Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

US sports teams abbreviations

US sports teams are often referred by a 2 or 3-letter abbreviation. Those abbreviations are used in some templates (e.g., {{NFL staff footer}}) and some disambiguation pages (e.g. BAL), but there's no mention of them in the teams articles themselves.

How about adding it to the infobox? WDYT? --Angus (talk) 11:21, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Why are we using abbreviations in templates? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:57, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd say it's to save space. That aside, what about adding the abbreviation to the infoboxes? --Angus (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2022 (UTC)

There's no need to add them to the infoboxes unless you can justify their use elsewhere. Otherwise it's just an "other stuff exists" sort of argument. Why are they necessary at all? Are they widespread enough to need adding to the infobox? If they're just used in the "staff footer" I'd suggest removing them from that template and then we don't need anything else. Nigej (talk) 18:01, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

They are extensively used. For example, go to espn.com, foxsports.com, si.com or sports.yahoo.com: all have a ticker at the top of the page that uses them. It's an important datum akin to companies' NASDAQ code or national teams' FIFA codes (both of which have a place in their respective infoboxes). --Angus (talk) 15:17, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I meant is their use widespread in Wikipedia. Generally abbreviations are undesirable in an encyclopedia where we're aiming for the general reader. Nigej (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about using abbreviations instead of teams names in articles. I'm talking about adding a missing datum to the teams articles, which happens to be their abbreviation. Why's that undesirable? (?) --Angus (talk) 15:31, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

See MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE. "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". If the abbreviation is not a "key fact" that appears in the article then, generally, it shouldn't be in the infobox. As MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE notes, there are exceptions ("where a piece of key specialised information is difficult to integrate into the body text") but personally I don't see these abbreviations as "key", so wouldn't make them an exception to the general rule. Nigej (talk) 15:45, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

It's quite key, since it's one of the team's handles, and it's quite difficult to integrate into the text, except maybe parenthesized right after the name, so I think it qualifies. You went from "undesirable" to "not key", so I think with time you'll end up agreeing anyway (j/k) ;) --Angus (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

I thought they were "undesirable" when, per your initial statement ("Those abbreviations are used in some templates ..."), I thought you had the idea of using them more extensively in Wikipedia. Now that I've got over that misunderstanding and we're just focused on MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, I think they're "undesirable" and "not key". Honestly I'm struggling so see any team abbreviation as "key". They might be of some interest and of some use, but that's not the issue here. Nigej (talk) 16:52, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

To make things clear, the following information: "The abbreviation XYZ is used to refer to this team". Do you thing it should or shouldn't be in a team's article? And why? Thanks. --Angus (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Now I'm confused again. I thought you'd confirmed that you wanted to add it to the infobox. Now you're wanting to adding to the article text. Either way, I don't really see any reason for introducing an abbreviation which we don't intend to use ourselves. I think there would have to be an exceptional reason for doing so, and you've not come up with any such reason. Nigej (talk) 15:56, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

So basically you are in favor of hiding, throughout Wikipedia, that US teams are commonly referred by 2- or 3-letter abbreviations and what they are. You are opposed to this information being in the teams articles or infoboxes at all. Why do you want to suppress that info? --Angus (talk) 10:39, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't seem like encyclopedic content to me. per WP:NOT especially WP:NOTEVERYTHING (and perhaps WP:INDISCRIMINATE): "Information should not be included in this encyclopedia solely because it is true or useful. A Wikipedia article should not be a complete exposition of all possible details, but a summary of accepted knowledge regarding its subject." There's all sorts of information that could be added to these articles, ticket prices, telephone numbers, where the car parks are, etc. but they don't fit in with our objective of building an encyclopedia IMO. Nigej (talk) 11:52, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how any different this is from Formula 1 drivers, or Association football teams - or anyone who has their name shortened in some broadcasts. I don't really see why we are using shorthand in a template - if it needs making smaller, maybe a template isn't suitable? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:09, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Lee, I opened this discussion to talk about adding the abbreviation to the teams' articles. Please don't derail it. Thx. --Angus (talk) 14:02, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

It's such a shame I can't comment on information that isn't directly in the opening of this topic, but, if that's the case... No, we should not be including three-letter abbreviations of full team names in articles. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:06, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it's a very odd discussion. Normally the proposer comes up with the arguments that we can comment on, but in this case it's all back to front. Nigej (talk) 17:10, 18 October 2022(UTC)

For what it's worth, I checked out {{NFL staff footer}} and I still don't understand what it's need is for. It currently links to a series of templates from within an article and is only for current staffing. It seems a bit bizarre to link to other staff in templates when the template for the staff in that article doesn't exist in the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:25, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

No, it I don't think it should be in the infobox. Where abbreviations are necessary the {{abbr}} template is usually the best and neatest option. However, I'd query what templates such as the one you highlight are actually doing – we don't usually put navigation templates in the middle of an article, or provide navigation between templates; or do we? _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 17:27, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

WP:NAVBOXes "are a grouping of links used in multiple related articles to facilitate navigation between those articles in Wikipedia." So you're right, they are to help navigation between ARTICLES. Nigej (talk) 17:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I'd be up for a MFD for this template, I don't think it would go anywhere, but this is not the purpose of a template. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:59, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I suppose changing the target to the current staff section of the team article would be an option. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:08, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

In reality I'm very doubtful that the staff rosters (eg {{Buffalo Bills staff}}) should be templates at all since they're basically single-use. They should be in the team articles (eg Buffalo Bills) where can easily be edited. I see they are "transcluded" in a couple of other places (eg List of current National Football League staffs) but these can easily be handled by Labeled Section Transclusions (see H:LST) where the sections (which they actually are, they're not really templates) can be transcluded into other articles. Nigej (talk) 18:40, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

The list of current staff article makes the navigation template somewhat redundant anyway. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 18:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Spot on. We can simply delete {{NFL staff footer}} and provide a link to List of current National Football League staffs. What could be easier. Nigej (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I have started an MFD for this item. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 07:12, 19 October 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. There seem to be many other similarly bad templates, e.g. Category:Sports footer templates. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 10:50, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

I oppose this. It doesn't save space in a meaningful way for most templates aside from footers that list every team. As for mentions in articles, after the first mention of a team we might refer to the Detroit Lions as the Lions, not as DET. Note that OP has posted this suggestion at the following WikiProjects: NBA, NFL, ice hockey, and baseball directing people to this post. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Neutral discussion lingers to relevant wikiprojects is not an issue. In fact, it's encouraged. oknazevad (talk) 13:20, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

I think there's some confusion to what the OP is proposing. If I'm not mistaken, he's proposing adding each team's official three letter abbreviation, which are commonly used on schedules, scoreboards, website tickets, and things like that, to the team's infobox, much like a company's infobox includes that company's stock ticker symbol. He's not calling for using them around Wikipedia, just noting that there are some templates that already do use them. Honestly, I can think of less useful things to put in the infobox. Remember, although it is supposed to summarize the article, an infobox is also supposed to stand on its own as a quick reference chart. The abbreviations aren't always so obvious and can be different for teams in the same city even thought they're typically derived from the city name (for example, the NFL uses "WAS" for the Washington Commanders, while MLB uses "WSH" for the Washington Nationals), so they're the sort of bite-sized info that a reader might want to look up. As such, I can see why we might want to include them, just as we already include common nicknames and boxes with the team colors. oknazevad (talk) 19:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

However, see my comments above re MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE "the purpose of an infobox: to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article". Then we get into a discussion about whether they are "a piece of key specialised information" to provide an exception. Personally I'm doubtful. "key" is a high bar to jump, "I can see why we might want to include them" is surely nowhere near. Nigej (talk) 20:18, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

That's the key question, isn't it? Whether they reach that threshold of inclusion. I just wanted to make sure we were all clear on the question because there was a lot of discussion that was based on misreading the proposal. oknazevad (talk) 13:21, 22 October 2022 (UTC)

Note There was a discussion to merge such abbreviations from List of National Basketball Association team abbreviations into National Basketball Association before at Talk:National_Basketball_Association/Archive_2#Proposed_merge_with_List_of_National_Basketball_Association_team_abbreviations, but the consensus was to delete the list from mainspace and move it to Wikipedia:WikiProject National Basketball Association/National Basketball Association team abbreviations.—Bagumba (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2022 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

To answer the original question directly, I do not think we need to include these abbreviations. I do not see these as "official abbreviations" as was alluded to for NASDAQ companies, but rather "the most obvious shorthand if you need a shorthand". For reference, below is the content of the staff footer template mentioned above (now deleted):

AFC East

BUF

MIA

NE

NYJ

North

BAL

CIN

CLE

PIT

South

HOU

IND

JAX

TEN

West

DEN

KC

LV

LAC

NFC East

DAL

NYG

PHI

WAS

North

CHI

DET

GB

MIN

South

ATL

CAR

NO

TB

West

ARI

LAR

SF

SEA

I am reasonably familiar with the NFL and I was able to quickly go through and name almost every one of them, simply because I know either the names of the teams or the location where they are (e.g. "GB" can only be "Green Bay" because what else would it be? Though that being said, I feel like I've seen "PACK" before...). To get closer to my home/sport of choice, I don't see SAL for Sale Sharks or GLA for Glasgow Warriors as to be anything other than a reasonable shorthand for the team in question when it's on the scoreboard.

In summary, I don't see any issue if someone wants to put in shorthand into template calls (for things like {{rut}} or similar) but I do not see a need to put said information into an infobox as a TLA. Primefac (talk) 13:48, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Uniforms & current season in CFL team infoboxes

Resolved

There appears to be a mix up, in the infoboxes of the nine CFL team pages. Under the heading "uniform" - nothing is shown. Also, the heading "current season" is missing - yet the current season is shown. Bringing this hear, as WP:CFL seems inactive. GoodDay (talk) 02:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

We're here, so might as well, but this is more of a template issue so discussing on the template's talk and/or WT:WPT would probably be better (for future reference)... I'll cross-post there just to get more template-savvy eyes on it.

{{Infobox American football team}} has not been changed in a few months. Additionally (just looking at Winnipeg Blue Bombers as a random example) the |uniform= parameter seems to be used properly. I'll have to dig into this a bit more but at the moment it's a big "I have no idea" from me.

Regarding the current season, there is no header in the template, so the lack of a header is to be expected. Primefac (talk) 09:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I just found it confusing, that both parameters are malfunctioning for the CFL teams. They're functioning for the NFL teams. GoodDay (talk) 15:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

NFL teams e.g. Chicago Bears seem to be using a different template: Template:Infobox NFL team. Whatever code/functionality is allowing it to work on the NFL team infobox should be added to the general American football team template (which CFL is using). I have very little template editing experience, so won't attempt to do it myself. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:27, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

A change by either LaneFrost00 or Buffanigan, neither of whom edited the template's sandbox page or created a testcases page, appears to have made the uniform disappear. I have made it reappear. Please use the sandbox and testcases page when you are editing templates. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Oh my, of all the things I thought to check, whether the data number was sequential was not one of them. Good catch Jonesey95. Primefac (talk) 10:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Tennis player terms

What are the differences between inactive, former and retired relating to tennis players? SarahTHunter (talk) 18:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The preference of the editor involved. To the best of my knowledge, there's no standard usage, and the waters have been muddied in sports where (often for salary cap-related issues) more and more players aren't formally retiring until after their contracts expire. Ravenswing 21:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

College sports player year designations

I stupidly interpreted "Jr." and "Sr." after names as postnominals in a recent batch of semi-automated edits, when I wasn't paying enough attention to what I was doing. That's fixed, but having college years that way, looking like parts of names, seems like a bad idea still. They're OK in table columns, but otherwise it would be more readable and clear to just use "junior", "senior", "sophomore", and "freshman", no? Dicklyon (talk) 21:42, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Are you requesting such page be 'moved'? GoodDay (talk) 22:07, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Legends Football League#Requested move 3 November 2022

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Legends Football League#Requested move 3 November 2022 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. — Ceso femmuin mbolgaig mbung, mellohi! (投稿) 07:31, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Template for sports biographies lacking sources containing significant coverage

The 2022 NSPORTS RfC added a requirement that all sports articles are required to have a source that contains significant coverage of the topic. To help identify sports articles that lack this I've created Template:No significant coverage (sports); please add it to any such articles that you encounter, and if you are looking for an article to improve the relevant categories may be useful. BilledMammal (talk) 13:00, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Sports table talk at WT:Baseball

I've started a discussion at WT:Baseball about replacing {{MLB standings}} with Module:Sports table to remain consistent with other sports. Please feel free to join the discussion here. –Aidan721 (talk) 03:42, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

FAR for Olympic Games

I have nominated Olympic Games for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" in regards to the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Hog Farm _Talk 05:55, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Wintersport portal

Hey guys,

just saw that there is no wintersport portal? Someone interessted in starting a wintersport portal? KatastrophenKommando (talk) 22:57, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Skydance Task Force

To anyone that's working in this WikiProject: If anyone's working on articles from Skydance, i have a task force opened up at the WikiProject Animation article called Wikipedia:WikiProject Animation/Skydance Media work group. This task force is open for Video Games, Animation, Film and Television, and Sports. If anyone is interested in this, we have some slots open up. BMA-Nation2020 (talk) 22:30, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Men's FIFA World Cup

Input would be appreciated at this RFC, concerning the Men's FIFA World Cup tournament. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

Unreviewed Featured articles year-end summary

Restoring older Featured articles to standard:

year-end 2022 summary

Unreviewed featured articles/2020 (URFA/2020) is a systematic approach to reviewing older Featured articles (FAs) to ensure they still meet the FA standards. A January 2022 Signpost article called "Forgotten Featured" explored the effort.

Progress is recorded at the monthly stats page. Through 2022, with 4,526 very old (from the 2004–2009 period) and old (2010–2015) FAs initially needing review:

• 357 FAs were delisted at Featured article review (FAR).
• 222 FAs were kept at FAR or deemed "satisfactory" by three URFA reviewers, with hundreds more being marked as "satisfactory", but awaiting three reviews.
• FAs needing review were reduced from 77% of total FAs at the end of 2020 to 64% at the end of 2022.

Of the FAs kept, deemed satisfactory by three reviewers, or delisted, about 60% had prior review between 2004 and 2007; another 20% dated to the period from 2008–2009; and another 20% to 2010–2015. Roughly two-thirds of the old FAs reviewed have retained FA status or been marked "satisfactory", while two-thirds of the very old FAs have been defeatured.

Entering its third year, URFA is working to help maintain FA standards; FAs are being restored not only via FAR, but also via improvements initiated after articles are reviewed and talk pages are noticed. Since the Featured Article Save Award (FASA) was added to the FAR process a year ago, 38 FAs were restored to FA status by editors other than the original FAC nominator. Ten FAs restored to status have been listed at WP:MILLION, recognizing articles with annual readership over a million pageviews, and many have been rerun as Today's featured article, helping increase mainpage diversity.

Examples of 2022 "FAR saves" of very old featured articles

Solar System 2007 FA J. K. Rowling 2007 FA June 26, 2022 TFA Antarctica 2006 FA Joan of Arc 2006 FA Speed of light 2010 FA

All received a Million Award

But there remain almost 4,000 old and very old FAs to be reviewed. Some topic areas and WikiProjects have been more proactive than others in restoring or maintaining their old FAs. As seen in the chart below, the following have very high ratios of FAs kept to those delisted (ordered from highest ratio):

• Biology
• Physics and astronomy
• Warfare
• Video gaming

and others have a good ratio of kept to delisted FAs:

• Literature and theatre
• Engineering and technology
• Religion, mysticism and mythology
• Media
• Geology and geophysics

... so kudos to those editors who pitched in to help maintain older FAs !

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 through 2022 by content area

FAs reviewed at URFA/2020 from November 21, 2020 to December 31, 2022 (VO, O) Topic area Delisted Kept Total Reviewed Ratio Kept to Delisted (overall 0.62) Remaining to review for 2004–7 promotions Art, architecture and archaeology 10 6 16 0.60 19 Biology 13 41 54 3.15 67 Business, economics and finance 6 1 7 0.17 2 Chemistry and mineralogy 2 1 3 0.50 7 Computing 4 1 5 0.25 0 Culture and society 9 1 10 0.11 8 Education 22 1 23 0.05 3 Engineering and technology 3 3 6 1.00 5 Food and drink 2 0 2 0.00 3 Geography and places 40 6 46 0.15 22 Geology and geophysics 3 2 5 0.67 1 Health and medicine 8 3 11 0.38 5 Heraldry, honors, and vexillology 11 1 12 0.09 6 History 27 14 41 0.52 38 Language and linguistics 3 0 3 0.00 3 Law 11 1 12 0.09 3 Literature and theatre 13 14 27 1.08 24 Mathematics 1 2 3 2.00 3 Media 14 10 24 0.71 40 Meteorology 15 6 21 0.40 31 Music 27 8 35 0.30 55 Philosophy and psychology 0 1 1 – 2 Physics and astronomy 3 7 10 2.33 24 Politics and government 19 4 23 0.21 9 Religion, mysticism and mythology 14 14 28 1.00 8 Royalty and nobility 10 6 16 0.60 44 Sport and recreation 32 12 44 0.38 39 Transport 8 2 10 0.25 11 Video gaming 3 5 8 1.67 23 Warfare 26 49 75 1.88 31 Total 359 Note A 222 Note B 581 0.62 536 Noting some minor differences in tallies: A URFA/2020 archives show 357, which does not include those delisted which were featured after 2015; FAR archives show 358, so tally is off by at least one, not worth looking for. B FAR archives show 63 kept at FAR since URFA started at end of Nov 2020. URFA/2020 shows 61 Kept at FAR, meaning two kept were outside of scope of URFA/2020. Total URFA/2020 Keeps (Kept at FAR plus those with three Satisfactory marks) is 150 + 72 = 222.

But looking only at the oldest FAs (from the 2004–2007 period), there are 12 content areas with more than 20 FAs still needing review: Biology, Music, Royalty and nobility, Media, Sport and recreation, History, Warfare, Meteorology, Physics and astronomy, Literature and theatre, Video gaming, and Geography and places. In the coming weeks, URFA/2020 editors will be posting lists to individual WikiProjects with the goal of getting these oldest-of-the-old FAs reviewed during 2023.

Ideas for how you can help are listed below and at the Signpost article.

• Review a 2004 to 2007 FA. With three "Satisfactory" marks, article can be moved to the FAR not needed section.
• Review "your" articles: Did you nominate a featured article between 2004 and 2015 that you have continuously maintained? Check these articles, update as needed, and mark them as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020. A continuously maintained FA is a good predictor that standards are still met, and with two more "Satisfactory" marks, "your" articles can be listed as "FAR not needed". If they no longer meet the FA standards, please begin the FAR process by posting your concerns on the article's talk page.
• Review articles that already have one "Satisfactory" mark: more FAs can be indicated as "FAR not needed" if other reviewers will have a look at those already indicated as maintained by the original nominator. If you find issues, you can enter them at the talk page.
• Fix an existing featured article: Choose an article at URFA/2020 or FAR and bring it back to FA standards. Enlist the help of the original nominator, frequent FA reviewers, WikiProjects listed on the talk page, or editors that have written similar topics. When the article returns to FA standards, please mark it as 'Satisfactory' at URFA/2020 or note your progress in the article's FAR.
• Review and nominate an article to FAR that has been 'noticed' of a FAR needed but issues raised on talk have not been addressed. Sometimes nominating at FAR draws additional editors to help improve the article that would otherwise not look at it.

More regular URFA and FAR reviewers will help assure that FAs continue to represent examples of Wikipedia's best work. If you have any questions or feedback, please visit Wikipedia talk:Unreviewed featured articles/2020/4Q2022.

FAs last reviewed from 2004 to 2007 of interest to this WikiProject

If you review an article on this list, please add commentary at the article talk page, with a section heading == [[URFA/2020]] review== and also add either Notes or Noticed to WP:URFA/2020A, per the instructions at WP:URFA/2020. Comments added here may be swept up in archives and lost, and more editors will see comments on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

By sport

Sport: American football 2005 Texas Longhorns football team 2006 Chick-fil-A Bowl Sport: Archery Zhou Tong (archer) Sport: Association football Aston Villa F.C. Bobby Robson History of Gillingham F.C. History of Stoke City F.C. IFK Göteborg Ipswich Town F.C. Leek Town F.C. Priestfield Stadium York City F.C. Sport: Auto racing 2005 United States Grand Prix Sport: Baseball Bob Meusel Moe Berg Youngstown Ohio Works Sport: Basketball Michael Jordan Tim Duncan Sport: Chess Mechanical Turk Sport: Cricket Adam Gilchrist Arthur Morris Bart King Bill O'Reilly (cricketer) Bodyline Charlie Macartney Ian Chappell Marcus Trescothick Paul Collingwood Sport: Hockey Dominik Hašek Joe Sakic Martin Brodeur Stanley Cup Sport: Olympic games Bids for the 2012 Summer Olympics Ian Thorpe Jim Thorpe Sport: Racing Brabham BT19 Sport: Rugby New Zealand national rugby union team Wales national rugby union team Sport: Tabletop gaming Dungeons & Dragons Sport: Wrestling Shelton Benjamin

Infobox cross-post

I started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Olympics § Potential duplicate templates that is within the purview of this project. Thoughts and opinions appreciated. Primefac (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Precedent for season results lists and listicles

Is there any consensus, guideline or policy that specifies the appropriateness of listing the results of every single match played in a sports season? (e.g. Super League XXVII results, 2022–23 Premiership Rugby § Regular season and 2022 Indian Premier League § Matches.) This seems WP:INDISCRIMINATE and, in cases where it is appropriate to do so, a two-axis table of teams would perhaps serve as a better replacement. (e.g. 2022–23 Premier League § Results, 2022–23 EuroLeague § Results) It would increase readability, decrease the size of the article and decrease the amount of effort needed for editors to update pages. — AFC Vixen 🦊 09:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

What's often the practice in individual team articles -- where appropriate -- is the creation of a collapsible table with individual match results: 1971–72_Boston_Bruins_season#Schedule_and_results is an example. But I can't imagine anyone doing this in a league season article; the Major League Baseball regular season alone is over 2,400 games. Ravenswing 13:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

As I have shown in my examples though, people do indeed do this for league season articles, which is why I asked. — AFC Vixen 🦊 15:11, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Consensus on recently changed sports team name use

Hello all, I'm reaching out to see if your WikiProject has come up with a consensus regarding how to refer to the name of a sports team that recently changed names in settings like the list of notable people on a city's article. This question comes from my editing Kennewick, Washington, which has this individual and associated information:

• Russ Swan, Major League Baseball pitcher, San Francisco Giants, Seattle Mariners, Cleveland Indians

Should the name Cleveland Indians remain, as that was the name of the team when Swan played for them, or is it proper to change it to Cleveland Guardians? This sort of thing is outside of my editing wheelhouse.

Thanks. DJ Cane (talk) 12:01, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

It's absolutely the name of the team at the time the player played for it, which is a fairly standard practice across the board; the polities named in birthplaces, for instance, are the ones extant at the time. Swan pitched for the Cleveland Indians, not the Guardians. Ravenswing 13:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

The only exception is when someone played for the club under two names, when you might name both, but you'd need to use common sense. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:32, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

In this situation, use "Cleveland Indians". Even though the franchise is now called the "Cleveland Guardians", it doesn't mean we retroactively erase its former name. GoodDay (talk) 14:18, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with using the name of the team at the time, it's consistent with how we do it for sports articles. It's also the same process as with wider Wikipedia guidelines for renamed things e.g. WP:MPN for places that have renamed themselves over time. The fact that the team's name may be considered offensive does not take away from the fact that that was their name at the time. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:27, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with the above. When an article is renamed many people want to point to the new article name, either by changing to the new name or by adding a pipe. However, often the correct approach is to do nothing. per WP:DONOTFIXIT: Do not "fix" it. Nigej (talk) 16:08, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Case used in wikitables

Hi! You've all probably seen "Did not advance", "Did not start", "Did not finish", "Did not qualify", "Qualified", "Disqualified", etc. in wikitables. User:Dicklyon recently started changing them to lowercase. And now there's a discussion if it actually should or not be lowercase. Any thoughts? Give them at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Capital letters. Pelmeen10 (talk) 11:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

A discussion relevant to this WikiProject is taking place

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:In the news regarding whether or not to remove all amateur sporting events from Wikipedia:In the news/Recurring items. The thread is Request for Comment: Amateur sporting events. Thank you. — Red-tailed hawk _(nest) 03:59, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Flags in Sports Personality of the Year articles

I've noticed that a number of featured list relating to winners of the Sports Personality of the Year appear to violate MOS:SPORTFLAG, in particular: Flags should never indicate the player's nationality in a non-sporting sense; flags should only indicate the sportsperson's national squad/team or representative nationality. Where flags are used in a table, it should clearly indicate that they correspond to representative nationality, not legal nationality, if any confusion might arise. The specific articles are: BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year, BBC Sports Personality of the Year, some British winners of the BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award, BBC Sports Personality of the Year Helen Rollason Award, BBC Sports Unsung Hero Award. These articles are generally defining British winners of the awards not by their sporting nationality (for most people's sports, they compete as Great Britain/United Kingdom, with exceptions for e.g. footballers/cricketers/rugby players who compete for England/Scotland) but by the country of their birth (England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland), which seems to be a violation of MOS:SPORTFLAG.

My view is that it should be like BBC Sports Team of the Year Award, which uses England/Scotland/Wales for sports where they compete as separate nations, but United Kingdom otherwise. Looking for a consensus on how to fix this, as these articles I imagine don't have too many page watchers, and featured lists shouldn't have these issues. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:48, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

An example for this: on BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year, Wayne Rooney Theo Walcott and Phil Foden all played football for England, and so English flag is correct. All other winners competed predominantly for a unified British team, so should have Great Britain or United Kingdom listed as the nationality. Hopefully, this example makes my point clearer. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:50, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Feature list removal discussion

I have nominated BBC Young Sports Personality of the Year for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here.

Mass draftification proposal regarding Olympians

You may be interested in this village pump discussion on draftifiying nearly a thousand Olympians. BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Better communicating uncertainty in unconfirmed sports transactions

I've started a discussion that could use this project's input at the idea lab village pump. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 23:48, 10 March 2023 (UTC)

Mass-TfD college softball navboxes nomination

I'm not sure that WikiProject College Softball is active so I'm pinging related projects, in case anyone has an opinion on the mass-TfD. Please see Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2023 March 24#College softball class-/position-specific award navboxes if you care either way. SportsGuy789 (talk) 16:36, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Category:British sportspeople by sport: why non-diffusing?

TLDR: why are there British and English/Scottish/Welsh/NI categories alongside one another?

LONG: Just wondering if anyone is able to clarify the rationale behind most of the British gendered sportspeople categories being non-diffusing. I have been in a dispute today with someone regarding a related issue, and although in that case there was no need for there to be 'Major League Baseball players from England' and 'Major League Baseball players from the United Kingdom' on the same article as one is obviously a subcategory of the other, part of their argument was that there are plenty of other British sportspeople related categories where both are displayed, albeit inconsistently.

For example, Category:British female field hockey players (currently 91 entries) states that it is non-diffusing, but there are female players in the 4 home nation subcats (114 English, 16 NI, 9 Wales, 41 Scotland) so in the British cat there should be a total of 180+, taking into account that there will be some stubs of British Olympic players from back in the day with little known about their background. Or if in fact non-diffusing should be ignored, the British total should only include that small number of players that can't be sorted further. So one issue is that the situation is something of a messy halfway house, and the other is that the official instruction is is for non-diffusion, so there should be 'Welsh female field hockey players' alongside 'British female field hockey players' in every relevant article, even though that flies in the face of other subcategorisation rules.

I see the British categories for other sports also have this instruction, although several of them don't have gendered home nation subcats, so it makes more sense to have 'British M/F fooers' and 'English [no gender] fooers'. However I checked cycling and it is a similar mess to hockey: Category:British female cyclists has 82 entries, but 109/4/26/38 (=177) in the subcats, so surely the total should either be all the Brits ~180, or only the non Eng/Sco/Wal ones which would probably only be a dozen or so.

I'm Scottish myself, so I fully understand the situation that the home nations exist separately for some sports and not for others, and that the status of the home nations as 'four countries within a sovereign state, one of which is claimed by another sovereign state and they have some joint affairs' (talking about all-Ireland) is something of an anomaly in terms of nationality overall and it makes categorising accurately a tricky affair. I'm not saying I think the non-diffusing is wrong, but I would like more clarity on why it has been chosen as a default, so that those hatnotes can possibly be expanded to explain the situation fully. And as I've pointed out, the 'rule' isn't being applied consistently in any way at present. So is it not maybe easier to remove said stipulation and just have the home nations as the defined nationality under the British umbrella category, without an expectation that they would be listed in that category too? Crowsus (talk) 00:25, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

If nobody can be bothered to comment on this, fair enough, but I will note it here that I intend to tidy it up at some point, and my preferred method would be to move all the confirmed English etc persons in each sport to that category, leaving only those whose origins are unspecified or are UK naturalised in the British parent cat. So if anyone objects to that, this would be the place to let me know please. Crowsus (talk) 05:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

List of sportspeople who competed for more than one nation

Came across this list that is clearly very incomplete. If you have thematic knowledge, please expand. Pelmeen10 (talk) 12:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

The lede says "list of sportspeople who have moved to compete for another country", which is distinctly different from competing for two different countries. The article title is vague as well, are we strictly talking about people who have represented a nation as a part of a national team, or those that have changed the sports country that they have? Those are two distinct things - in terms of association football even, there's hundreds of people who played at youth level for one country, and then another at international seniors level. I think a straight "must have competed for two distinct senior national teams" is a much better inclusion criteria. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:30, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Sports country as the page is not oriented to team sports. Football has a seperate page - List of association footballers who have been capped for two senior national teams. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:08, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Category:Sports events affected by the Russian invasion of Ukraine

What's the inclusion criteria for this category? The page should have a short explanation just as the Covid-cats did. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

For example is not allowing Rus/Blr athletes to compete really an affect to the event? Not competing can be compared to "sports events affected by athlete injury" or something similar. Pelmeen10 (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

For most events listed in that category, the "impact" is just not allowing Russian/Belarusian athletes, which is a non defining characteristic of that event. A small number of these bans may have had larger consequences e.g. Wimbledon ban on Russian and Belarusian players, which is valid for that category, but having every UEFA football and every FINA swimming event since 2022 listed there simply because of their bans is ludicrous and not encyclopedic. Unless the invasion/country bans had a significant impact on an event, e.g. it was cancelled/postponed/relocated because of the invasion, or there was some large consequence of the ban as with Wimbledon, then it shouldn't be listed here. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There's an argument that something like the 2022 FIFA World Cup (or at least the article on European qualification) would make sense, as there was a protest around not playing Russia and matches involving the Ukraine were postponed, but simply not having Russian athletes not compete isn't good enough. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 11:28, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree that it makes sense in some cases like 2022 FIFA World Cup qualification – UEFA second round, which was impacted by Russia being kicked out. But not 2021–22 UEFA Champions League, where no Russian teams were left in the competition at the time of the decision (or even worse, 2022 UEFA Champions League final is in this category, even though no Russian team could have qualified for the final, as they'd all been eliminated previously anyway). We need a clear inclusion/exclusion criteria, or the category should be deleted for failing WP:ARBITRARYCAT and WP:NONDEFINING. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:23, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Champions League final was relocated from Russia. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:19, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Streaks

It seems we've put more attention to lists recently, so here's more: Winning streak, List of winning streaks in the Olympic Games, Perfect season and Losing streak. They seem quite USA-oriented. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:29, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

The mess at Cinderella (sports)

One of those lists bloated with unsourced examples. This has been raised several times over the years a the article talk page, to no avail. Probably if I start cutting it will meet with resistance from purveyors of fancruft, or be mistaken for vandalism, so I'm requesting the assistance, and cover, of other editors. My approach would be first to remove the unsourced examples, then run through the others to confirm that the sources support a 'Cinderella' designation. More thoughts welcome. Thanks. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:10, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Good grief: that article's a disgrace. It just seems to be a magnet for any time some team in some season in some sport was an underdog that succeeded despite the touts, and those examples would run into the tens of thousands. I would blow the examples up completely, to be honest: we don't need to have two hundred examples of someone scoring a hat trick, say, in order to adequately illustrate the term. A handful of links to appropriate team season articles, or to incidents with standalone articles, would be more than enough. Ravenswing 05:13, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Classic WP:EXAMPLEFARM when there is an embedded list of every time some subjective term was used, in this case "Cinderella". It would be best if these types of pages describe the general topic, with at best a few WP:DUE examples that are oft-mentioned. —Bagumba (talk) 06:42, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Holy cats, lots of recentism too, as happens with such open lists. Yes, a massive cull looks required. Additionally, many of the examples presented are full paragraphs. I would suggest that any that survive the purge be limited to a sentence at most. If they are significant examples then as Ravenswing suggests then surely a sentence including an appropriate wikilink is the way to go. Echoedmyron (talk) 14:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for responding--there seems to be a consensus forming that the cuts can be deeper than I originally suggested, which would be fine. Perhaps mention of a few notable examples; for me, they could be James J. Braddock in boxing, Seabiscuit in horse racing and the 1969 Mets in baseball, but there are many possibilities. When the paring begins, we can copy and paste this discussion to the article talk page. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The fewer examples the better, and they ought to be restricted to the bare mentions; putting any in at all just encourages editors to start the bloat all over again. Ravenswing 08:25, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If we must, put the examples in prose, not list form. People just love to add to lists, but not as much with integrating into existing prose. —Bagumba (talk) 09:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Do we even need this article? It's an idiom people use to describe a fairy tale. I don't see what we gain from having examples. Could easily have a sentence or two at Cinderella about it being used to describe an unlikely sports winner and redirect there. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 08:58, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Agree 100%. Cinderella (disambiguation) says: "Cinderella (sports), a team or player who advances much further in a tournament than expected" Fair enough, but we don't need an article listing a random selection of examples. No encyclopedic values at all, from my perspective. Needs to go. Nigej (talk) 09:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that. The article is rubbish. HiLo48 (talk) 09:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If we end up with a consensus here - I do think we'd still need to take it to AfD, rather than being bold due to the vast history of the article. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. I'd think there's enough sources to write about the general topic, even if we don't need (most of) the examples. —Bagumba (talk) 09:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not arguing for clean-up. WP:GNG says "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information." To me, this a text-book example of exactly that. It is currently "an indiscriminate collection of information" and turning it into something that is not "indiscriminate" seems like an impossible task to me. Nigej (talk) 09:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Realistically, if you cut the examples out, this is simply an article that says "sometimes people use the term "a Cinderella story" to refer to a team or individual who received success against the odds". Yes, it's used A LOT, but that doesn't make the term itself notable for its own article. This seems like a wiktionary thing if anything. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 09:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Pointing out that we have Underdog and Dark horse. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And there doesn't seem to be any difference between an underdog and a cinderella- both refer to teams expected to do badly that end up doing well. But underdog has the advantage of not having 100 unencyclopedic examples in the article, like cinderella article does. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:22, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Those three could be all merged into one article. It's clearly a concept. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

and there's Comeback (sports) too, a vaguely related idea, which also has a seemingly random set of examples. Nigej (talk) 17:05, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Note: I've left notification of this discussion at Talk:Cinderella (sports) § Page content.—Bagumba (talk) 09:18, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Huh. Lots of talk, no action. I've just struck the offending sections from the article. Ravenswing 19:14, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I think a general merge and redirect for all these terms to comeback (sports) is probably the best solution. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:15, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  I agree with Lee Vilenski. Some of these article need to go or be merged. Found this too: Iron man (sports streak). Honestly, is this encyclopedic content? Nigej (talk) 19:36, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

  "Iron man leaderboard???" Good grief. Ravenswing 06:25, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

  AfD'd, and merger proposal below. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:07, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger proposal

As above, I propose the merger (and redirection) of these articles: Cinderella Underdog and Dark horse into comeback (sports). They are very much the same item, with slightly differing meanings, but the same overall ideal. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:55, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Not sure about Cinderella, but Oppose Underdog (more useful content than the Wiktionary entry). Cinderella is about underdog (rather merge it there), not about comeback. Dark horse is not even sports-oriented article. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:31, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
• Oppose It's a stretch to call any of those a comeback. —Bagumba (talk) 17:36, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an alternative title? We currently have four articles for what is one thing with slightly different meanings. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

"Comeback" is a different topic, mostly about overcoming a deficit. The other three could be mergeable. No, I don't have a suggested title at this time.—Bagumba (talk) 18:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

• Oppose – I think you could merge Cinderella into Underdog, but Comeback (sports) is definitely a different thing. I would also argue that Dark horse has a different enough meaning (an unknown, rather than necessarily an underdog) to exclude it from a merger. Harrias ^{(he/him) • talk} 18:46, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Alternative proposal(s)

It seems like the proposal as written was a little off the mark. Would anyone agree to a straight merge of Cinderella and Underdog as being two sides of the same coin? Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:49, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Sports source list

Category:WikiProject lists of reliable sources and Category:WikiProject reference libraries have a few source lists for individual sports, but the selection is limited. Is there potential for a general purpose sports source/reference list? Something like this might be helpful for us less sports-inclined editors when working with sourcing backlogs or trying to find evidence of notability. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 20:16, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

There's too many possible sources in my opinion since every sport and country has their own media, experts and so forth. And notability concerns are basically freebies here - you can always make one and there's absolutely no consequence for abusing it or just getting it completely wrong. I also don't really like the idea of limiting the user of any more sources since many of the current guidelines deny good sources due to silly things like the author publishing it on blogspot or due to users getting their website blackballed from here as a source due to it being their own.KatoKungLee (talk) 16:31, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

If there's nowhere to search for notability, then I'm just going to keep using Google to determine whether I nominate a sportsbio for deletion. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 19:08, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:Newspapers.com is a great resource for searching American and Canadian topics, whereas Trove is good for Australian topics, and the British Newspaper Archive for the UK. BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

Project-independent quality assessments

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup

Hello. I have added new references to independent sources. These sources disclose information "Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup", in-depth (not just passing mentions about the subject), These sources is reliable, secondary, independent of the subject.

Also see the new notes "Draft talk:1987 Wrestling World Cup". Tschin As (talk) 15:42, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Draft:1987 Wrestling World Cup

I have added new notes in Draft talk:1987 Wrestling World Cup Tschin As (talk) 06:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Merger-related discussion topic

I created a new merger-related talk section at UT Arlington Mavericks that I believe would make for an interesting discussion topic, if anybody is interested. 100.7.44.80 (talk) 13:35, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Nike sweatshops, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 24 April 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

help with vandalism?

I've been reverting a certain user (Adelbeighou and anon) several times at FINA Water Polo World Cup, and it looks like an edit war between us, or a content dispute, although I haven't received an answer to the talk page. This edit has removed FR Yugoslavia/SCG medals and changed them to Serbian. Does anyone else think such edit is vandalism? Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I think this might be a sock. [1] Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:16, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Certainly seems to fit the bill, can't hurt to list them as a new case (though a CU is pointless given there aren't any new accounts). Primefac (talk) 14:19, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

I suspected Gagibgd myself. CheckUser would be denied as Primefac mentioned, so it'd need clean evidence. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:11, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not vandalism, it's a point of view, but I do agree we're at the point where discussion should happen. Keeping the WRONGVERSION on the page for a bit while that happens isn't the end of the world, given that it's not exactly a high-traffic page. Primefac (talk) 14:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

"I've been reverting a certain user... several times" - lie. Two times at most. "This edit has removed FR Yugoslavia/SCG medals" - lie again. I left note with explanation below medal table. I find your behavior worse than vandalism. The moment you have content dispute with someone you try to have that person banned by accusing them of being a sock without evidence. You did the same thing here. Disgusting behavior. Adelbeighou (talk) 06:27, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Take it down a notch, please. Name-calling isn't going to get this resolved. Civil discussion will. Primefac (talk) 06:49, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

No name-calling here just calling out bullying of new users. The real issue I raised above should be addressed. Adelbeighou (talk) 08:06, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

I share a different point of view from yours. And as far as I can tell from my time in Wikipedia, it's shared with most editors. I'm sorry if my point of view and edits offend you. Pelmeen10 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

You don't offend me. Adelbeighou (talk) 16:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

The discussion, for reference, is at Talk:FINA Water Polo World Cup § Serbia and Montenegro. Primefac (talk) 06:51, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Working on an article on the ongoing bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group

With the possibility of major changes in sports media, I thought it would be a good idea to work an article about Diamond Sports Group's ongoing bankruptcy. Help is appreciated! Draft:Bankruptcy of Diamond Sports Group. Esolo5002 (talk) 03:23, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest just expanding Diamond Sports Group, and only splitting out later if it became WP:TOOBIG and the bankruptcy details were notable enough to merit a separate page.—Bagumba (talk) 09:25, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not too long. Pelmeen10 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix

At Talk:2023 Emilia Romagna Grand Prix we are discussing the meaning of cancellation in sports. You may be interested in the discussion. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2023 (UTC)

Secretive discussion

A bunch of editors are having a secretive discussion about a massive deletion/draftification process, that should be discussed centrally, not on a user page. Please see this; User:BilledMammal/Mass Creation Draftification BilledMammal of quizzing people as to how they found it, which is very worrying. Spike 'em (talk) 20:50, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Relocated professional sports teams

I may have to do an RfC to get some more perspective on how to resolve this. Shall relocated professional sports teams receive different articles for their players, stats, coaches, management, and seasons lists as they do at WP:MLB, WP:BASKETBALL, and WP:AMF, OR shall they be separate like WP:HOCKEY? There is an open RM discussion here which discusses moving two or more relocated franchises' seasons lists together. However, during discussion, it was revealed that the list of players, coaches, management, and possibly records would have to be merged as well.

I open up here to all of the WP:SPORTS, separate or not? I would prefer not status quo which would be WP:HOCKEY is an exception.

Examples of teams that kept the name but moved cities/region:

• List of Los Angeles Dodgers seasons (includes Brooklyn Dodgers), Los Angeles Lakers all-time roster (includes Minnesota Lakers), List of Las Vegas Raiders head coaches (includes Oakland Raiders and Los Angeles Raiders)

Examples of teams that have both all-time rosters:

• Oklahoma City Thunder all-time roster (includes Seattle SuperSonics) and Seattle SuperSonics all-time roster. Only in WP:BASKETBALL as far as I can tell.

Examples of teams that moved cities/regions and changed name entirely:

• List of Tennessee Titans seasons (includes Houston Oilers), Washington Nationals all-time roster (includes Montreal Expos), List of Washington Wizards head coaches (includes both Chicago seasons and Baltimore Bullets)

Examples of what WP:HOCKEY does:

• List of Quebec Nordiques seasons and List of Colorado Avalanche seasons (Nordiques relocated to Colorado in 1995), List of Minnesota North Stars players and List of Dallas Stars players (North Stars relocated to Dallas in 1993), List of Atlanta Flames head coaches and List of Calgary Flames head coaches (Flames retained name and relocated to Calgary in 1980).

I would like some idea on how to proceed. I realize each of these projects operate independently of each other, but under WP:SPORTS, I'd expect there to be some consensus on whether to separate or not. Conyo14 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Are we talking about something that just applies to USA and Canada or are there other countries to be considered? And does it just relate to the four sports mentioned? Nigej (talk) 09:10, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

An important question. Such moves have occured outside the USA/Canada. The Australian Football League has a couple of examples. Both were very different situations. I suspect it would be near impossible to write rigid rules on how to handle such situations in all cases. Is it really necessary? HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked at the examples of the Australian Football League. I couldn't find season-by-season records, coaches, or players lists. It appears that relocations are primarily a North American. However, yes I would like this to be applied to all sports leagues everywhere if they have a relocation. Conyo14 (talk) 16:31, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You're operating from false premises that: 1) the very existence of some Wikipedia articles are "problems" that must be "resolved", 2) if you had consensus to make the changes you seek to make, by extension other articles "would have to be merged as well", 3) "What about _______?" is sufficient justification to make the changes you seek to make, and 4) WP:SPORTS needs a universally-applied global policy on this very particular bugaboo of yours.

As I wrote at Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche seasons#Merger Discussion: "'The franchise' is not some immutable thing that takes any particular precedence over how we as Wikipedia editors are free to organize things. Spilling digital ink to keep these as separate articles is no big thing. This does not have to be consolidated into one article, and you've not presented a single argument in favour of consolidation other than 'They're the same franchise and this is how Wikipedia does things.'" CplDHicks2 (talk) 19:06, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I have reliable sources that do this. I posted them over there. Also, again. Why is hockey an exception? Why do you think those articles are exceptions? Conyo14 (talk) 20:11, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

You have sources that say "The Quebec Nordiques moved to Denver and became the Colorado Avalanche in 1995" (and similarly for other teams who moved), and you have some sports statistics aggregators who happen to aggregate statistics in a different way. And no one argued otherwise. You don't have a single source that says Shawn Kemp was ever on the roster of the Oklahoma City Thunder, that the Tennessee Titans won back-to-back AFL championships in 1960 and 1961, that Tim Raines played for the Washington Nationals, and other such nonsense.

Again, you're approaching this from the premise that there is a rule that has "hockey" is an exception to, which is a complete fiction. CplDHicks2 (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Concerning the major sports in North America. AFAIK, only the NFL & CFL (both gridiron football) treat re-located franchises differently, from the NHL, NBA & NHL. GoodDay (talk) 20:26, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I looked a little deeper and found Relocation of professional sports teams in Europe. Going through the teams, it seems there are some that define their relocation differently than others, but for those that have the same headway as the North American leagues (relocated by the owners on a permanent basis), the idea is the same: conjoined achievements, head coaches, etc. Also, as with some NFL teams and NBA teams that relocate, but then have teams expand or return to their original city/region, they may choose to retain their history prior to any moves. Look I just want to see these articles have some consistency or reasoning better than "this is the way it has to be." I am willing to accept they can be separate on the basis of "There is reliable enough sourcing to prove them to be separate or conjoined." Conyo14 (talk) 20:41, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Both things can be true at the same time. A relocated franchise does continue its history in another city and usually under a new team name, but an article that separates seasons of its different incarnations or a dedicated team article make sense, too, because readers might only be looking specifically for a particular iteration of the franchise. Jmj713 (talk) 20:49, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I would totally be fine with separation too, but as a reader I want to know whether a team continues their history in a new city or chooses to ignore their past and why. Conyo14 (talk) 21:02, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

And you have a very simple method on how to do this: read the article. As it happens, some teams acknowledge their history. Some don't. Some change their minds on the subject. Some times it comes into dispute, especially where phoenix clubs are involved.

The entire history of the SPORTS projects points to one glaringly obvious fact: one size does not fit all. Some sports enshrine minor leagues. Some don't have them. Some leagues use collegiate competition as tacit minors. Some have drafts. Some don't. Some have player trades. Some transfer players only for cash. Some leagues/sports/countries have a relegation/promotion system. Some don't. Some are team competitions. Some aren't. In some sports teenagers routinely are champions. In most others they're barred from top-flight competition. Sometimes all these vary within a sport.

The simple fact is that hockey is not baseball is not football is not soccer is not athletics is not tennis etc. Demanding that sports articles have "consistency" for no better reason that it bugs you when they don't is guaranteed to anger far more people than it mollifies, confuse a lot more people than it would provide clarity, would involve a vast amount of work, and still provide nothing of the sort. You have proffered no reason -- compelling or otherwise -- why this needs to be done. Ravenswing 22:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I suppose that's fair. I think as a reader I'd want to know why certain teams retain the season-by-season records or player stats, without reading through the team's main article. Like a blurb or a sentence that states "Although the team relocated, they retain all the season-by-season records (stats, records, etc.), due to this citation." This is easy enough that I can do. If anyone were to separate the others, I wouldn't care, but I also wouldn't throw a fit if someone else merged them either. Conyo14 (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

As others cite below, this isn't even consistent on a league-by-league basis, never mind on a sport-by-sport one. The Cleveland Browns is one, where even though the 1999 revival was an expansion team, the NFL regarded the original franchise to have been "suspended" (unlike in the numerous franchise moves in the league's history), and to have inherited all the original franchise's records and championships. A contrast is the Ottawa Senators, which received a plaque from the NHL proclaiming it a "continuation" of the original Senators, but where neither the present team nor the league claims the records or the championships of the original.

It is routine, though -- at least in North American sport -- that a team that's simply relocated doesn't disavow the franchise's previous records, and it might make more sense for the readers' benefit for there to be a cited sentence in such cases stating that they didn't. Ravenswing 09:38, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

Similar to Cleveland and the NFL, the NBA's Charlotte Hornets moved and eventually became the New Orleans Pelicans. Meanwhile, Charlotte got a new franchise, the Charlotte Bobcats, who changed later changed their name to the Charlotte Hornets and received all of the original Hornets history from the Pelicans. Word is that if Seattle gets another NBA franchise, they would likely similarly get the Seattle SuperSonics history back from the Oklahoma City Thunder. —Bagumba (talk) 10:35, 11 June 2023 (UTC)

For teams like the Atlanta Braves the main article has a high view summary of the franchise history and has break out articles for the Boston Braves and Milwaukee Braves. Those articles can include list of seasons. Also, the History of the Atlanta Braves has a full history of the franchise that could include a list of all seasons. This seems like a good way of presenting the information in a way readers would like to consume it. Nemov (talk) 22:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

I already pointed this out at Talk:List of Colorado Avalanche seasons#Merger Discussion: there's a header at the top of the table that reads "Relocated from Quebec". In what way is this insufficient or confusing? CplDHicks2 (talk) 22:43, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

It's basically how each franchise treats their past. Take for example within the NHL, concerning number retirements. The Avalanche un-retired the Nordiques' jersey numbers, where's the Dallas Stars didn't do so, with the Minnesota North Stars' retired numbers. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

• I also don't think this needs to be turned into any sort of rule. Every relocation in every league is unique in its own way, and the list of seasons for a relocated team may be a valid article split. It also depends on how the league views things. For instance, MLS gets a bit strange - the Portland Timbers have different articles depending on the franchise, but List of Portland Timbers seasons includes everything. SportingFlyer T·C 23:33, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Template:Sports attendance

Wouldn't be easier to read and view the navbox Template:Sports attendance if the groups are listed by each sport, instead of just the one group with all sports attendance links in it? FastCube (talk) 12:02, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

something like that? CLalgo (talk) 13:12, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

First time I've seen it, but it would be better indeed. Pelmeen10 (talk) 14:58, 8 June 2023 (UTC)

Done. CLalgo (talk) 08:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

Nice; looks much cleaner now. FastCube (talk) 06:10, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Consistency among Tai chi-related articles

Editors interested in this topic are politely asked to participate in the discussion here: Talk:Tai chi#Consistency among Tai chi-related articles. SilverStar54 (talk) 06:18, 12 June 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Track and field

Track and field has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:21, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Sport of athletics#Requested move 18 June 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Sport of athletics#Requested move 18 June 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. - 🔥𝑰𝒍𝒍𝒖𝒔𝒊𝒐𝒏 𝑭𝒍𝒂𝒎𝒆 (𝒕𝒂𝒍𝒌)🔥 01:21, 26 June 2023 (UTC)

"Varsity match"

Varsity match says that this is a topic primarily for Oxford and Cambridge in the intro. That seems a bit odd. -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 06:02, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree; the term's certainly ubiquitous in North America as well. I just struck the clause, and thanks for bringing it to our attention. Ravenswing 11:00, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's an ongoing WP:RM about this: Talk:Varsity match#Requested move 2 July 2023. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:12, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

There's also an ongoing WPRM at Varsity team, at talk:Varsity team#Requested move 2 July 2023 -- 64.229.90.172 (talk) 22:11, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

enhanced.org

"It is up to you, as the backbone of the Enhanced Movement, to ensure that Wikipedia uses enhanced inclusive language when discussing performance therapies, and the use of performance enhancements by professional athletes." For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:34, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

And a question: is there anything on WP about pro-doping orgs or similar? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:15, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

• The bit of "Our guide on non-discriminatory language can be found on the Inclusive Language page. As a rule, any reference to ‘cheating’ and ‘performance enhancing drugs’ ought to be replaced with enhanced inclusive terms, like ‘demonstrations of science’ and ‘performance enhancements’. ‘Doping’ is a slur and has no acceptable alternative" is particularly rich. For my part, I would think that any editor posting any such language in any related article is just about by definition WP:NOTHERE. Ravenswing 15:37, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  That's pretty much what they told him: Wikipedia:Help_desk#"Natural"_Records?. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

  For the interested: Enhanced Games. I couldn't resist all those sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

The New York Times to Disband Its Sports Department

I thought this would be interesting to folks here. "The New York Times to Disband Its Sports Department". nytimes.com. Retrieved 10 July 2023.

paywall bypass link RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at List of intersex Olympians

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:List_of_intersex_Olympians#Suggestion_gathering:_improvements_to_coverage_of_intersex_and_DSD_athletes , which is within the scope of this WikiProject. Kingsif (talk) 06:30, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Changing "Achievements and titles" order in Template:Infobox sportsperson

Currently in {{Infobox sportsperson}}, achievements in the "Achievements and titles" section are ordered as follows:

1. World Championships
2. Continental Championships
3. National Championships
4. Olympic Games
5. Paralympic Games
6. Commonwealth Games

As I see it, the order is "wrong" and should be amended to reflect prestige of achievements. Specifically, moving the Olympic Games & Paralympic Games above the World Championships to reflect their higher status. The wanted order:

1. Olympic Games
2. Paralympic Games
3. World Championships
4. Continental Championships
5. National Championships
6. Commonwealth Games

The technical change:

−

| label56 = {{#if:{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}World finals}} | data56 = {{{worlds|}}} | label57 = {{#if:{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}Regional finals}} | data57 = {{{regionals|}}} | label58 = {{#if:{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}National finals}} | data58 = {{{nationals|}}} | label59 = {{#if:{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Olympic Games{{!}}Olympic finals]]}} | data59 = {{{olympics|}}} | label60 = {{#if:{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Paralympic Games{{!}}Paralympic finals]]}} | data60 = {{{paralympics|}}}

+

| label56 = {{#if:{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Olympic Games{{!}}Olympic finals]]}} | data56 = {{{olympics|}}} | label57 = {{#if:{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Paralympic Games{{!}}Paralympic finals]]}} | data57 = {{{paralympics|}}} | label58 = {{#if:{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}World finals}} | data58 = {{{worlds|}}} | label59 = {{#if:{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}Regional finals}} | data59 = {{{regionals|}}} | label60 = {{#if:{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}National finals}} | data60 = {{{nationals|}}}

I've Added a vertical diff, for an easier read:

Current version

| label56   = {{#if:{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}World finals}}
|  data56   = {{{worlds|}}}
| label57   = {{#if:{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}Regional finals}}
|  data57   = {{{regionals|}}}
| label58   = {{#if:{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}National finals}}
|  data58   = {{{nationals|}}}
| label59   = {{#if:{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Olympic Games{{!}}Olympic finals]]}}
|  data59   = {{{olympics|}}}
| label60   = {{#if:{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Paralympic Games{{!}}Paralympic finals]]}}
|  data60   = {{{paralympics|}}}

---

Suggested version

| label56   = {{#if:{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{olympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Olympic Games{{!}}Olympic finals]]}}
|  data56   = {{{olympics|}}}
| label57   = {{#if:{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{paralympics_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}[[Paralympic Games{{!}}Paralympic finals]]}}
|  data57   = {{{paralympics|}}}
| label58   = {{#if:{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{worlds_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}World finals}}
|  data58   = {{{worlds|}}}
| label59   = {{#if:{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{regionals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}Regional finals}}
|  data59   = {{{regionals|}}}
| label60   = {{#if:{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}{{{nationals_type{{!}}}}}{{!}}National finals}}
|  data60   = {{{nationals|}}}

Please tag & notify relevant WikiProjects \ editors about this discussion. CLalgo (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Notified WikiProjects: Infoboxes, Olympics, Martial arts. CLalgo (talk) 08:37, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Notified: User talk:GKFX, User talk:Zyxw, User talk:Pppery, User talk:S.A. Julio, User talk:Goszei, User talk:Frietjes, User talk:Jonesey95, User talk:Jacklee. Reason: have been amongst the most recent to edit {{Infobox sportsperson}}. CLalgo (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

World Championships should be above Olympics/Paralympics; while the Olympics gets the biggest hype and all, World Championships are actually more open to everyone and qualified on merit - they are truly contested by the best in the World in the relevant sports, likely due to being spread across different calendars for the different events. Because of the format and values of the Olympics, there are athletes who could be competing for medals who aren't given the chance, and athletes far behind those on merit who are. Neither event has an issue, but speaking on merit, the World Championships should be considered superior.

Commonwealth Games should be above Continental, indeed, they should be directly behind the Olympics/Paralympics. A similar format to the Olympics and comprise over half the world. It seems like the change you want is to move the 'showpiece' events from being below the sports-specific ones, to a more appropriate place in terms of scope. Or, at least, I hope it's that and not just 'put Olympics at top please'. In that case, the order should be: World, Olympic/Paralympic, Commonwealth, Super-Continental (e.g. Island Games, Finalissima), Continental, Regional (e.g. Bolivarian Games, Mediterranean Games), National. Kingsif (talk) 09:14, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Well, you've broadened the scope of my intended discussion, but maybe the larger scope is better. Using your event-groups naming, let us note that Super-Continental & Regional (mostly used for Continental) aren't currently supported by {{Infobox sportsperson}}. Should they? I don't know, but that's a valid discussion. As I see it, the order should go OG\PG, WC, Continental, Inter-National (Commonwealth, Bolivarian, Mediterranean, Maccabiah, Island Games, Finalissima, etc...) & National. The Inter-National events, such as the Commonwealth Games, rarely if ever affect world rankings or tournament qualification and should be viewed accordingly – as international events for nations with shared monarch \ language \ religion etc, but no more than that.

I do agree that in many sports, the World Championships are competed with a higher number of elite athletes\teams, but my point was about the much more subjective "prestige" of the different competitions. For example, while many elites will forgo a yearly World Championships event for a variety of reasons, very few will skip the Olympic Games when given the chance to compete. Meaning, a bigger part of the "top-elites" will be present at the OGs, comparing to the WCs. CLalgo (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I disagree with your suggested order, and I find your perception of "Inter-National" events to be so fundamentally wrong it should be struck. Kingsif (talk) 12:30, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Please don't Wikipedia:I just don't like it. Explain your view, or let us keep to the original, narrower scope of the discussion. CLalgo (talk) 13:35, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the "and" was unnecessary, but I gave an explanation. Too ridiculous to consider seriously. You said your order was based on "prestige" but nobody who knows anything about these events would equate the Commonwealth Games with the Island Games. Kingsif (talk) 00:24, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not getting in to this discussion, or to your claim of "ridiculousness". The Commonwealth & Island Games are beyond the scope of this discussion, which is whether to place the Olympic & Paralympic Games above the World Championships – or not. CLalgo (talk) 10:01, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would do Olympic/Paralympic, WC, continental, national. I'm torn about the Asian Games, Commonwealth, Pan American and so on and i maybe want to put it after WC. So like the proposal but with that minor adjustment but i'm not sure about that. Kante4 (talk) 14:20, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

My order: Olympics-World Championships-Continental events (Championships and Games). There shouldn't be national events on the infobox imo. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Olympic Games

Paralympic Games

World Championships

Commonwealth Games

Continental Championships

The Commonwealth Games are the second largest games in the world and feature nations from every habitable continent, so they should be ranked a step higher than continental championships. Most nations are not large enough that we should include national championships, unless that national championship is particularly notable. Words in the Wind(talk) 17:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Conclusion If we'll limit the scope of this discussion to its original one, it seems that @Kante4, Sportsfan 1234, Words in the Wind & I support placing the Olympic & Paralympic Games above the World Championships, with @Kingsif as the sole dissenter. CLalgo (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

Which is great and all if just counting !votes, but me and you are the only users who actually explained our views on WC vs OG/PG - everyone else just gave their preferred order. Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the word conclusion wasn't right and another like summation would have been better. You are of course correct that it is not a vote, per the policy WP:PROPOSAL and the essay section WP:ATADP § Just a vote. @Kante4, Sportsfan 1234, and Words in the Wind: Could you please expand on your reasons to support placing the Olympic & Paralympic Games above the World Championships? CLalgo (talk) 10:13, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

I would agree with the above, that Olympics/Paralympics should be at the top. For most readers, they are way more likely to have watched the Olympics/Paralympics than the World Championships, so that's likely to be what they're looking for. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:19, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Clearly in any lists of precedence the most important should be listed first. The Olympics are the highest precedence of any sport. Many athletes will skip the World Championships on occasion but no athlete skips the Olympics when given an opportunity. I am surprised it would actually be a question of whether a World Championships should be ranked higher. I also the think the rest of my statement above is important for re-establishing a list of medal precedence. Words in the Wind(talk) 14:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, per above (Words in the Wind). The OG are on top and the most important tournament for athletes. After that it's WC and continental. Some athletes skip WC/EC to be good enough for the OG. Kante4 (talk) 07:56, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Split discussion on Talk:Lionel Messi

Greetings! Just here to inform the community that I've started a discussion on proposed split of the Lionel Messi article over at Talk:Lionel Messi#Club and international career split proposal. Feel free to head on over and give your opinion on the matter! — AFC Vixen 🦊 23:46, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Feedback on / reviewing Draft:Maria Sara Popa

Hi. It says "If you need feedback on your draft, or if the review is taking a lot of time, you can try asking for help on the talk page of a relevant WikiProject."

It's been 52 days since I created Draft:Maria Sara Popa and I would like to contribute more to Wikipedia, but I don't have any feedback if I'm on the right track or not. She doesn't quite yet meet the Wikipedia:NTENNIS requirements, which can be a little strict, but she could meet the Wikipedia:NBASIC ones. I didn't write too much about her personal life and other activities, because only big tennis players have that, as far as I saw.

She received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject., whilst having very good results in her area of expertise, for her age.

Could you please help me out or even review it? Thank you in advance.

ROTennisFan (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

I will do so, but keep this in mind: there is a giant backlog in reviewing drafts; it's in the thousands, and goes back months. 52 days isn't hugely egregious as far as such things go. Ravenswing 07:31, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Alright. I just did, and accepted the draft, but the article needs a LOT of work. Compare and contrast with other sports bios. We don't include inline sources just for the sake of having inline sources; we include them to support statements of fact. Also, take a look at WP:REFBOMB -- refbombing a draft submission is a pretty sound way to deter reviewers from bothering with it. Good fortune. Ravenswing 07:45, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Thank you very much! I will work on it and on other articles in the future. I didn't write very much, because by analysing other tennis players' pages, mostly only the big ones had more than what I wrote and I was afraid not to over do it, hence the feedback I wanted, which you provided.

P.S: How much time does it usually take for a new article, such as this one you accepted to be indexed by / in Google (searches)?

UPDATE | Oh, I found something about articles needing to be patrolled, before they're index. Much more complex than I imagined. :)

ROTennisFan (talk) 17:02, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, there's a bit of process involved! In any event, keep on writing! Ravenswing 01:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

ESPN 8: The Ocho

I've proposed that ESPN 8: The Ocho be split off from the film article Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story, as it is a real TV programming segment on the real ESPN, and not just something in a fiction film. You may be interested in the discussion. For the discussion , see talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story#Split off ESPN 8 -- 67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Moved to talk:Dodgeball: A True Underdog Story § Split off ESPN 8

67.70.25.80 (talk) 23:07, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Goalkeeper, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 7 August 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Footnote

Please see Special:PermaLink/1169298119#Unnecessary footnote. Is it really necessary using footnotes for Chinese Taipei templates in sport articles? 寒吉 (talk) 09:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Non-permanent link: Wikipedia:Help_desk#Unnecessary_footnote. Primefac (talk) 11:42, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

FL Removal Notification

I have nominated BBC Sports Personality of the Year Coach Award for featured list removal. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets the featured list criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks; editors may declare to "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:30, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Year in infoboxes

2022 FIFA World Cup

Tournament details
Host country	Qatar
Dates	20 November – 18 December

2022 FIFA World Cup

Tournament details
Host country	Qatar
Dates	20 November – 18 December 2022

There's disagreement as to whether a year should be noted in an infobox's date(s) row, if the event takes place entirely within that year, and is already in the event's name. Annh07, ItzConman23, Sportsfan 1234 and I seem to be in agreement that it is "not necessary",^[1] because "the year is already in the title",^[2][3] While Mikey'Da'Man, Archangel and Tuckertwo are of opinions that the "title does not imply date",^[4] and that it's "worth adding for the sake of completeness."^[5] WP:INFOBOXSTYLE advises the relevance of WP:MOSNUM regarding dates in inboxes, and it recommends to "omit year only where there is no risk of ambiguity". Is the immediate proximity of an infobox's title and date(s) row enough to eliminate any risk of ambiguity? Also, consider the impact adding a year can have on an infobox's formatting (example on the right).

Pinging CLalgo, Joseph2302, Kante4, Kingsif, Ravenswing, ROTennisFan, RoySmith and Words in the Wind, as editors recently active on this talk page. — AFC Vixen 🦊 04:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Is there any issue here relating to the use of {{Start and end dates}} which will always give the year, eg: {{Start and end dates|2022|11|20|2022|12|18|df=y}} gives 20 November – 18 December 2022 (2022-11-20 – 2022-12-18). Nigej (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
• I see it as not necessary to write the year as the title explaines it. Kante4 (talk) 08:36, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Except on rare occasions, eg 2020 Summer Olympics which was held in 2021, and 2023 Championship League (invitational) which started in 2022 (and 2020 Open Championship redirects to 2021 Open Championship which might perhaps cause confusion). Nigej (talk) 11:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Nigej on this. If the article title has a year and the event was held solely in that year, then the year isn't needed, as it's not at all ambiguous. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  Agree with Nigej. Forgot about that but yup. Kante4 (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

I have to agree with the users that think it should be included to avoid confusion. The title may say a year, but given there have always been exceptions (events for one year beginning before or ending after, or even just not matching the year at all for organisational reasons; the 2014 Women's U-17 Euro was held entirely in November and December 2013) and especially with so many recent exceptions due to COVID disruption, there is no reason to be more ambiguous than necessary when we can be clear. It's five characters, just include it. And not only when it's different to the title; not including it even when they agree may leave readers uncertain given the many exceptions, and including it is not detrimental, so why not. Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Even if those five characters messes with the formatting of the infobox, unnecessarily increasing its size? — AFC Vixen 🦊 02:18, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Help with article split discussion

There are a couple of article split discussion about sports clubs that could benefit from more involvement to get a consensus: Talk:East Bengal Club#Split football club July 2023 and Talk:Mohun Bagan AC#Split football club August 2023. Editorsinput would be welcome, thanks in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Scope of WikiProject

Can I request that the scope of this WikiProject be made more detailed? Maybe make a list of examples, such as:

In scope:

• Sports
• Sporting locations
• Sporting awards
• Sporting terms and rules etc.

Outside scope:

• Sport biographies
• Sporting clubs etc.

I am not totally sure that these are even correct because the scope on the WP is rather vague, I feel as if more detail in the scope will help make the WP more manageable, inviting and closer to completion. From an observer. Idiosincrático (talk) 08:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Quidditch (real-life sport)#Requested move 1 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Quidditch (real-life sport)#Requested move 1 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. —usernamekiran (talk) 03:46, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Netball in the Cook Islands

Netball in the Cook Islands has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:59, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:2023–24 Indian Federation Cup#Requested move 4 September 2023

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:2023–24 Indian Federation Cup#Requested move 4 September 2023 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. – robertsky (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Netball

Netball has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:40, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Another 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) 20:46, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

This sort of "us vs. them" thinking is not constructive, and is basically canvassing. You seem to believe there's a fundamental split been "us sport editors" and "those MoS people", but I for one have been intensely involved in sports articles and in MoS stuff my entire time on this project, and a participant in this wikiproject for over a decade. Wikiprojects do not get to make up their own rules against side-wide guidelines, and have no special editing rights/authority when it comes to topics within their scope (see WP:CONLEVEL policy, which was enacted specifically stop stop wikiprojects from trying to act like walled gardens in such a manner, after a bunch of ArbCom cases). PS: With regard to the particular set of Olympics artices in question at that discussion, the entire brouhaha is silly, since actually following WP:AT policy (specifically WP:COMMADIS, and there is no "WP:DASHDIS") would result in these pages being moved to titles that use a comma not a dash, and obviously there would be no capitalization after a comma. The entire shitshow is for nothing, and just an excuse for a handful of sport-related editors who have a bone to pick with a particular other editor to prance around acting out a bunch of performative, faux outrage over trivial nonsense.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:56, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Career-ending injuries

I am working on User:WhatamIdoing/Early sports specialization, which I hope to have out in the mainspace at Early sports specialization by the end of the week. I currently have a red link to Career-ending injury. Is there no list of injuries, or summary article on the subject, perhaps under another name? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:33, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Hmm. Nothing I can think of right off-hand. The piece looks well-researched and an encyclopedic topic (though the lead could use some redundancy compressed out).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  05:49, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't plan to clean up the article until I've finished adding the sources I have in hand. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Needed article: US Open (wrestling)

This (which does seem to usually be spelled "US" not "U.S.") seems to be the only major American wrestling event/title for which we don't have an article. It's redlinked or unlinked in a whole lot of bios, and was recently removed from U.S. Open (disambiguation). I also mentioned this at WT:WRESTLING, but that wikiproject is for professional wrestling (the performative entertainment stuff, not the Olympic-style sport), so WT:SPORT might really be the better venue for the idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  12:47, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Stadio Olimpico

Hello, I rewrote the incipit of the said article (I am the main editor of its current version in Italian) and since English is not my native language maybe some native speaker amongst the editors might correct what I wrote. -- Blackcat 23:14, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

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

Hello, Please note that Sports science, which is within this project's scope, has been selected as one of the Articles for improvement. The article is scheduled to appear on Wikipedia's Community portal in the "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, 27 November 2023 (UTC) on behalf of the AFI team

Stadio Olimpico/2

Hello, I completely rewrote the article, using the sources I already used for writing the article in Italian. It is not a traduction from the Italian article, but a different writing.

First issue: as I told before, I am not a native speaker, thus a native might correct possible flaws.
Second issue: I would like to cooperate to make that a featured article but I just am not savvy about en.wiki customs on that matter. That apart, there are two sections of the article which are susbstantially, if not totally at all, unsourced: the average attendance by club by season, which source URL links to a spam site; and the concerts list which lacks totally of any source and aside from being unverifiable, is also in my opinion of very questionable utility. But, as I told, I don't know the customs here so I prefer that it's you who decides what to to with these sections. thanks -- Blackcat 23:29, 2 December 2023 (UTC)

Sports venues

Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues has fallen inactive. Perhaps Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force should be reparented here? Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Facilities and venues task force  ? -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 12:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I would do this as a WP:RM at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:26, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

An RM has been opened. See WT:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force for the discussion -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Y Now established at Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Facilities and venues task force. The {{WPSPORTS}} banner now needs updating to flag the new TF -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 21:22, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Move Sports Venue TF to WPSPORTS from WPEVENTVENUES

An editor has requested that Wikipedia:WikiProject Event Venues/Sports task force be moved to another page, which may be of interest to this WikiProject. You are invited to participate in the move discussion. This would make the primary project for the Sports venue task force WPSPORTS, and the inactive project WPEVENTVENUES the secondary project. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:18, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Y Now moved to Wikipedia:WikiProject Sports/Facilities and venues task force. {{WPSPORT}} needs updating to account for the new TF. -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 21:23, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Assessment classes

Working on integrating this taskforce into the project banner (basics done already), but we have to decide if we want categories like Category:B-Class sports facilities articles, etc., generated for this, or for the articles to simply sort into Category:B-Class sports articles, etc. Thread open about this at Template talk:WikiProject Sports#Facilities and venues taskforce.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  06:39, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

No-breaking sport scores

FYI

 – Pointer to relevant discussion elsewhere.

Due to technical issues involving at least two popular modern browsers, it has been proposed to add MoS advice to apply no-wrap (one way or another) to sport scores, to prevent "12–3" line-breaking after the "–". There's some disputation about exactly what wording to use, though little if any opposition to saying something about it in the guidelines. See discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#NOWRAP on sports scores.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:06, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Bodybuilding anyone?

Hello,

the bodybuilding space seems quite abandoned and someone recommended adding a Sports tag to my article.

I am looking to get Draft:Jo Lindner - Wikipedia published - I am wondering which detail or information would help getting it to noteworthyness...

Since his disease isn´t currently listed on Wikipedia I thought this might be something worth having, too.

I am of course not looking to outsource work or ask for a co-writer.

Thank you all. MarvDj (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps WP:BEAUTY or WP:FASHION or WP:MARTIALARTS or WP:HEALTH ? Modelling is covered under FASHION. Beauty competitions is covered under BEAUTY which would seem to be Mr. Olympia style competitions. Exercising is covered under HEALTH -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 23:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn´t say a bodybuilding competition is the same as a beauty pageant... I guess he just doesn´t fit anywhere so to speak... MarvDj (talk) 00:22, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

Well, it's definitely not a martial art. And some of what goes on is actually unhealthy.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  04:36, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Perhaps the scope of WPBEAUTY ought to expand to other such ideas of beauty competitions (ie. Mr. Olympia, RuPaul's Drag Race, not just Little Miss, Miss Universe, Mr. America, Mrs. America); or just try reviving Wikipedia:WikiProject Bodybuilding by expanding scope through merging it with other ideas of body definition (ie. the "beauty" in beauty pageants, "fitness" in fitness modelling, etc). -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 05:03, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

I would argue most sports can pose a health risk, American football for example... MarvDj (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

And they're classified as sports not health topics.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thought about for several days, and I would continue to categorize such articles under sports, since bodybuilding is an intensely physical competitive (at least much of the time) activity; i.e., it is a sport, albeit not a contact one. Maybe WP:BEAUTY would also want to cover it, since bodybuilding events are also "pageants" pertaining to physical looks, but it's up to that wikiproject's partcipants how broad they want their scope to be. It's not a martial art, and is not a health (medicine) topic, though some articles like rhabdomyolysis may be both medical topics and peripherally related to bodybuilding. The bio in question above is not a health topic; a person having a health condition doesn't mean they get categorized as a medical subject for WP purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:52, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! Would you say the article as it is now would pass the notability threshold? I am afraid it might be deleted if it is declined once again. MarvDj (talk) 00:42, 5 December 2023 (UTC)

Better discussed at the draft's talk page.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  13:08, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Shohei Ohtani

Moot

 – Closed early by the RfC opener, due to changes in the background facts making it moot.

We need some more input at this RFC concerning Shohei Ohtani. GoodDay (talk) 08:41, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Article name discussion

Hello, sports fans! There's a discussion about renaming a sports-related article back to its former name, or possibly to some other name, at Talk:United States cities with teams from four major league sports#Name of this article. Interested editors are encouraged to give their opinions there (and not here, to keep the discussion all in one place). Thanks. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:55, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Village Pump RFC, of interest

An RFC at Village Pump may be of interest, to this WikiProject. GoodDay (talk) 19:12, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Placeholder title for future franchise

A discussion is currently underway as to what placeholder title we should give to a future Australian Football League franchise based in Tasmania. Opinions from as many people as possible would be most appreciated. — AFC Vixen 🦊 03:12, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Rugby#Requested move 11 January 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Rugby#Requested move 11 January 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 08:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Input request

Can I please get some input in the discussion at Shawnacy Barber? Paul Vaurie (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Invitation to the Unreferenced article drive

WikiProject Unreferenced articles | February 2024 Backlog Drive

There is a substantial backlog of unsourced articles on Wikipedia, especially for sport articles! The purpose of this drive is to add sources to these articles and make a meaningful impact towards improving Wikipedia as a whole. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles cited. Remember to tag your edit summary with [[WP:FEB24]], both to advertise the event and tally the points later using Edit Summary Search. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.

CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Personal best?

I'm looking over some early female athletes (say from the 1922 Women's World Games and 1923 Women's Olympiad) and look at Mary Lines: her infobox lists her top recorded Olympiad times as "personal bests", which is terminology the citation, Track and Field Statistics also uses. For Marcelle Neveu her Olympics.com page calls her 1928 Olympic result her "personal best". I know modern athletes train so that their season performance peaks at top race days, but even then plenty of people clock PBs at practice or lesser races. With 1920s female athletes even (pseudo-)Olympic results can be difficult if not impossible to find published anywhere outside maybe some deep unsorted local newsmag archive, so the notion of these times being labeled a "personal best" seems rather odd.

Is there a different convention for elite athletes? for sports publications, for WP? Or is my amateur understanding of "personal best", as your best properly clocked time regardless of race, on point despite what these sources use (on generic captions)? SamuelRiv (talk) 05:17, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The short answer is that if it's not recorded, it won't end up on Wikipedia. "I was in my backyard when I got my personal best" might be a true statement, but only officially recorded times really count towards anything. We are not obligated to publish information about people, especially if that information doesn't exist. If a newspaper from 1920 lists Jane Doe running her personal best at a marathon, we use that information in the infobox up until the point when someone finds a recording from after that race, even if it's not her "final" personal best. Primefac (talk) 07:31, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

The term has to be understood in context. Typically media-reported personal bests are for best times in official competition, where there is a neutral third party performing the timing, following a standard procedure. Athletes of course track their own personal bests during training, but this serves a different purpose and isn't an unbiased timing. isaacl (talk) 00:50, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

My question wasn't clear. When an source is using "personal best" in some ambiguous context like this, where the term "PB" is clearly just a template field across all athletes' pages, how should that be interpreted for, say, infoboxes? Because in the athletes I linked it seems they are taking the field title too literally (akin I suppose to WP:HEADLINE?). SamuelRiv (talk) 17:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Now I'm not understanding your clarification. If a source uses "personal best" and it's the most recent/highest value for "personal best" that has been given in the sources... we use it? Primefac (talk) 17:49, 21 January 2024 (UTC) Clarified below by Isaacl's statement. Primefac (talk) 17:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If the source is not clear from context if an official personal best or a training personal best is being referred to, then the corresponding article shouldn't use that source to verify an athlete's official personal best result. In the cases to which you are referring, as official times are being listed as personal bests, I think the context is that these are official personal best results. (The reliability of the source, though, is a separate question.) isaacl (talk) 17:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Is Bristol Motor Speedway a stadium?

The article "List of U.S. stadiums by capacity" ranks the Bristol Motor Speedway on first place. This makes sense considering that it has 153,000 seats, more than any other stadium. However, I question whether it can be considered a stadium: in fact, although it is fully enclosed, it has hosted american football games only a few times and is not designed for such events. Also, if it was to be considered a Stadium, the List of stadiums by capacity would include it on first position, and the article on Narendra Modi Stadium would not refer to the latter as the largest stadium in the world by capacity. Anyway, in the case you agree that Bristol Motor Speedway can be considered a Stadium, the other pages I mentioned should be corrected. Kind regards, 14 novembre (talk) 16:55, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

Since that list of stadia does not require, by definition, that they be venues for American football, I don't see why Bristol Motor Speedway should be excluded. It's a stadium for a sporting event, with seats for spectators; done deal. Ravenswing 11:59, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing I see what you mean, however the main argument against it being a Stadium is the fact that no other article refers to it as the largest stadium in the world, also, by searching "largest stadium in the world" most sources report Narendra Modi Stadium or incorrectly Rungrado May Day Stadium 14 novembre (talk) 19:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Truth be told, that's a fairly terrible argument. The measure of whether a building is an athletic stadium isn't, and can't be, whether or not a Wikipedia article says so. Is motor racing a sport? Most people, including NSPORTS, would hold so. Does this stadium host motor racing? Few people would claim otherwise. Therefore. And your own statement highlights the issue: that nationalism, parochialism and partisanship colors the argument. Ravenswing 21:31, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes it's a sports stadium, because it hosts sports and hosting American football is not a requirement to be an American stadium. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:25, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

@Ravenswing @Joseph2302 I agree that motor racing is a sport. However, we have List of sports venues by capacity, and we alla agree that not all of them can be considered stadiums. It is difficult to say whether a sports venue can be considered a Stadium or not, however, most sources, external to Wikipedia, report Narendra Modi Stadium as the largest in the world. Anyway, if you agree Bristol Motor Speedway actually is a stadium, we should correct the other articles I mentioned in my first comment. Kind regards, 14 novembre (talk) 11:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It obviously IS a stadium. So I agree we need to correct our articles. MarchOfTheGreyhounds 08:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Discussion on rebranded sports franchise

A professional lacrosse franchise (formerly Chrome) recently rebranded to take the identity of a defunct franchise (Denver Outlaws), and thus a discussion is taking place as to how to react to this. The status quo is that Denver Outlaws covers both the defunct franchise and the current franchise's operations from 2024 onwards, while Chrome Lacrosse Club covers covers the current franchise's operations from 2019 to 2023. Any input from WikiProject Sports members as to whether or not this should be changed in some way would be greatly appreciated. — AFC Vixen 🦊 22:20, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

@AFC Vixen: This reminds me of the mess between the New Orleans Pelicans and Charlotte Hornets in the NBA.

Charlotte Hornets existed from 1988-2002 but moved to New Orleans and became the New Orleans Hornets then renamed to New Orleans Pelicans.

The Charlotte Hornets are now retconned as having suspended operations from 2002 to 2004, while the Pelicans are considered a 2002 expansion team even though they really aren't. They became the Charlotte Bobcats from 2004-2014, and then went back to being the Charlotte Hornets from 2014-present, maintaining the name that their competitor (New Orleans Pelicans) once had. Hope you can apply to your situation. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 04:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Sports Spectrum "[Name] is Christian." spam

Hello all,

I'm unsure if this is the right place to put this, but here goes.

I've viewed many athlete articles over the years, and I've noticed that, in an otherwise well-written article, the "personal life" section starts off with the above appellation.

The problem with this is that a) the site in question is essentially a tabloid for Christian sports with no journalistic credibility; b) no other source is ever included; and c) they are often standalone "fun facts" style sentences with little or no additional info connecting to the rest of the article.

Examples: Jayson Tatum, C.J. Stroud, Justin Fields, Trae Young etc.

By encyclopedic standards, the relevancy of religious information in a biography depends on whether the person is actually prominent as a member of that faith. For instance, Tim Tebow is very outspoken and Amar'e Stoudemire is a very prominent convert to Judaism. But for the bulk of these athletes, the additions are unnecessary and seem like spam to direct clicks towards Sports Spectrum. These are athletes, not philosophers or religious authorities.

I think these should be undertaken to be removed but was curious to see what others think.

Thank you. SteelMariner^Talk 05:26, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree. That website is NOT an independent, reliable source on anything. It is only ever going to tell us positive things about a person being a Christian. It's never going to tell us if someone stops being a Christian. Nor will it talk about people who aren't Christian. Yes, it simply IS Christian spam. HiLo48 (talk) 05:53, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't, after all, toss in other unremarkable traits such as "He has red hair" or "She was in her college chorus." Someone like Tim Tebow or Muhammed Ali, an athlete whose faith is a frequent and notable topic, that's one thing. The vast run of athletes, no. (And why just athletes? How often do we remark that this musician or that Nobel laureate is "Christian?" Come to that, how often do we categorize then as Catholic, Unitarian or agnostic?) Ravenswing 05:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

"She was in her college chorus": Fraternities are often mentioned though.—Bagumba (talk) 08:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Getting Walter Payton and Bill Russell added to list of awardees

Hoping someone from this Wikiproject can add Walter Payton, Bill Russell and a few others to the list of Academy of Achievement awardees. I work for the organization so will leave the request up to others: Talk:Academy_of_Achievement#Additional_Names_for_Awardees_Table Jarc12030 (talk) 17:58, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement has been updated accordingly. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:15, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Numbering of Emperor's Cup & Emperor's Cup Finals pages, are out of sync

I need big time help concerning (for example) 2019 Emperor's Cup & 2019 Emperor's Cup final. I thought I had corrected the numbering on all those pages, but apparent I blundered. There pages missing or something, which is throwing off the numberings. GoodDay (talk) 21:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

What is wrong with the numberings? - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:17, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

It's in the intros. If you go by the 1921 Emperor's Cup & the 1922 Emperor's Cup final? they don't add up, when you get to the later pages. GoodDay (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Articles on expansion of US major leagues

I noticed that Wikipedia has articles with the titles of Expansion of the National Basketball Association and Expansion of Major League Soccer but has Potential National Hockey League expansion and Potential Major League Baseball expansion. Wouldn't it make it easier for readers to use similar titles for these articles? (Also, there doesn't seem to be a similar article for the NFL.) 216.147.237.72 (talk) 19:51, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

If they're all about potential expansion, then they should have consistent titles. And if they are then just "Expansion of ..." is very misleading to the reader, since it strongly implies a history of the expansion that has already occurred. As for no such article NFL, that's not a "problem" to fix, per se, it's just work no volunteers have done yet, assuming reliable sources for such work could be found, and there's no way to force the voluteers to do it. But suggesting such an article at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject American football might encourage the work. That said, it needs to stay within "Wikipedia is not a crystal ball" policy, at all of these articles, and that can be challenging. There's a particular encyclopedic way to write about notable plans for the future and notable expected future events (and it's not the way a newspaper or blog would probably do it).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  23:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

I went ahead and re-named them Expansion of the National Hockey League and Expansion of Major League Baseball to match Expansion of the National Basketball Association and Expansion of Major League Soccer. They cover not only potential expansions, but also previous expansions. As such, the artcile name should reflect that. Taken care of. - BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 00:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I have started a discussion at Talk:Expansion of the National Hockey League#Page move. Expansion of the NHL is covered under History of organizational changes in the NHL. A one name-fits-all strategy is not necessary. isaacl (talk) 00:31, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

@BeFriendlyGoodSir: It's not the best route, making unilateral page moves. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Now I know. Thank you, BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 02:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Website canvassing for changes to Wikipedia article terminology

Hey, I just wanted to make members of this WikiProject aware of this website that's canvassing for changes to be made to terminology in sporting-related Wikipedia articles; so that editors are aware that this off-wiki canvassing is occurring. (Also notifying WT:OLYMPICS.) All the best, ‍—‍a smart kitten_[meow] 02:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

This is a project of billionaire Peter Thiel's "Enhanced Games" enterprise. They want to ban the use of the word "doping" and change the word "cheated" to "fought for science and bodily sovereignty", among other things. Jeff in CA (talk) 20:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know. I'll be on the lookout. Fyunck(click) (talk) 21:16, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Related discussion from July at Wikipedia:Help_desk/Archives/2023_July_8#"Natural"_Records? and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports/Archive_12#enhanced.org. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Split discussion on Lionel Messi

A discussion is underway to determine whether or not splitting two sections of the Lionel Messi article into their own article is the best solution to resolve the article's WP:SIZERULE issue. Input from as many voices in the community as possible would be much appreciated. — AFC Vixen 🦊 07:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For those wondering, the finished discussion is in Archive 27. - 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC) BeFriendlyGoodSir (talk) 20:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Redlinked categories

The latest run of Special:WantedCategories contains four red links for "[Decade] in youth football", and nine redlinks for "[Decade] in women's strength athletics", all of which are being autogenerated by the use of either {{YYY0s in youth association football category header}} on "[Decade] in youth association football" categories, or {{YYY0s in women's weightlifting category header}} on "[Decade] in women's weightlifting" categories. This is a new problem that emerged for the first time on today's redlinked category report, coming from categories that have existed since 2020 without causing this before, so they relate to something that was done to an existing template or module within the past couple of days.

The problem categories are:

• Category:1940s in youth football
• Category:1950s in youth football
• Category:1960s in youth football
• Category:1970s in youth football
• Category:1980s in youth football
• Category:1990s in youth football
• Category:2000s in youth football
• Category:2010s in youth football
• Category:2020s in youth football
• Category:1990s in women's strength athletics
• Category:2000s in women's strength athletics
• Category:2010s in women's strength athletics
• Category:2020s in women's strength athletics

Since redlinked categories aren't allowed to be left sitting on pages, however, these need to be either created or eliminated as quickly as possible. So my question is, are these categories wanted, or do they represent a mistake that needs to be repaired? If they're desired, then could somebody from this project create them right away, and if they're a mistake, then could somebody from this project find and fix it so that the redlinks go away? Thanks. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:United States Football League (2022)#Requested move 11 February 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:United States Football League (2022)#Requested move 11 February 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. ❯❯❯ Raydann^(Talk) 02:04, 22 February 2024 (UTC)