Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Badminton

Please update WP:NBAD

See NSPORT talk page. Timothytyy (talk) 10:05, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

See new proposal. Timothytyy (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

All members, please participate in the discussion on deciding the fate of NBAD. Timothytyy (talk) 04:07, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification of this project's purpose and NBAD

Greetings all members, as some members seem to misunderstand the purpose of this project and the how NBAD works, I am here for clarification.

This WikiProject: According to the main page, one of the goals for this project is to standardize all badminton related articles. Therefore, letting this WikiProject's articles fail the pillar of notability, i.e. GNG, is embarrassing and unacceptable. This project's goal is NOT to save every article that is not notable, or to create its own guideline which is completely contradicting to the pillars of Wikipedia. Deleting standard-failing articles shall be encouraged, and it is not a way to damage the project, but helping it to improve.

NBAD: NBAD is one of the guidelines in NSPORT, NSPORT is one of the SNGs, and SNG is one of the notability guidelines. Quoting from SNG, articles which pass an SNG may still be deleted or merged into another article, especially if significant coverage cannot be found. Quoting from NSPORT's bolded keywords, the article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline, and another quote, meeting any of these criteria does not mean that an article must be kept.. Therefore, passing NBAD does NOT guarantee an article, it is just a reference for whether coverage likely exists. Per FAILN, if appropriate sources cannot be found after a good-faith search for them, they can be deleted. So, SIGCOV is still the only way of determining notability; NBAD is just a reference.

If anyone is uncertain about this, please check all the discussions about SNG and NSPORT, e.g. this lengthy discussion on NSPORT. Shall there be any objections on my clarification, feel free to reply here or leave me a talk message here. Shall there be any objections on the guidelines themselves, please start a discussion on the relevant talk page(s). Thank you very much. Timothytyy (talk) 13:08, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

User:Timothytyy comment on Scott Sankey article

I don't know why User:Timothytyy made this statement on Scott Sankey article: "Fails GNG, NBAD and BIO. Only achievement was reaching the final at a non-important International Series event. ...." He seemed to underestimate a tournament sanctioned by BWF. Maybe, you think the Slovak Open didn't important, but for badminton players and others badminton editors they really appreciate it. Before reached world #1, Nadieżda Zięba, also played at that tournament. European Games gold medalists, Selena Piek, also played at that tournament. So, please be polite with your statement. Stvbastian (talk) 11:20, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Stvbastian Wikipedia is not a database, it is a website which is bssed on third-party sources. If there is no WP:SIGCOV, the tournament won't be notable. If you can find sources providing SIGCOV for that subject, I will remove my tag. Also your statements like "Selena Piek played..." is WP:OTHERSTUFF, you are mixing up notability and achievements. Timothytyy (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

Regarding "please be polite", can you explain why you AFDed Zhu Yijun (badminton)? Numerous world no.1s participated at the WJC. Don't contradict yourself.

Please don't confuse others with your achievement-based notability instead of policy-based, i.e. GNG and SNG. Timothytyy (talk) 23:22, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

@Timothytyy i don't need your explanation about what Wikipedia is.. But, your statement: "Only achievement was reaching the final at a non-important International Series event. ...." You indirectly said that the Slovenia Open is not an important tournament. Please lah my statement not out of otherstuff or mixing up. Here i questioning about your underestimate statement of badminton tournaments not about sng or gng. Oops, i think you are who mix things up here.. the discusion of Zhi Yujin article have been closed, if you feel dissatisfied, read the conclusion of the discussion again.. After I read your statements above, i think there is disappointment here because the article youve made was deleted. Calm your self and be positive. :) Stvbastian (talk) 04:40, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Ok I ask your opinion, do you think WJC or Slovak Open is more notable? Also thanks for not removing the PROD tag without any reason. Whether a tournament is "important" or not is subjective, so sorry for my subjective statement. Hope my removal of that phrase can resolve your concerns. Timothytyy (talk) Timothytyy (talk) 05:19, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I know where you want to direct this discussion. don't play words with me lah.. You should asked me, do u think Selena Piek or Zhu Yijun is more notable? And you know the answer. Stvbastian (talk) 11:25, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

You used Selena Piek as a proof that the tournament is notable, I use Chen Qingchen, two-time World Junior and three-time World champion, to prove that WJC is notable. Why would I compare Selena Piek and Zhu Yijun? You AFDed Zhu but I didn't AFD Piek. What is the point of the comparison??? Also wasn't your concern "please be polite with your statement"? Why is "Hope my removal of that phrase can resolve your concerns." off topic? Timothytyy (talk) 11:30, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Please lah don't play words.. Seems like there were hidden disappointment in this discussion. I never said tht WJC is not important. i just commenting about ur statement that underestimate badminton tournament. Ill give u example: how if Chen Qingchen only won WJC and never won BWF tour or World championships? oc the article will be deleted. For a long time, badminton players who only won junior title always been deleted.. I and Zoglophie have experienced the same thing.. Even Zoglophie deleted article that he create himself (as i know). And we do believe, tht players tht only won junior title should wait until the players won the senior title so we can create wiki article (per toosoon, nbad). Stvbastian (talk) 14:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

I never said that Zhu Yijun is notable, I am just feeling strange about your awkward comparison. Anyway, I believe I have solved your original concern by changing the PROD reason, see if you have other queries, I am willing to answer. Timothytyy (talk) 14:06, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

Yup.. take your time to rest, dont push your self too much, dont hide ur disappointment, do not hold anger and grudges when ur article being deleted. And dont forget next time be polite and positive with your statement.. Thanks :) Stvbastian (talk) 16:00, 22 May 2023 (UTC)

What do you mean by "dont hide ur disappointment, do not hold anger and grudges when ur article being deleted"? You want me to burst out? Wow that's so polite from you. If I burst out just because of you then I am really dumb. Timothytyy (talk) 02:50, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Naming conventions in badminton-related articles

Please check Stvbastian's message to understand the common naming mistakes. If you are not sure about the naming conventions, you can check the country-specific naming conventions, e.g. Chinese. You are also recommended to check the gadget "Display links to disambiguation pages in orange" at the "appearance" section of the "gadgets" section of your own preferences, so that you can easily know which links are pointing towards disambiguation pages (the links are usually incorrect). Thank you. Timothytyy (talk) 01:35, 15 June 2023 (UTC)

Major RfC on capitalization of all our articles

I thought this was a done deal back in this 2022 RFC but obviously not. A handful of editors did another rfc with no sports projects input at all. And it's being challenged because we just noticed it. This could affect almost every single tennis and Olympic article we have, and goodness know how many other sports. Some may have already been moved it you weren't watching the article. And not just the article titles will be affected but all the player bios that link to the articles. Sure the links would be piped to the right place if thousands of articles moved, but if the wording in a bio still said 2023 Wimbledon Championships – Men's singles or Swimming at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Men's 200 metre backstroke that would likely need to be changed by hand. There is also talk of removing the ndash completely.

Perhaps this is what sports projects want and perhaps not. Either way I certainly don't want projects ill-informed as the last RfC was handled. Express your thoughts at the following rfc. Fyunck(click) (talk) 20:48, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

#R or R# on Performance timeline?

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.

---

Recently I’ve been engaged in a discussion with User:Stvbastian about whether 1R, 2R or R32, R16 should be used in a player’s performance timeline. While I agree that such contents should have “uniformity” as he said instead of letting users to edit whatever they want and make articles look like a mess, I think it’s better to use R# instead of #R. Why? Because when I collect information on BWF websites they are all R32, R16...On bwfbadminton.com I will have to click on each tournaments for more details if I want to figure out whether R16 is 1R, 2R or even 3R, 4R. On bwf.tournamentsoftware.com I can just scroll the page and see all match details, but some tournaments are missing, especially team events. And also, with the huge amount of information as a player can have their career span to 10-20 years, mistakes are unavoidable with merely copying R32, R16, but there will be much more on the process of converting to 1R, 2R...And honestly I don’t think those mistakes will be rapidly noticed and corrected.

I’m not saying that now we need to change every “Performance timeline” table from #R to R#, as it’s has always been like that with so many articles. I just think that R# should also be allowed and edits using them are not reverted.

NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 04:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose For the uniformity of badminton articles, no need to change the Template:Performance key (badminton). Nothing wrong with 1R, 2R, or 3R. In Wikipedia badminton tournament articles also use first round, second round, and third round in tournament draw (see examples: 2010 Indonesia Super Series, 2023 All England Open, and 2023 BWF World Championships – Men's singles); Tournament software draw (See: 2019 Hong Kong Open, 2007 BWF World Championships and 2008 Olympics). cc: Timothytyy, Zoglophie, Florentyna, Aleenf1, Yogwi21, Fahrurozi.86, Phenol123, Oahid, IssacT6, Griff88, Nardisoero Stvbastian (talk) 11:22, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
• Comment I agree that it might be tedious to collect information from BWF websites. Also, I don't think "uniformity" is a valid reason, since we can change the norms if necessary. However, I think "#R" might be more user-friendly, since if we write "R32", readers don't actually know if the player lost in the first round, second round or even the third round. Also, "#R" gives readers an idea how many matches the player won. We should do the job of converting the "R#" to "#R" for the sake of readers. Therefore I am neutral (or slight oppose) here, and would be glad if other editors can express their views on this. Timothytyy (talk) 04:37, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose For layman, use 1R, 2R, etc is better. Oahid (talk) 09:36, 17 December 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose While I understand NguyenDuyAnh1995's views, we need to remember that not every readers are following the sport closely. Griff88 (talk) 03:07, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Relist cc: Zoglophie, Florentyna, Aleenf1, Yogwi21, Fahrurozi.86, Phenol123, IssacT6, Nardisoero.. Stvbastian (talk) 03:10, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, I think its easier for the reader to understand a player manage to reach #R than R32 for example Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

I think its easier for the reader to understand a player manage to reach #R than R32 for example Fahrurozi.86 (talk) 04:12, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose, the existing format of performance timeline is better than the one proposed here. Also NguyenDuyAnh, for every big change in the formatting, you must follow the procedure of consensus building on not only this project, but others as well. Changing per what "I feel right" is not a way to go.zoglophie^•talk• 10:46, 23 December 2023 (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.

Colour code

Hi Stvbastian, Aleenf1 and Griff88. Last to last year we discussed about colour codes of junior tournaments if I remember correctly, and now another category which could be defined under "Regional Youth Games" or "Regional Junior Games" has emerged (Badminton at the 2023 East Asian Youth Games). It's possible that players winning a medal in this tournament may become notable in foreseeable future, so I feel there is a need to decide an html code for Regional Youth Games which will encompass all 6 continents.

You all are welcome to give your suggestions. Thankyou. zoglophie^•talk• 19:06, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

You can start by proposing some color code. Thanks... Stvbastian (talk) 01:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Tournament	Hex (RGB)	Color
Regional Youth Games	#FA86C4

East Asian Youth Games

Girls' doubles

Year	Venue	Partner	Opponent	Score	Result
2023	Futsal Hall, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia	Yeon Seo-yeon	Li Huazhou Zhang Yuhan	21–11, 19–21, 21–15	Gold

East Asian Youth Games

Girls' doubles

Year	Venue	Partner	Opponent	Score	Result
2023	Futsal Hall, Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia	Yeon Seo-yeon	Li Huazhou Zhang Yuhan	21–11, 19–21, 21–15	Gold

How about these two Stvbastian?

zoglophie^•talk• 06:07, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I prefer #2.. Stvbastian (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Yeah No 2 is better.. Doesn't hurt to my eyes Griff88 (talk) 08:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Performance timeline being removed immediately

Recently I've asked about whether R# should also be allowed in performance timeline? And as the majority opposed, I accepted it without creating or editing any other content with it. However, in the article Li Shifeng I created "Performance timeline" table before with the use of R# and this afternoon I found out that it was removed entirely and that I can only add if I "revised" the R# or #R topic on this talk page. It seems weird because the one who deleted it is not someone who follows rules strictly but actually has given rooms for improvement. Once he removed my contents because it violated WP:BLP, I asked whether many "achievements" and "performance timeline" tables in many, many articles should be removed too, since they were unsourced or poorly sourced, and WP:BLP says that they "should be remove immediately without discussion". And his reply was "If it has to be removed according to Wikipedia rules why not? However, you should know that the member of Wikiproject Badminton are working to add sources to that section. For examples: Hendra Setiawan, Carolina Marin, and and others Indonesian badminton players.." I mean why one is removed immediately and one is given rooms for improvement, while both are not perfectly matched rules and standards? If he wants, he can remove all the R# from the performance timeline table, and leave the message box at the top of the content asking editors to help improving it. For what I know creating the tables is time-consuming but many are willing to edit the information once they are available. Yuta Watanabe article was left without once for years, but once I created "Performance timeline" section, his results are added after every competition. So the question is if the specific contents like "Performance timeline" may not following some rules such as "R# instead of #R" or "unsourced/poorly sourced" but the information is still correct and in general not much different from standard ones, should they be removed right away or should they be given rooms for improvement?

Thank you very much!

NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 10:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

No need to making excuses, if you really want to add the performance timeline in Li Shifeng article, you can copy that from the history and move to your sandbox. You can started to revise that in your sandbox and when its done, you can again add to the Li Shifeng article. Yup, you can take the examples from Hendra Setiawan, Carolina Marin, and others Indonesian badminton players about how to editing in performance timeline section. Read the MOS:FLAGS, MOS:DECOR, MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, MOS:REPEATLINK, WP:V and WP:PST. Those policy will help you while editing performance timeline section. Addition, as i said in "Gao Ling: Revision history": use performance key temp as standard, no need bold in tournament name, use Q1, Q2 not Q# if the players eliminated in the qualification stage. For junior GP-Future series or senior international challenge to future series, it would be better if the information was in sentences in the career section rather than a table. Thank you Stvbastian (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello, please focus on the main subject that why some contents that violate WP:BLP and should be remove immediately without discussion but are not removed with reason that the member of Wikiproject Badminton are working to add sources to that section while "Performance timeline" in Li Shifeng article was removed? For example, "Achievements" and "Performance timeline" in Liliyana Natsir, the "Record against selected opponents" in Mohammad Ahsan also violates WP:BLP, should they be removed immediately too? NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 05:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Fyi maybe before 2019, Wikipedia's rules were not that strict. We can add sentences, tables without including inline citation, but the article already meets the WP:Notability. So, even though the inline citation is not included, other people can check that the information comes from a reliable source via Google. The section in articles you mentioned (Natsir and Ahsan) were added before 2019, so they may not have been reached by WP:BADM members or still in the next queue for editing. As you can see, there are only a few WP:BADM members. Since the performance timeline section that you recently added in Li Shifeng article, moreover it violates several Wikipedia rules, so i decided to archive it in history. So, just start now editing the Li Shifeng article according to the guidelines, don't take your time looking for other mistakes or making excuses. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 07:31, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Nope, if they violate the current rule they should be remove immediately without discussion. By your own words and standard, you can copy the code and move to your sandbox. And even if we take an ease with “before 2019” info, then there are still many sections that violate the WP:BLP, for example Rehan Naufal Kusharjanto whose performance timeline is poorly sourced, and most of the sources were only for 2023. And for the article of Mohammad Ahsan, the “Records again selected opponents” section only has a primary source, and it is up-to-date, way after 2019. But why did you let those sections violate the WP:BLP for months or years without any action, but was so eager to remove another section while you can leave the message box asking users to help improving it? Editing R# to #R is alright, but why taking a bold action for some violations while turning a blind eye for some others? NguyenDuyAnh1995 (talk) 10:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Yup, you can do it by yourself, dont asking me lah.. feel free to edit the Wikipedia articles, but don't forget the guidelines especially the Manual of Style. Thanks Stvbastian (talk) 13:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 Olympics

For anyone in an article-creating mood, the 2024 Summer Olympics starts in 10 days and there's still several qualified badminton players missing articles, most of which I expect are likely notable. See here: 3 in the men's singles, 5 in the women's singles, 2 in the men's doubles, 3 in the women's doubles and 1 in the mixed doubles (14 total). BeanieFan11 (talk) 18:13, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wikiproject assessment

Since the badminton articles are similar to tennis articles, i proposed the badminton article importance grading scheme:

• Top: Articles strictly related to the game: rules of the game, associations (BWF and continenal governing body), the grade I tournaments, peole who inducted to BWF Hall of Fame.
• High: National associations, the grade II tournaments (BWF World Tour level 1-6, BWF Superseries, Superseries Premier, Superseries Finals, BWF Grand Prix and BWF Grand Prix Gold, and also the IBF Wolrd Grand Prix), Continental Games or Championships for Asia, Europe and America (Ex: Badminton Asia Mixed Team Championships, European Badminton Championships, Badminton at the Pan American Games, etc.), former or current world number ones, grade I winners (for team and individuals).
• Mid: National championships, Continental Games or Championships for Africa and Oceania, Subcontinental Games or Championships (ex: badminton at the Southeast Asian Games, badminton at the South Asian Games, badminton at the Central American and Caribbean Games, Nordic Championships, and etc.), the grade III tournaments (International Challenge, Series, and Future Series), grade II winners, and also former and current top 32 players.
• Low: Grade III winners, Continental Games or Championsips winner for Africa and Oceania, National championships winner, and any other badminton-related articles.
• NA: Any badminton-related templates, categories, disambiguation pages and images.

Corrections and suggestions are welcome. Stvbastian (talk) 06:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Stvbastian glad someone finally came up with this suggestion to avoid arbitrary rating of the badminton articles. I think the suggestion for Top and Mid ratings are too much inclusive and need to be cut short.

1. For the "High" and "Mid" criteria, including Pan American, Oceania, Central American-Carribean Championships/Games is not justifiable because those tournaments itself are of lower importance when seen in accordance with global scenario. The players competing there are mostly ranked low and hence winning that tournament shouldn't be considered of high importance and at par with Asian or European Championship/Games. Instead, low importance for all the above three is preferable.
2. Move South Asian Games to the "low importance section" due to minimal number of countries participating in it and same reasons as above.
3. Winning a national championship doesn't merit "mid" importance in any way, as the players winning it may/may not excel at the international stage, which matters at the end of the day. It also should be moved towards "low" category.
4. International series/challenger events won't go well with mid importance due to notability issues according to the WP:NBAD. Move them to the low grade.
5. Move Nordic championships to the low importance due to notability issue and lesser competition.
6. I'm not sure what to say about including top 32 ranked players/pairs under mid importance criteria. I would personally advice to include only top 25, because outside top 25 players have minimum visibility and achievements to their name.

zoglophie^•talk• 19:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

add: In the "top" importance part, we shouldn't include silver and bronze medalists of Olympic Games and World Championships. Both of them should be rated high or mid. zoglophie^•talk• 19:50, 11 August 2024 (UTC)

My considerations regarding the above proposal:

1. I put the Pan America Games or Championships to High Importance because the ranking point are equivalent to BWF Tour. The tournaments (Pan America, Oceania, and Africa both Games and Championships) cannot be categorized as Low Importance, but the winner can be included in Low importance.

2. Maybe the winner can be categorized as Low, but the tournament maybe in Mid. Need more viewpoint from other Wikiproject members.

3. I did not put the winner of the National Championships in Mid Importance but in Low Importance.

4. Grade III tournaments (International Challenge, Series, and Future Series) can not be categorized as Low, but the winner can be categorized as Low. Considerations based on the tournament history. Ex Irish Open has been held since 1902, so cannot be categorized as Low.

5. World Top 10 in Nordic at that time also competed in the Nordic Championships.

6. Top 32 players can competed in the Grade 2 event (World Tour). Considering all the Grade 2 tournaments have articles on Wikipedia, their names will often appear in Wikipedia articles.

... I did not put the silver and bronze medalists of Olympic Games and World Championships in Top. The winner of Grade I categorized as High. Addition, maybe the medalists in Grade I (silver and bronze) can be categorized as Mid.

More corrections and suggestions are welcome. Stvbastian (talk) 05:32, 12 August 2024 (UTC)