Talk:List of swimmers

Untitled

Where did you get the stat for most participated sport in the world? I would think that at least soccer would be greater.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Honavery (talk • contribs) 23:27, 8 March 2005 (UTC)

Sources & notability

The unsourced and notability tags have been removed. The one claim in the lead paragraph is now sourced. Each swimmer should have an article, or at least a section of an article devoted to them. Each article must establish the notability of its subject with WP:RS reliable sources. --Lexein (talk) 03:11, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

I added a tag re need for further sourcing; pls see below. The article has a number of redlinked names, bereft of RS refs.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Please try to source prior to deletion.

Sourcing the redlinked swimmers who have competed at the Olympics, but without WP articles, is pretty easy at Sports-Reference.com - please check before deletion. Thanks! --Lexein (talk) 19:35, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Pls source prior to adding. See wp:BURDEN, and wp:LISTPEOPLE. We still have redlinked names, without articles and without refs. In many cases this may have blp issues as well, and is contrary to wp:v ... it would be good to clean them up as well.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

You're not strictly wrong, but the problem is larger than that. I reject Walesian twitch-deletions without source-seeking as they go against the WP:Five pillars; to build an encyclopedia, to WP:AGF (for the three seconds it takes to highlight text and click on a bookmarklet to search Google for an WP:RS), and to be helpful (unhelpfulness was taken up by the Wikimedia Foundation as one cause for editor attrition). Deletion may be easier and quicker, and typing refs may be harder, but which one is better for the encyclopedia? I say, sourcing.

One solution is to cite Sports-Reference.com as a general reference at the end of List of swimmers.

I've also asked over at WP:AWB/Tasks. There's even a {{Cite sports-reference}} template, which I've demonstrated. --Lexein (talk) 04:07, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

I notice that using the template seems to include a nonexistent author. Odd. --Lexein (talk) 09:14, 12 February 2012 (UTC) Update: removed the author from the template: he works there, but isn't the author of all of the database's data. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

I think that wp:BURDEN and wp:LISTPEOPLE and wp:v -- a core policy -- are there for a reason. Our list pages have been littered with redlinks, to names that lack wp articles and for which no refs are supplied. The burden is clearly on the person adding the name -- this often also has BLP issues. Once challenged, by removal among other things, the burden is on the person restoring the name to either supply a bluelink or -- per wp:CHALLENGED -- supply appropriate refs. Editors do not have the right to simply add names, without any refs and without any articles, and foist the burden upon others. I'm a fan of proper names being reflected which are properly sourced, or even if they only have a wp article (some editors have stricter views than I do -- they think that lists should always have refs, even for blue-linked articles, and that wp:LISTPEOPLE calls for multiple refs per person). But I am not a fan of names for which there is no wp article, and no ref, being flung into the article and editors suggesting that it is suddenly somehow the obligation of others to source it or leave it be -- despite the clear language to the contrary in the aforementioned rules. Our problem isn't the deletion of names properly in these lists. Interested editors can enter such names properly. It is the addition of names that don't belong, followed by the suggestion that the burden is on someone else to provide the support the adder failed to supply. BTW -- a general reference will not work. Because you have no way of stopping an editor, one minute later, from adding his own five-year-old's name to the list. A general reference fails to let us know when names it relates to. A fn, to a general source, however, if applied to each name that has been verified, should work.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:30, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

A) You misunderstand me, and B) it seems that you're pushing one guideline over another, and one part of a guideline over the rest of it, IMHO that's bad territory. Bluelinked items do not require refs - that's suspenders and a belt, and needless - the linked article has the refs establishing notability, and the text establishing inclusion in the list.

You implied something about me that is not true. I do not advocate, support, or appreciate add-and-run. If an active editor adds something unsourced, and I immediately notice it, I'll revert, knowing they'll see it and likely fix it. IP editors, I warn. However, for stale articles (where the adding editors are gone or inactive), but where the added content is feasibly and trivially sourceable in context (sports-reference.com), I think the responsible-pro-improve-the-encyclopedia activity should not be knee-jerk deletionism; instead, it should be thoughtful checking. It adds literally 3 seconds to check: highlight, rightclick, Search Google (in Firefox) - it even opens a new tab. Seriously. Also, please read WP:TIGERS.

And I never did this: "It is the addition of names that don't belong, followed by the suggestion that the burden is on someone else to provide the support the adder failed to supply." "Followed by"? Who did/does that? Not me. Sheesh.

Looking at France and Lithuania, every single item belonged, including the ones you deleted, and has now been trivially sourced. Sorry to bang on about it, but it was trivial.

I'm not claiming that you have to source before deletion, just check and add a {{citation needed}} if you just don't want to add a citation. Robots even fill in the dates.

If we're going to talk about policy precedence, it starts with WP:Five pillars, then policy, then guideline, then essay, then local consensus. --Lexein (talk) 10:12, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said -- I do not share the view that blue links require refs. But I've spent time discussing the matter with editors who maintain that they do. If you think that my view as to the need for sourcing or a blue link is more restrictive than the consensus view, feel free to raise it at the talkpage of wp:LISTPEOPLE -- but you may want to read prior discussions on this point there first. As to the point covered by wp:BURDEN, I think it is covered directly there -- the text does not shift the burden onto other editors once an editor has added it without refs and left it there. And again, where the issue is about names, we have BLP issues. You may recall the deletion of tens of thousands of BLP articles, because they lacked refs? It is the same principle -- one of burden. Editors here are all volunteers. It is an improvement of our core wp:v policy to delete redlinks that lack refs, that violate wp:v, that violate wp:burden, and that violate wp:CHALLENGED. You can choose to tag them, but I don't think it is correct to criticize editors who spend time bringing the project into closer accord with those core principles, suggesting that they have a burden of sourcing what someone else failed to source, or suggest that they leave in with a tag a name of a blp that is unsourced and as to which there is no article. You are free to take that approach. But it is a stretch to tell your fellow volunteer editor that they should be putting in even more time than they are putting in, where they are very clearly acting in accord with the most on-point rules. If you think wp:burden should be changed, or wp:CHALLENGED, or wp:LISTPEOPLE because your interpretation is that they are at odds with our pillars, then seek consensus to change those rules. But they are on point, and quite clear. IMHO, of course. Best.--Epeefleche (talk) 10:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

By continuing to misunderstand me, you make my point. On-point guidelines, applied narrowly, while ignoring the Five Pillars, are not on-point at all. Aside from that, work done right is better than work done quickly. Deletion is simply easier, but it is not always, without exception, right. I've been here long enough to realize when deletion is supported by narrow reasoning, without attention paid to what's best for the encyclopedia. Work is work. I just happen to rank deletion as less important than sourcing. Deletion is the most-often poorly defended action, when it really boils down to an editor just not wanting to source something that can be trivially done. Deletion will always be easier than sourcing, and I'm not convinced that that's the correct way to build an encyclopedia. Something has to be done to make sourcing easier, but in the meantime, we rely only on the positive will of editors who agree that building the encyclopedia is the right thing, as opposed to deleting. If deletion is the only path, then the {{citation needed}} template should be deleted. --Lexein (talk) 11:00, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Addendum - I agree with WP:BLP, by the way. I am an inclusionist and eventualist, adamant about sourcing but providing time for it to happen. I believe editors should contribute work as it is shown to be needed in combination with just what they want to do. Yes, this means I will suggest and invite a deleting editor to contribute sources, or just add {{citation needed}} and am brazen about it. I am not an immediatist deletionist on non-BLP articles. This list is not a BLP, and is not high-priority in terms of BLP issues, as there is no possible damage to a person incorrectly listed as a swimmer. And as I said, unsourced fresh additions get greater scrutiny, and deletion actions, from me, than stale additions. Older material is more likely to get sourcing work, than deletion work, from me. --Lexein (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Former countries

If it is the list of swimmers by countries which they have represented, shouldn't the list also include former countries? Flying Saucer (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on List of swimmers. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://svt.se/2.58360/1.633666/utskriftsvanligt_format?printerfriendly=true
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20040615060257/http://www.fina.org/biographies_Swimmers.html to http://www.fina.org/biographies_Swimmers.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 14 December 2017 (UTC)