking, the ending of the season was postponed, so I'd have these articles added as well... Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

But when a season is finished later with shortened version (some games cancelled)? 2cats, postponed + curtailed? Pelmeen10 (talk) 20:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)

From my prospective, curtailed is not a subcate of postponed. They should've levelled same. Unnamelessness (talk) 07:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

True, I removed the parent cat. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:22, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Recommendations for full page cleanup - List of professional sports leagues

Hello everyone,

I know this has been talked about in the past but it should be raised again - the page List of professional sports leagues is a mess:

- The formatting is inconsistent for every sport.
- Many of the sections contain inaccurate information, including extinct leagues.
- Some of the sports here don't necessarily have "leagues" but "tournaments", such as MMA and MOST of boxing and tennis.

I am prepared to overhaul the page completely to give it a consistent format and up-to-date information for every section, however I would like some advice and recommendations from people here (especially from admins) for how to proceed.

I have a few questions concerning the above:

- Which format do you think is the best to adopt (I'm a little biased towards the format I used for both rugby codes so I would like other opinions too)?
- Which sports should be omitted from the list due to having too many leagues? Currently, this applies to association football and basketball, although I would add auto racing and esports to this list.
- Should tournaments and organisations not in a traditional league format (e.g. UFC) be included in the list or removed?
- When it comes to women's sports, should they be given their own subsection for each sport or be included in the men's section for each league system?

Many thanks, ATrueCelt (talk) 12:04, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

On a quick skim, the flags should be removed, and the section headers shouldn't have links. There's some interwiki links that should use {{ill}} instead. We also need citations to show that they are professional. I suggest this goes as a table, rather than a dry list. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply, would the below format be suitable for you? (using rugby union as an example)

League and System	Region Covered	Administered By	Ref.
Currie Cup Premier Division Currie Cup First Division Rugby Challenge	Sub-Saharan Africa	South African Rugby Union
División de Honor de Rugby	Spain	Federación Española de Rugby
Global Rapid Rugby	Oceania and Southeast Asia	Andrew Forrest
Major League Rugby	Canada and the United States	USA Rugby
Mitre 10 Cup	New Zealand	New Zealand Rugby
National Rugby Championship	Australia and Fiji	Rugby Australia
Premiership Rugby RFU Championship	England and Jersey	Rugby Football Union
Pro 14	South Africa and Western Europe	Irish Rugby Football Union Scottish Rugby Union Welsh Rugby Union
Professional Rugby League	Russia	Rugby Union of Russia
Super 6	Scotland	Scottish Rugby Union
Súper Liga Americana de Rugby	South America	Sudamérica Rugby
Super Rugby	Argentina, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa	SANZAAR
SuperLiga	Romania	Federația Română de Rugby
Top 14 Rugby Pro D2	France	Ligue Nationale de Rugby
Top12	Italy	Federazione Italiana Rugby
Top League	Japan	Japan Rugby Football Union
Welsh Premier Division	Wales	Welsh Rugby Union

ATrueCelt (talk) 17:10, 9 May 2020 (UTC)

Sports Reference Olympic final closure

Given the long-ago announcement, and officially occurred on 14 May 2020, the site closed definitively. How will Wikipedia behave now with the thousands of external links and not only that are present in the articles of the athletes on Wikipedia and Wikidata? --Kasper2006 (talk) 04:39, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

China national football team

We could use some eyes on China national football team. There is disagreement about content. It would be helpful for editors more familiar with our standards for football articles to help mediate. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

It's a little difficult without a topic about it on the page. I'll take a look at the history. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski Thanks. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

These are the edits and comments are the most egregious that highlight User:Pestick talk or User talk:14.231.64.162 maliciously removing encyclopedic content, or the changing of such content beyond all recognition, without any regard to our core content policies of neutral point of view to suit their bias opinion. As well as showing repeated disregards over other editors' questions or requests for explanations concerning edits or objections to edits.

edit 15:31, 25 April 2020 This show Historical negationism leading to systemic bias and lack of neutral point of view. Disruptive editing in repeated deletion of reliable sources posted by other editors.

edit 13:38, 21 April 2020 Removal of historical content has lead to historical negationism by ignoring or deleting significant views, research or information from notable sources that would usually be considered credible and verifiable in Wikipedia terms. Concealing or misrepresenting (or non-neutrally representing) relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to judge their value leading to systemic bias and lack of neutral point of view.

edit 13:29, 21 April 2020 Not allowing one view to "speak for itself", or refactoring its "world-view" into the words of its detractors.

edit 13:27, 21 April 2020 Entirely omitting significant citable information in support by minimizing, trivializing or ignoring other citations that call one's opinion into question.

edit 08:59, 21 April 2020 Information suppression by concealing relevant information about sources or sources' credentials that is needed to fairly judge their value.

edit 10:45, 29 April 2020 Section blanking, no consensus discussions with all concerned users, Appropriate text should be preserved, as much as possible, according to WP policy WP:EDIT and Removing encyclopedic content without any reason.

As for this editor/s comments, when one of their edits was undid and clearly stated the reasons why, this is what they wrote on the China national football team: Revision history page

"There is a discuss in the talk page, made by another editor. You are up against two editors including me. I'm trying to condense the article per TP:Overly detailed. Please don't disrupt the article's renovation process. This is not mainly about dead links, it's about condensing the article and getting rid of excessive intricate details." (16:09, 25 April 2020‎)

This comment shows a clear rejection of community input, a campaign to drive away productive contributors, ownership of the article and uncivil language. Kai Lau (talk) 16:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

• Looking it over, it's a long article, and elements such as the competition history could be forked off. But other than that "recent call-ups" section, I don't really see anything that is excess detail. (Beyond that, the recentism tag is downright demented -- there wasn't any history to *speak* of before 1979!) The history section isn't short, but it's no lengthier than many a football team article's. That being said, User:Kai Lau, could you ratchet down the invective a little? The other editors' edits would not change the article "beyond all recognition," do not impose systemic bias, and I don't see any evidence of "malicious" intent or deliberate bias. If you're going to accuse people of incivility, you might want to consider civil language yourself. Ravenswing 17:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Ravenswing that the tone should be ratcheted down and that the edits are not as extreme as Kai claims. The bigger issue here is that the edits are not being discussed on the article talk page, which is here: Talk:China_national_football_team. That's the first step to try to resolve disagreements over content. @Kai Lau: Please have a civil discussion with Pestick there and see if you can find some common ground. It's worth a try. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing: Discussion is now taking place on the talk page. I broke up the list of edits into separate subsections for discussion and weighed in on two of them. I think it should be more manageable now. Could you take a look? Discussion is here: Talk:China_national_football_team#Major_revisions_and_deletions_to_article--David Tornheim (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2020 (UTC)

WP:Articles for Creation has a new sort tool, you can see all pending sports-related drafts here: Wikipedia:AfC sorting/Culture/Sports

Just in case there are folks here who might be interested in reviewing drafts awaiting article status that are particular to WikiProject Sports. If you'd like to sign up to review/approve/decline new Drafts, instructions are here. AFC Reviewers get to use really cool automated tools that make reviewing really quick and easy, and I've really enjoyed volunteering there, and I'm really digging the AFC Sorting tool so instead of having to comb through lots of articles, I can zip right to topics I'm interested in. MatthewVanitas (talk) 06:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Infobox ice hockey discussion

There is a discussion about listing a player's years with the team in {{infobox ice hockey player}}. Editors are welcome to give their opinion at Template talk:Infobox ice hockey player#New discussion.  Bait30  ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:48, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Notability of cancelled sports events

We have a lot of articles in Category:Sports events cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and all of them are not going to happen- the postponed ones are in a separate category. Usually all of these events/seasons would be notable, but because they're not happening, I believe almost all of them are not. A large number of the articles just say that it was scheduled for some date(s) and then was cancelled due to the pandemic. Thus, I don't believe those articles meet WP:GNG, but would like to get others' thoughts? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

If anything they are likely more notable because they were cancelled if they are an event that would normally happen at a regular interval, as there is very likely to be news articles talking about how they were cancelled as the fact they were cancelled when they typically always happen makes those specific ones to be of note in a way that routine run of the mill events would not necessarily be. -DJSasso (talk) 12:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Don't know about what others may think, but the cancellation of the 2020 Men's Ice Hockey World Championships, 2020 Women's Ice Hockey World Championships & the 2020 Memorial Cup are darn notable. GoodDay (talk) 14:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

The items would only be non-notable if the event went on was fringe notable. The question is simply - do these items pass WP:GNG? Usually, they do. If not, the items shouldn't have been created in the first place. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Lee Vilenski I think a lot of them don't pass WP:GNG. They were created when the events were going to happen, and would therefore have been notable. But now they're cancelled, they aren't notable, and lots have no coverage other than the event format and generic sources for it being cancelled. That's my opinion on at least half the ones that I've looked at. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Just for reference, we should really be a bit more strict on only creating articles on items that already meet GNG. Simply "this event will take place" isn't good enough. We should be actively WP:CRYSTALBALLing to avoid having to delete when an event is cancelled. It should really already hold up on creation. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

+1. Truly, this seems fairly basic. Cancelled events are notable if they meet the GNG. If they don't meet the GNG, they never should have had articles in the first place. I'd imagine the surest way to know for sure is, y'know, check for sources. Ravenswing 00:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

• We don't need separate season/event articles for most of these, but that should be done on a case-by-case basis. SportingFlyer T·C 14:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Merger of sportspeople stubs into lists (cricket)

There has been a discussion going on at Talk:List of Bengal cricketers#Merge proposal which potentially has wider scope than cricket and may be helped by additional input. The merger proposal follows on from a no consensus AfD, and concerns whether or not very short stub articles should be merged into an appropriate list (with a redirect) or left as stand alone stubs. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Draft:Anthony Radetic

Should this draft be accepted or rejected? All input welcome! Calliopejen1 (talk) 06:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Calliopejen1, I'm curious as to your thoughts on the matter, because rejection is a flat-out no from me (pretty obviously so). Primefac (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

I'm not au fait with the AfC process at all, but this looks a decent start of an article on a clearly notable subject by WP:GNG to me. What is concerning you Calliopejen1? Harrias ^talk 17:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

It's been languishing for weeks in the backlog pile, and I'm not familiar with notability standards for athletes. If you think it's clearly notable, I'll just go ahead and approve it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

Never mind, a lot of it is copyvio. Declined with a suggestion to rewrite. Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've been seeing a lot more of these "why wasn't this looked at earlier?" type drafts at the back of the queue, but keep in mind that there are three groups of reviewers: those that work from the front, those that work from the back, and the (relatively small) group that randomly chooses drafts in the middle. Chances are really good if one of the ~250 daily-submitted drafts isn't seen in the first 48 hours, it will likely end up drifting to the back before it's seen/reviewed again. Primefac (talk) 18:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC) And for those interested, I'm cleaning up the copyvios so don't feel like you need to all pile on. Primefac (talk) 18:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

CAT:NN

There are usually around 2000 articles in CAT:NN just on sport, see [4]. The backlog is now almost 12 years. We'd be hugely grateful if people from this project could help with the sports backlog. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

• Holy crap, never mind sport articles, there are a few thousand articles tagged for more than a decade?? Digging into it, and thanks for the tipoff. Ravenswing 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

American football fully professional leagues

Is the United Football League (2009–2012) considered a fully professional league? If not, then Aaron King (American football) is utterly non-notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

• I wouldn't think so. It would be a considerable stretch to suggest that every one of its players were highly likely to meet the GNG. (Heck, I would seriously question whether the USFL should be on that list, come to that.)

  That being said, I would love to go back in time and knock on the head the premise that "fully professional" was a useful euphemism for "top-flight." Players at the lowest tiers of the minor leagues in both hockey and baseball get paychecks. Ravenswing 21:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Clubs performance comparison of the Champions Leagues etc.

Main page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison

There is an Aft if lists of performance comparison of club competitions are notable or not. This Afd effects following lists: UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison, AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison, Performance record of clubs in the Premier League, EuroLeague clubs performance comparison, Copa Sudamericana clubs performance comparison, Euro Hockey League clubs performance comparison and similar lists. Malo95 (talk) 07:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Should Events at the 2013 World Games be an article?

I was directed here from Wikipedia:Teahouse by Calliopejen1.

I just noticed that @Govvy: nominated Finswimming at the 2013 World Games for deletion. (as the deletion tag is about to expire I'll remove it for this discussion) At the bottom there is a box "Events at the 2013 World Games" with a whole bunch of red links, and I don't know if fistball at the 2013 World Games is much more notable than finswimming.

Perhaps all these events (or at least the results) should be merged into Events at the 2013 World Games, redirect the existing articles and only keep articles (with a {{Main}} at the to be created "events" article) for single events that appear to be notable on their own and consist of more than a table of winners? - Alexis Jazz 08:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• Huh. Go figure; I'd never heard of the "World Games." For my part, I'd just redirect it all to the 2013 World Games article, barring some serious coverage in reliable sources. Probably, as you suggest, most of it isn't any more notable than "finswimming." Ravenswing 09:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

World Games doesn't really get the right press coverage, other than the two games held in the US, there does seem to be lack of coverage. Individual events shouldn't have their own page. From the article World Games, the whole lot needs to be reviewed and fixed. There are multiple issues to deal with across the board and it's a fairly big project to sort out. Govvy (talk) 10:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

• I daresay. Just judging from the 2013 Games article, there's a lot of trivia to remove. (A list of how many athletes competed from how many countries might be encyclopedic in the Olympics articles, but hardly about this fringe competition.) Then again, I'm still eyeball deep in the CAT:NN debacle; I don't envy those trying to muck out this stable. Ravenswing 11:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I've often thought about expanding the "cue sports at the X World Games" articles, as they are generally well documented in cue sports press. I actually think such an article as a dablist is more suitable if the articles remain, rather than existing to merge. The results themselves aren't all that notable to all be on one page, outside of medal winners. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

@Lee Vilenski: If the results "aren't all that notable to all be on one page", that would even less so warrant individual pages for every single event? Anyway, if we do this, we should also do it for the other years. (except where the article is substantial) At any rate we shouldn't have a collection of red links in the "Events at the X World Games" templates that if created will just be nominated for deletion. - Alexis Jazz 08:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I think the point is, if we were to delete Finswimming at the 2013 World Games, then merge anything suitable - but probably not the full bracket to Finswimming at the World Games rather than an article just for events at this year. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

"Stick to sports"

Just created stick to sports. All contributions/thoughts welcome! AleatoryPonderings (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

• Well, it's certainly a notable and widely-discussed topic! Ravenswing 15:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Notability question

Hi all—I'm not familiar enough with the sports world to tell concretely, so wanted to check: is Claremont Colleges Rugby Football Club likely to be found notable? It seems to be a successful team competing at a higher level than most Claremont teams, but it's also just one sport, and the two articles for the Claremont (D3) athletic teams were barely found notable themselves. Would it be slam dunk keep or delete at AfD, or somewhere in between? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

@Ravenswing and Lee Vilenski: You both seem active at this project; any thoughts? I don't want to waste folks' time at AfD unless it's appropriate. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 16:25, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Ooh, American rugby? Might be a little far outside my comfort zone to be honest. From the sources on offer, it doesn't look 100% promising. Even if notable, it certainly needs a rewrite. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:57, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Mixed minds here. D3's a pretty low level, and rugby's a pretty fringe sport; does the college have a general athletics page? That being said, if you can demonstrate that the club passes the GNG in its own right, that's a pass. Ravenswing 18:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks both. As an update, I nominated it for AfD. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:26, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

One of your project's articles has been selected for improvement!

Hello, Please note that Skurfing (sport), which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of Today's articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "Today's articles for improvement" section for one week, beginning today. Everyone is encouraged to collaborate to improve the article. Thanks, and happy editing! Delivered by — MusikBot talk 00:05, 31 August 2020 (UTC) on behalf of the TAFI team

Short descriptions

A large number of pages calling {{infobox country at games}}, which is primarily used for Olympics articles but also for things like the Asian games, don't yet have a short description. The infobox can add it to these pages, but I wanted to get opinions on the format for the shortdesc. I mean, how else can one describe Australia at the 1980 Winter Olympics or Singapore at the 2018 Asian Games other than with the title itself? Looking for opinions and thoughts so I can code it up. Primefac (talk) 17:15, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Maybe something like: X in sports competition/event? The short description can be quite vague, I suppose also X in Y Olympics, but yeah, not always easy to shorten. What does wikidata have for these items? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:28, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I checked a half-dozen Olympics and Asian Games WD pages, and none of them have a short description. That's kinda why I'm looking for ideas. Primefac (talk) 17:33, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I think "country delegation to <games>" would be suitable, don't think we need years or anything, so for example Australia at the 1980 Winter Olympics have a shortdesc of "country delegation to the Winter Olympics" and Singapore at the 2018 Asian Games would be "country delegation to the Asian Games". Primefac (talk) 14:49, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Is there a danger of the short description being longer than the article title? Cuba at the 2016 Olympic Games would shorten to "country delegation to the Olympic Games", which is significantly (10) longer than the article title. Maybe "country delegation to sports event" or similar. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

If you want to really get to a short description, just "sporting event delegation". Primefac (talk) 18:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)