Template talk:Current sport

Protection February 2006

I have protected this template against editing by non-admins. The reason is that this template is being repeatedly vandalized, and it is currently on many articles related to the 2006 Winter Olympics. Johntex\^talk 02:15, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I have unprotected this template, as the risk for such vandalism has subsided now that the Olympics are over. The template is not used on near as many articles. --Aude (talk | contribs) 23:18, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Idea for the template

Well what do you guys think of adding the option of "small" like the protected templates have? In here I've played with it. I've also moved the image out in case of a protection so the images wont be over eachother. if small=yes the big thing disappears. Chandlertalk 14:12, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

"Information may change as the event progresses."

Saying "Information may change as the event progresses" seemed silly, since the score always changes. I changed it to "Information will change as the event progresses", but that had an unnecessarily bald-faced air to it. I finally settled on "Scoring and other results will change as the event progresses", which seems like a decent compromise. —Steve Summit (talk) 16:02, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I have changed it back. The template is used more generally than just for games, and scores. It also diverges from the other {{current}} templates to have different text. -- Yellowdesk 19:31, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Template should be changed

So, seeing as lower down templates are being deleted, e.g. Current motor sport etc, I think we shouldn't have a football on the template page, but something more neutral and generic. The same goes for the future sport template. D.M.N. (talk) 20:56, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

A consistent set of images

In using the image parameter, I propose to have a set of images coded with an #switch statement to maintain some sort of consistency. Otherwise, for example, one tennis article may have a different image than another tennis article. Cheers. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 23:22, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Categories

Category:Current sports events has almost 600 articles listed. I was wondering if it might be possible to have Category:Current American football events, Category:Current basketball events, etc.? We could use the template to place them in the new categories based on what image is being used. --Pinkkeith (talk) 16:35, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

• The use of this template is completely beyond reasonable. Hundreds of sports teams and leagues that might have one or two edits a day, or week, are marked with this template. Tens of thousands of other articles have more edits than most of the articles marked with {{current sport}}. This is by way of introduction to my view that addition of additional categorizations for a superfluous template is an exercise in un-needed subdivision. In general this template fails to improve to the quality of any article it is placed on, by failing to actually add specific information to the content of the article or its lede, or its citations--all of which are are more able to clearly state the nature of the article's recent updating (or lack thereof) than this generic template.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Parser Functions

Why don't use Parser Functions to determine the usage of image and text in this template? It can save more times for user to look back at the image. I can try to do it if someone agree. --Aleenf1 09:11, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Change of wording?

Should the wording be changed from "information may change" to "information will change?" I mean, an article about a current sports event necessarily will change, won't it? faithless (^speak) 04:11, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Adding & applying guidelines

I've recently started to apply the "current event" guidelines (which I've added to this (and others) template's documentations) to this template and received some opposition, so I'd like to start a discussion here about whether the guidelines should exist in the first place, and whether they should be applied accordingly.

My position, obviously, is that these guidelines should exist and that they should be applied. Why? Let's have a look at why templates like this one were created in the first place: Template:Current - the first one of its kind - was initially created for articles about big, current events that received dozens of edits per minute. It was a note for our readers (and not our editors) that the article containing the template is being edited heavily (indicating that the article might contain vandalism, outdated information or that checking back in an hour might be a good idea). That spawned countless other templates (like this one) about anything that can be considered "current". For some reason, along the way, the initial idea of a "current event" template was forgotten, and the templates were being applied everywhere, as if there is a reason to notify our readers of anything that is currently ongoing. Not in the article itself, but in a box on top of that article. There is, quite frankly, no point in doing this, and I presume people are simply doing it because they think that's how it's always been done. It's not. So I've started to apply the guidelines from Template:Current to other "current" templates as well, which, IMHO, only makes sense. If it doesn't to you, I'm more than happy to listen to the counter-arguments and discuss this. --Conti|✉ 15:44, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, since you started removing those template I have to tell you that those are only there to denote current sport event. It clearly states: This article documents a current sports-related event. Information may change as the event progresses. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't state that things are changing oftenly and that there is massive editing. It just notifies a casual reader that things are still going on and can change. Yes, it is obvious from the content itself, but sometimes there is so much content you can't see it clearly. So, please refrain from one-sided removing of those templates and discuss the matter on WikiProject talk page. SonjiCeli (talk) 20:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

I know what the template says, but I haven't yet figured out why it does so. Or rather, why we need to tell our readers that something is currently ongoing (if it's not a warning of any kind). Is it a disclaimer? A helpful, friendly hint? If so, then I'd like you to read Wikipedia:No disclaimers in articles. If not, then I don't get it. Also, I have notified the Wikiproject already. I thought this would be the best place to discuss the issue, since more than one WikiProject is involved. --Conti|✉ 22:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, I've got nothing left to say to you from my point of view. I've read the Template:Current sport page and they do seem to notify that these templates should be used only in those articles that are rapidly changing. However, I don't see any point in mass-removing them all now because they will be deleted anyway when the football or other seasons are over. And, although I know it's not much of an argument, but editors just got used to see it. For example, when I remove it from some article because the season is over, and I return to that page because of something, it looks to me rather empty. The thing is that editors will most likely confront your editing until the consensus is reached.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I haven't noticed any interest in this topic what means that editors don't care too much if there is such template on a page or isn't. So, it could be either way, but, I repeat, either way with the consensus. SonjiCeli (talk) 08:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In theory, I wouldn't mind just waiting until all those "current sports-related events" are over and let the problem solve itself. But in the meantime, people will add the template to new events, making it necessary to actually enforce the guidelines (or write new ones). I agree that people don't seem to care much either way, which is rather frustrating, since they suddenly start to care once the guidelines are actually applied. I think being used to see the template everywhere is a big part of that, but that's, as you say, not much of an argument. I'd love to reach some kind of consensus here, but that's rather hard to achieve when people don't contribute to the discussion. :) --Conti|✉ 09:51, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

As was discussed when this was brought up last year, current seasons are considered current events for the purpose of this template, infact this template was edited to reflect the consensus last year. This template is not a disclaimer, and contains a link to current season article, it serves a different purpose than what it used to serve. -Djsasso (talk) 15:59, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Can you point me to that discussion? And what purpose does this template serve now, exactly? Linking to Portal:Current events/Sports? Adding Category:Current sports events to the articles? Telling our readers something the article itself can't? --Conti|✉ 16:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe it is on Template:Current and Template:Current sport-related. There were some tfds etc. I don't know about other sports, but hockey articles for example it links main team articles to teams seasons ie 2008-09 Montreal Canadiens season etc. To see it in use look at Montreal Canadiens in the upper right hand corner. -Djsasso (talk) 16:28, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ah! Yes, Template:Current sport-related has been changed quite a bit due to the discussion, and I agree with you about that template. But this discussion is about Template:Current sport, not Template:Current sport-related (the latter should probably renamed to reflect its current usage). This template still has all the problems (as mentioned above) that Template:Current sport-related used to have. --Conti|✉ 17:31, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Ahh just assumed that you were lumping the family of templates together. -Djsasso (talk) 17:52, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm lumping most of these templates together, but not that one. :) The only problem I might have with Template:Current sport-related is that the "mini" option should be the default, since the option is used practically everywhere, anyhow. Anyways, my concerns with this template haven't really been adressed yet. I'm still curious about what exactly its purpose is. --Conti|✉ 20:03, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

In case you are wondering, the "mini" option was not made as the default because in the first year or two of that template's existence, most of the articles that used Template:Current sport-related used the larger version (or the larger version of its general predecessor, the now deleted Template:Dab current). It has not been changed since then, I assume, due to historical inertia. Zzyzx11 (talk) 04:23, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Sorry to jump aboard the debate a week late. Personally, I think you have it right when you are questioning what exactly this template does. Personally, I can't say I entirely understand the point of a current event label. To me, it should be common sense that articles might not be 100% complete and can be subject to change. If, for instance, you find yourself reading the article on the Champions League competition of the 2008-09 season it should be pretty darned obvious to you whether the competition is ongoing or not. And even if, for whatsoever reason, you haven't a clue, it should be common sense enough that an article about a sports event is going to change as the event progresses. The same goes for non-sporting events. Personally, I have to say that in all honesty I think that having current events as an exception to WP:DISCLAIM is a pretty stupid concept (sorry, Jimbo...) and one that fundamentally fails to understand the principles of an openly contributable encyclopedia in the first place. Therefore, I'm all in favour of deleting the entire range of Current Event templates. But then again, that's just my take. I think that if you want to decide how this template is to be used, first you need to examine whether it's useful at all, and to whom. Falastur2 ^Talk 01:36, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing wrong with commenting a week late. Especially if it seems next to impossible to get people to comment in the first place. :) I pretty much agree with you, but I think that there are some uses of a current event template. 2009 swine flu outbreak is (or was, maybe) a pretty good example. That article got a lot of attention, and changed quite quickly (and, indeed, dramatically), as far as I can see. But there aren't a lot of articles like that out there, and there especially aren't a lot of sports-related articles out there that get that much attention. But I can imagine a few articles that would benefit from this template, like Super Bowl XLIV (oh, look, it already got a template), so I haven't nominated it for deletion and instead work on applying the guidelines for it. --Conti|✉ 16:06, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally I am still not sure. I can't see the point in telling people that the topic is subject to change when the whole point of Wikipedia is that it is subject to change. If people keep trying to revert information to an out-of-date version, it should be pretty obvious to them that they are behind the times. And for a sports article, where information is only ever added and not continually updated or upgraded there should be no questions over reverts. If an article is receiving hundreds of edits an hour, it should be pretty obvious to all involved why this is. The only people not likely to know about the subject context, and thus it's rapid progression of updating, are those who will never find the article in the first place. Do you see what I'm getting at here? Of course, I'm not trying to force a heavy-handed "thou shalt deleteth all templates", I'm just weighing in with my opinion and hoping to provoke some debate. Falastur2 ^Talk 17:12, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Removing this template removes the article from Template:Current sports events. However, that template does not specify any restrictions on editing, etc. So, all these articles about current sports events belong in the category. Do you plan to manually add the category? Fbdave (talk) 16:53, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Did you mean Category:Current sports events? Hmm, I'm not sure about that. Category:Current events isn't used like that currently: It only includes articles that use a current event template, the category does not include every event that is currently ongoing. So the same should probably be true for Category:Current sports events. But sure, if there's a consensus to use the category that way, I could add the category to the articles from where I've removed the template. --Conti|✉ 17:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I meant Category:Current sports events. Fbdave (talk) 20:43, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Support your efforts Conti. Tags like these should be kept to a minimum. It is not useful on for instance an season article where there are edits now and then. The article should say that it is a current season. Not a template. Rettetast (talk) 13:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Discussion at WT:FOOTY#Current sport template removed - Why?. Rettetast (talk) 05:37, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Apologies, I've missed that discussion, and by now it's archived. It can always be reopened or continued here, tho, if there is a need for it. --Conti|✉ 09:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What harm does this template do anyway? The template indicates that the article is about a current sport event which information may change as the event progresses. When a reader opens the article, he/she can immediately know if the event is still current, without the need of finding out reading the introduction or further information. These templates are removed when the event ends (it is not left on the article) so... what problem is there of having these templates? If the template (as Conti says) is for rapid editing, then the template must say so or a new template must be created for these type of articles. Qampunen (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

The question shouldn't be "Does it do any harm?", it should be "Does it improve the encyclopedia?". And, in my opinion, it doesn't. The fact that something is currently ongoing is important, yes, but that's why we mention it in the lede of an article. Adding a box on top of that which says exactly the same, for the people who cannot be bothered to read the article they opened, is simply overkill and unnecessary. We could just as well create a template that announces the most recent results of a tournament. Usually a "current" template says "Information may change rapidly". That got changed to "Information may change", because the "rapidly" changing information was simply not present in 99% of the articles. So maybe that word should be reintroduced to make it clear what the template is about. --Conti|✉ 09:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

What constitutes "chang[ing] rapidly"?

I've had another user protest the inclusion of this template at pages like 2012 Championship League and 2012 Masters (snooker) while the events are ongoing, on the basis that the template's documentation doesn't specify how many edits per day are needed before this template applies, and he doesn't feel their editing frequency, for match updates, qualifies (see edit summaries, and User talk:Armbrust#Template:Current sport, where Armbrust suggest that the template shouldn't be used except where there are 30+ edits per day). My perception is that articles like this, with their level of editing while the events are happening, are precisely what this template is for. Thirty changes per days seems like an excessively high bar to me; basically, this template is relevant when it is likely that a reader will see substantially different information on the same day, e.g. between morning and evening readings, because the event has been updated.

I think this relates strongly to, but does not entirely overlap, the guidelines thread immediately above. The overall issue is that this template doesn't seem to have any criteria at all, internal to its documentation or externally in guidelines, for its use. As a result, it is an editwarring target. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 21:18, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Last updates?

Surely this should be "latest updates" or "most recent updates"? "Last" implies something far more finite and is therefore grammatically incorrect. Leaky caldron (talk) 09:32, 4 February 2024 (UTC)