Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Sports/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Portland LumberJax as a major league team at Portland, Oregon?

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Portland,_Oregon#major_sports_teams over the inclusion of text which describes the Portland LumberJax as one of two major league teams based in the city. Your input, with a view to achieving consensus, is gratefully appreciated. Coldmachine^Talk 14:44, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Triathlon proposal

An initial proposal for a new Triathlon WikiProject has been submitted - see: Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Wikiproject_Triathlon. Many triathlon articles (particularly 'triathlon' itself) are tagged with multiple sports-based WikiProject banners, however the sport doesn't exactly fit within the total scope of any of them (exception: WikiProject Sports of course...).

If you're interested in assisting in improving the quality of wikipedia's triathlon-based articles, then leave your support for the project on the Proposals page. Your support for this project (or for it to become a task force of WikiProject Sports) would be much appreciated even if you do not intend to participate significantly, so that we can reach the required number of supporters to commence this project in full.

Draft WikiProject pages are here: User:Yboy83/WP Triathlon.

Yboy83 (talk) 09:33, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Basic missing article

Invitational tournament needs to exist, explaining the concept and how invitations are determined in several sports. This will be a nice complement to the other tournament articles (round-robin tournament, double-elimination tournament, etc.), and can be linked to from many articles, as many invitational events already have articles. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:17, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Year in sports links to day-of-year articles

Some editors have been removing the date links from timeline sections in 2008 in sports, etc. Perhaps this project could establish whether such links should exist (again, being a timeline article, this would override the disputed consensus that date links are generally inappropriate in articles). I'm also curious why some links are bolded, some in italics, and some are formatted differently. We sometimes have:

• January 1–5:
• January 2 to January 7 –
• January 4 – January 8 -
• January 6 to January 9 -

and other variants, all in the same section. I would prefer that WP:DASH be followed for the date spacing, so that we would have (in visible text)

• January 1–5

but

• January 1 – March 1

regardless of whether the dates should be linked. (I'm coming here from Wikipedia:WikiProject Years, where we also tried to standarize the year articles.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:17, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm also wondering if the format of the News by date section is documented....

• January
  • 1 -

is an interesting format, but apparently difficult to maintain. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 02:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand why there are linked dates in the first place. It makes sense to have a link for the events because the reader can quickly access that information, but clicking on the date serves no purpose since the date offers no information on the event itself. 207.233.67.8 (talk) 21:43, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

It should be up to this project; I'm just commenting as an outsider that a change is being made to articles in your project without consulting you. If you (collectively) decide the links shouldn't be there, they shouldn't. However, you should agree on a format generally consistent with WP:DASH and WP:MOSDATE. (And, if you're one of the regulars on MOSDATE, you should change the IP to your user name.) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to clarify that I'm not complaining or arguing. I'm not a 'regular.' I just visited the '2009 in sports' page to look for information about soccer and noticed that that section actually needed help. My first addition had no links. I realized that links to the various tournaments were important and learned how to insert them. However I don't understand the need for linked dates since they don't really add anything to the article and they are actually confusing now that everything is blue. I just wanted to add my opinion. California Viola California viola (talk) 07:37, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sports-people inline templates

I'm trying to locate templates for the inline (i.e. not infoboxes)) representation of the names of people, so that I can make them emit hCard microformats. So far, I know of {{Player}}, {{Soccer Player}} and, more generically, {{Sortname}}. Are there others? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:09, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Years in sports references or links where?

That means, "Years in sports: should we use references or only links to the main articles?"

Deleted: confusion that I reported and resolved after stumbling upon the "years" pages during their transition from pre-1850s and pre-1841 to finer subdivision. --P64 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

This concern years and decades and centuries "in sports" and in specific sports.

References. Thirty months ago I added many items to early years "in sports" and "in baseball" pages. By early I mean before 1860 or 1870 which isn't so early now! The earliest page was one covering "pre-1850" iirc.

Yes, that was "pre-1850s" whose descendant is 1701 to 1740 in sports. --P64 (talk) 01:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Naturally those listings have since been distributed among many pages, and that explains why several annual baseball and cricket listings now include unexplained in-line references such as "(Protoball #135)" at 1781 to 1800 in sports. (P.S. Everyone interested in early baseball or cricket should page through the Protoball Chronology at least; better, look over the whole Project Protoball website.)

With the search engine I have located several of those references. That search hits nothing among years or decades in baseball or cricket --perhaps because single-sport chronologies have been maintained and the Y or D "in sports" pages have been practically abandoned?

Should there be references? The Y or D "in sports" pages seem to have no references. Perhaps they should have none (such as I provided once when "pre 1850" was one page). Perhaps instead they should include only links back to sport-specific pages such as History of Cricket or Oxford Cambridge boat race or Epsom Derby.

For now I haven't revised any orphan? or childless? references to Protoball. --P64 (talk) 21:09, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Every item in a years in sport article should be referenced per site rules but it is going to take a long time to achieve that.

INTERJECTION: Thank you. My thought now is maybe Years in sports "articles" should be lists. Most of these articles amount to little but internally-linked listings of events, thus indexes to dozens of other articles here, and little or nothing more than that. If so much as one reference from every one of the substantial articles (one per event) is reproduced in the so-called article on the Year in sports, some of the years will have extremely long lists of references. --P64 (talk) 00:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

For the present, I'm working my way through all these articles to add lead sections and navigation templates. When I start expanding the content of the articles, I intend to add references. The Protoball site looks very interesting but I think it may be inaccurate in terms of cricket: I did a quick comparison with History of cricket to 1725 and there seem to be inconsistencies including the omission of the 1697 match in Sussex which has been called the earliest known first-class match. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:26, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I'll update the Protoball references.

At its 2005(?) meeting the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians extended first-class cricket back to 1664, in principle, and undertook a major project to document it before 1800. They are both discovering matches and separating the first-class from the remainders "all the time", if I may say so without knowledge of the daily/weekly/monthly level of activity. (I'm not sure the Protoball project knows this. I'll pass on both this point and the 1697 instance.)

Meanwhile 20% of the protoball listings are new in 2008. One of my old entries in "Years" needs relocation back a few years in 1831.

(continued as new section "primary and secondary research")

primary research?

Interpreting the work of these new research projects is secondary or tertiary research but it is similar to traditional primary research because these projects are partly in the data-distribution business. They generate and by internet widely distribute material that is much less than the traditional finished products of primary research, including some without any synthesis or narrative at all.

Many lists, and many one-day events, are inevitable subjects of primary research here because so many editors live online and so many old newspapers (and some other contemporary sources) are now widely available online. When is it appropriate to "look it up" in a contemporary newspaper, which is commonly to consult a primary account? (For most cricket and baseball box scores and game stories it does mean that.) --P64 (talk) 18:08, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I followed your link to the Association of Cricket Statisticians and Historians site and I must point out that it seems to be a private club of sorts that does research and self-publishes it. I doubt very much if it has any official function. According to the First-class cricket article on Wikipedia, the ICC created first-class cricket in 1947 and it is not officially retrospective, which means cricket historians must complete their own lists of pre-1947 matches that are therefore first-class in their opinion only. The association no doubt has its opinions but it would seem they are by no means official. There is a lengthy article about all this called Variations in first-class cricket statistics which is referenced in first-class cricket. --Orrelly Man (talk) 19:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course it isn't official. It is an organization of historians, like a professional society, and must frequently by its nature oppose the ICC on historical matters. That is partly its purpose.

Why should the ICC govern the meaning of "first class cricket" any more than Major League Baseball governs the scope of "major league baseball"? (There may be a good argument relatively favoring the ICC if it coined the term, whereas MLB renamed itself and registered a trademark about one hundred years after the term was in use. I don't know the details but I know that the question is historical and those factual details wouldn't simply settle it.)

It is reasonable that an article on first class cricket or major league baseball cover the opinions and decrees of trademark holders among other things but unreasonable to build the coverage of a broader topic around them. --P64 (talk) 00:36, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Coordinators' working group

Hi! I'd like to draw your attention to the new WikiProject coordinators' working group, an effort to bring both official and unofficial WikiProject coordinators together so that the projects can more easily develop consensus and collaborate. This group has been created after discussion regarding possible changes to the A-Class review system, and that may be one of the first things discussed by interested coordinators.

All designated project coordinators are invited to join this working group. If your project hasn't formally designated any editors as coordinators, but you are someone who regularly deals with coordination tasks in the project, please feel free to join as well. — Delievered by §hepBot (Disable) on behalf of the WikiProject coordinators' working group at 06:38, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Article alerts

This is a notice to let you know about Article alerts, a fully-automated subscription-based news delivery system designed to notify WikiProjects and Taskforces when articles are entering Articles for deletion, Requests for comment, Peer review and other workflows (full list). The reports are updated on a daily basis, and provide brief summaries of what happened, with relevant links to discussion or results when possible. A certain degree of customization is available; WikiProjects and Taskforces can choose which workflows to include, have individual reports generated for each workflow, have deletion discussion transcluded on the reports, and so on. An example of a customized report can be found here.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by User:Addbot to all active wiki projects per request, Comments on the message and bot are welcome here.

Thanks. — Headbomb {^ταλκ_{κοντριβς} – WP Physics} 09:43, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

Rodeo

A merge has been proposed between Rodeo and Rodeo in the United States. Comments are requested on Talk:Rodeo in the United States#Merge. --Una Smith (talk) 17:12, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

F1 Portal up for Featured portal status

Here. Any and all (relevant) comments welcome. Apterygial 05:23, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Years in sports articles

I believe that the proliferation of birth entries in these articles from about the mid-20th century to the 1980s creates an imbalance and is contrary to the basic principle of such articles that they summarise the significant events that occurred in sport during that year and were seen to be significant at the time. For example, in 1956 in sports, the fact that Rocky Marciano retired was significant at the time; the birth of Sugar Ray Leonard was not (except to himself and his family).

1956 in sports has 21 sections about individual sports, plus one about the Olympics, one about awards and then the births and deaths sections. The biggest individual sport section seems to be figure skating with about 15 lines, which is fair enough. But the births section has about 150 lines, which is ridiculous, especially as its potential for growth could be twentyfold or more if all sports chip in. And do these births have the same significance as the 1956 Olympics or football's inaugural European Cup or the 1956 Ashes series? Hardly. A typical case is Thomas Graham (volleyball), born on 10 April 1956, whose claim to fame is that he was a member of the Canadian Olympic volleyball team which finished ninth in the 1976 Olympics. Ninth. And in what is actually a quite minor sport (although it is one I personally enjoy).

I propose to drastically reduce the size of these births sections but really I think they should be removed completely. I can see the point of a deaths section if the deceased person died or was killed before having retired, as this would have been a significant event in that sporting year: e.g., the Manchester United footballers who died in the 1958 air disaster. But a births section adds no value whatsoever.

The problem is that there is a single editor who is apparently determined to populate these articles with the birth and death dates of anyone and everyone who has taken part in the Olympics, medallist or otherwise. There must be some WP policy or guideline somewhere about introducing such excessive detail that is out of context with an article's purpose. In fact, there are at least two: WP:NOT#STATS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT while, in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, editors are advised that articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details but rather a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject.

I won't do anything about it yet as I'd like to read what other people think first. --Orrelly Man (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (read!)

Thank you for your time. I don't know enough to comment on the fourth paragraph but the first three make a good account of the problem and a good suggestion or two. (1) "They should be removed completely". (2) Only "deaths section [limited to] if the deceased person died or was killed before having retired, as this would have been a significant event in that sporting year". (Let me add to the second alternative that death during or a sporting event or death of a whole team in airplane crash may make the sporting-unnotable people notable.)

Three years ago I may have been happy to "compete" with a prominent cricket historian by putting a couple of baseballist births back in the 1830s. This makes me regret a little, for the practice is clearly out of reasonable bounds now. I support the second suggestion, no Births and severely limited Deaths.

I am not entirely comfortable saying that everything in a Year in sports must be notable specifically in the year of listing. Long ago (perhaps 1856 in sports, perhaps a generation earlier?) there may be some need to say when someone was flourishing or when some development approximately occurred. That's another problem, as dates when people flourished don't end up in "Births" listings, unless some editors are really overboard. --P64 (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, P64, and I agree with your point in the final paragraph as it is often necessary in early histories to say "it was at about this time that..." I also agree with you about disasters and deaths during events, though I think I would like to see those covered in a section about the sport itself. --Orrelly Man (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been studying the 1960s in sport and at the end I registered a complaint about this very issue of births lists on the talk page of 1960 in sports. I then followed the links to the sports project and found this discussion which states my own points almost precisely.

As a reader who rarely contributes to the site, I consider most of the 19yy in sports articles to have been ruined by an obsession with insignificant birth details. As I recorded on the 1960 talk page, at least half a dozen of the 1960 births are of people who do not even have an article! Even the birth of a world-famous sportsperson has no importance in terms of sport in the year he or she was born. In my opinion, you most certainly should remove all births sections.

I am very interested in what you have said about deaths. There is no doubt that the sudden death of a still-active sportsperson is significant and should be recorded: for example, the deaths of drivers like Ayrton Senna or of the Torino and Manchester United footballers in the two air disasters. I think I agree with the view above that these should be covered within the sport's own section and not in a separate deaths section. That given, I don't think there should be a separate deaths section because, for example, the death in 1965 of an 85 year old who flourished in Edwardian times has little if any importance to sport in 1965.

Incidentally, I am thinking of registering a membership and, if I decide to proceed, I will join this project. --86.139.109.83 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(quote)I think I agree with the view above that these should be covered within the sport's own section and not in a separate deaths section. That given, I don't think there should be a separate deaths section

I think I agree on this detail, too. --P64 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a clear enough consensus now so as I work through the articles I'll use this discussion as my authority. I'll remove all births lists, move all significant deaths (i.e., of active sportspeople) into their respective sport sections and then remove all death lists too. --Orrelly Man (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All births and deaths sections, deprecated by the project, have now been removed. I'm working to improve the format, appearance and content of these articles generally and will be focused on 1851 to 1930 going forward. --Orrelly Man (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the above topic ended, someone has reintroduced a Deaths section to 2009 in sports. I want to remove it and will quote this discussion with its consensus as my authority. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Referee article - internal redirects?

There's no discussion on Talk:Referee, so I'm broadening the request.

The Referee article lists various sports and the officiating crews that oversee games. The problem is with the listing for underwater hockey. While I have no problem with it being listed, I think it should only have one entry. A sequence of IP addresses keep adding an internal redirect of "Octopush - see underwater hockey".

No other sports have this. There is no "Soccer - see football" or the like. I don't see a reason why underwater hockey should have special status.

If I could get some input on this at Talk:Referee#Octopush internal redirect - why?, I'd appreciate it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox for awards

Hi, I started an infobox for awards: Template:Infobox Sports award. My main goal is for cycling awards, but I hope that it can be used for all awards in Category:Sports trophies and awards, but I don't know if it's flexible enough. If you have feedback, it would be great! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Currently I am not using the award yet, and I would advise others not to use it, until the names of the parameters in the template are more or less agreed upon. If not major objections come up, I am planning to use it one week from now.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport

I've just started a discussion on the guidelines and application of Template:Current sport here, for those who are interested. --Conti|✉ 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Athletics

I have organised a proposal for an Athletics WikiProject and am looking for prospective members. I look forward to working with you in the future! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 12:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Table of contents and Project Sports Template

On talk pages using the Wikiproject Sports template, the table of contents are hidden, unless one expands ("show") the "to do list". Is this because of an error in the template? Can someone fix this? I think the table of contents of the talk pages should be independent of the project and other boxes. In addition, the template seems to include something about a 1980 bronze flag error. SlowJog (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for having the project's "to do" list in the template. It should be on the project's page, as it is. But, why should it be seen from talk pages for articles that are not affected by the project "to do" list? SlowJog (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Takkle

I declined the speedy deletion and prodded this one. See the talk page; most of the Google archive hits weren't interesting, but there are possibilities, and I hope we can save it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Shooting sports

We apparently have articles on Clay pigeon shooting, Skeet shooting, Sporting Clays, and Trap shooting.
Of these, List of sports shows only Clay pigeon shooting. Presumably we want to add the others?
Also, do we want to merge any of these? Or if not, can we make sure that each article mentions how its subject is distinct from the others?
This is FYI: I don't know anything about this subject and will not be doing any of this myself or monitoring this page for discussion.
Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article naming: league abbreviations

I propose that articles addressing specific seasons of a particular athletic league (e.g., 2007 NLL season) should be renamed to use the full name of the league (e.g., 2007 National Lacrosse League season). This would be consistent with both the main league articles and with the manual of style guideline on abbreviations. Powers ^T 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stats in articles

Today I removed the stats grid from the Kobe Bryant article, citing WP:NOT#STATS, just as I did with the Ted Williams article a long time ago. My change to the Kobe Bryant article was reverted.

It is clear to me that grids of stats are NOT NECESSARY on Wikipedia because there are other sites (nba.com, mlb.com, etc.) whose job it is to keep track of stats. If we are to include stats grids for every player, how will they get updated? How often? Who will do it? Because these questions all seem to have the same answer -- wikipedia shouldn't include the stats but just point to a reliable website -- I firmly believe the grids of player stats are not relevant on WP.

Has this issue been discussed before? Is there a consensus? Shall we create one here?

To be clear, I am talking about season-by-season grids of stats. Thanks. Timneu22 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think NOTSTATS explicitly prohibits stats tables like the one in the Kobe Bryant article. It only prohibits long lists of stats with no context. IMO, Bryant's yearly numbers seem like a sensible thing to include, since those stats provide a quantitative description of his success as a player.

However, I'll agree that maintaining the stats is problematic. I was watching lots of NBA articles over the last season, and I noticed that very few stats tables were regularly updated. And when they were updated, what often happened was that people would update one specific stat (like points per game) but leave the others alone, which could make things really confusing.

I'd still like to keep the stats in the articles, but we'd probably need a bot or something to keep them updated after every game. I have no idea if something like that could be done. Zagalejo^^^ 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The hockey project has a policy of not updating stat tables during the season and routinely reverts any edits that add current season stats. Tables are labled as "As of the end of XXXX season." specifically to get around the some being updated and others not being updated issue. Probably should also be looked at by other sports projects. Stats are extremely relevant to wikipedia, as the people are notable for their playing career and as such how they do in their playing career needs to be included in their article. Most of your other issues are solved by my earlier comment. -Djsasso (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the real solution is to find a website that has a constantly-updated, embeddable grid. Then athlete articles can just use the HTML to embed it. Does such a site exist? Timneu22 (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That would not be okay because those sites haven't ok'ed the idea. For stats that are available on another site, you cannot use them as is. Maybe the underlying numbers they don't own, but the html is theirs. And it would be wrong to use -all- of their numbers too. And sites change, too. What I think NOTSTATS means is that you go to other sites for -full- stats. But it's a big part of sports, so it's important to articles. There are lots of different kinds of encyclopedias too. We should not try to be like Britannica. Alaney2k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Remember that one of the things that Wikipedia is supposed to be like is a sports almanac. Statistics form an integral part of many sports, Donald Bradman#Statistical summary springs to mind. A relatively simple grid like that on Kobe Bryant is helpful, not a hindrance, to the article. However, if you happened to list his various stats from every single game... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!}

Where is there a policy that says Wikipedia is a sports almanac? Timneu22 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall such a policy, but I do know the first pillar states that Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of ... almanacs". —LOL ^T/_C 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When you omit season-by-season statistics, you omit the information as to when was a player's best year statistically in comparison, and within a full career. While I certainly agree that Ted Williams and Babe Ruth are great articles, why should we omit that so-and-so hit their best average in XXX year, or when they hit most home runs? I think that we are doing readers a disservice. Of course you can go elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not paper. Maybe a 'List of Babe Ruth seasons' article or some such idea. I trust Wikipedia more than other sites, because you get a reference, two, three. Web sites come and go, let's have Wikipedia stand on its own. Alaney2k (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree; however wikipedia is not supposed to be a list of indiscriminate information. Even if you think it should be (and I do too). That being said, there is a discussion here on the topic right now. Timneu22 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Player stats are not indiscriminant. They are clearly specifically about the player in question thus they are discriminating as its not random statistics. -Djsasso (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to offend you Timneu22 but it is slightly tiring that editors continue to fail to grasp the meaning of indiscriminate. "Kobe Bryant has facial hair, a Honda Civic and two parents" is an example of indiscriminate information. "Bryant's season averages for 2002 are X, Y, and Z" is pretty much the opposite. Indiscriminate =/= "excessive". It means information without meaning, context, or logical cohesion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bracket templates

I have been editing the bracket templates in Category:Tournament bracket templates. I think the discussion should be here and not on my talk page. (There was a previous discussion of this on a user talk page and I missed it). Basically, the discussion has come down to this. I've noticed some various spellings of 'semi-finals' (applies to 'quarter-finals' equally) in the brackets titles. Semi-Finals, Semi Finals, Semifinals, Semi-finals. I started to make them all into Semi-finals as a default, on the basis of spelling conformity. This is probably the most common spelling, although the American form is Semifinals, without the hyphen. There are concerns that I am stomping on ENGVAR and most of my edits have been reverted. What are people's thoughts on this? Use the Semi-finals as a default or have two defaults, depending on region? Surely, we can reduce the spellings to two (Semifinals and Semi-finals)? Although, I do want to 'stump' for Semi-finals as my preference. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove all instances of "Semi Finals and "Semi-Finals" in favour of either semifinals or semi-finals. A good rule of thumb is to use the American spelling on US or US-related topics and use semi-finals on British or Brit-related content. If you are unsure which on to use you should look if there's an established form in either US or Brit. Personally I think it's a minor difference and would not be troubled by either form being used. If anything, let the involved users work out which one to use. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Article requiring upgrade of status

The article 2003 Afro-Asian Games might be ready for an upgrade in class from C to B. I request an editor to see the article, and say whether the article is ready for an upgrade.

Comments and suggestions are welcome from everyone.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice regarding how to structure articles

(asked at Help desk, they suggested asking here) USA basketball is an organization responsible for national basketball teams representing the US. There is an article, USA Basketball, understandably short, because there are both men's and women's team. That page leads to a Men's page, which discusses the Olympic and FIBA teams (but ignores other teams). That page also links to a Women's page discussing some of the women's teams.

Here's the problem - the title of the Women's page is USA women's national basketball team. While all the teams within their purview are national teams, the term "national team" is also used to mean just the Olympic(and FIBA World championship) teams. There are other teams, such as the U19, Pan American, Jones Cup and World University teams. (I note that if the title simply had a "s" at the end - "national teams" - I could rewrite the opening section to note that the article is discussing all the teams, but changing the title has implications - so I'm looking for advice)

The World University Games start next week, so I would like to add the World University rosters and history somewhere.

One option is to create a separate page for each team and link all pages back to the parent USA Basketball page. Another option is to discuss all the women's team within the women's page. I prefer the latter approach (partly because the Jones Cup teams are already there), but it would require a change in the article title to something like USA Basketball women's teams. I suspect that can be done with a move, but moves create their own set of issues, so I want to get some advice from veterans.--SPhilbrickT 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

National Hockey League GAR notice

National Hockey League has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox help?

Is there someone that can make Template:Infobox Motocross rider inherit from Template:Infobox Sportsperson? Currently the mxrider template is in poor shape. There aren't many pages using it, so I'll upgrade them if backwards-compatibility isn't easy/possible. tedder (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, a better idea might be to create a new generic "motorcycle racer" template that can be inherited by other templates, such as MotoGP, AMA, and various motocross series. The trick is to have some fairly generic fields for wins. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling isn't terribly deep in experience, which is why I'm asking here. (it's probably worth replying at my userpage if it's been more than a few days since this posting) tedder (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing from Outline of sports?

Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 00:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete removal of Future events templates

Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates it was decided that "future " templates like that of future sporting events would be removed.

{{future sport|event=Olympic Games|image=Olympic_Rings.svg}}

Templates like this have now been removed from dozens of sporting articles, am i the only one who thought they were pretty useful for future sporting events? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but a large majority felt they were redundant to prose. Powers ^T 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Baseball

Just thought you might want to know that I have nominated Portal:Baseball at WP:FPOC! Please stop by and weigh in! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arena notability

Are there any guidelines on determining notability of an Arena? I'm looking at the arena for Anyang Halla and Anyang KT&G Kites. Both teams are members of the respective pro divisions in South Korea. Is it sufficient that an arena be used by one or more pro-teams?--Crossmr (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia)

Hello. I would like to nominate the article Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia) for a Featured list. Before doing so, I listed it for a peer review and would like to invite everybody to express their opinions. It would really help me. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Help out anyone?

Hi guys, I'm hitting some dead ends on 2009 Francophone Games, this cannot be a "single author" article and i cannot catch up with all the press releases and articles alone, please help me :( Eli+ 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I have proposed that Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport be moved back to Doping in sport. See here for more information. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Referee article - internal redirects?

There's no discussion on Talk:Referee, so I'm broadening the request.

The Referee article lists various sports and the officiating crews that oversee games. The problem is with the listing for underwater hockey. While I have no problem with it being listed, I think it should only have one entry. A sequence of IP addresses keep adding an internal redirect of "Octopush - see underwater hockey".

No other sports have this. There is no "Soccer - see football" or the like. I don't see a reason why underwater hockey should have special status.

If I could get some input on this at Talk:Referee#Octopush internal redirect - why?, I'd appreciate it. —C.Fred (talk) 02:26, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox for awards

Hi, I started an infobox for awards: Template:Infobox Sports award. My main goal is for cycling awards, but I hope that it can be used for all awards in Category:Sports trophies and awards, but I don't know if it's flexible enough. If you have feedback, it would be great! --EdgeNavidad (talk) 08:39, 24 April 2009 (UTC) Currently I am not using the award yet, and I would advise others not to use it, until the names of the parameters in the template are more or less agreed upon. If not major objections come up, I am planning to use it one week from now.--EdgeNavidad (talk) 09:16, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Template:Current sport

I've just started a discussion on the guidelines and application of Template:Current sport here, for those who are interested. --Conti|✉ 15:46, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Does your WikiProject care about talk pages of redirects?

Does your project care about what happens to the talk pages of articles that have been replaced with redirects? If so, please provide your input at User:Mikaey/Request for Input/ListasBot 3. Thanks, Matt (talk) 02:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject Athletics

I have organised a proposal for an Athletics WikiProject and am looking for prospective members. I look forward to working with you in the future! Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 12:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Table of contents and Project Sports Template

On talk pages using the Wikiproject Sports template, the table of contents are hidden, unless one expands ("show") the "to do list". Is this because of an error in the template? Can someone fix this? I think the table of contents of the talk pages should be independent of the project and other boxes. In addition, the template seems to include something about a 1980 bronze flag error. SlowJog (talk) 01:37, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see a reason for having the project's "to do" list in the template. It should be on the project's page, as it is. But, why should it be seen from talk pages for articles that are not affected by the project "to do" list? SlowJog (talk) 02:14, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

This message is being sent to WikiProjects with GAs under their scope. Since August 2007, WikiProject Good Articles has been participating in GA sweeps. The process helps to ensure that articles that have passed a nomination before that date meet the GA criteria. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. Instead of reviewing by topic, editors can consider picking and choosing whichever articles they are interested in.

We are always looking for new members to assist with reviewing the remaining articles, and since this project has GAs under its scope, it would be beneficial if any of its members could review a few articles (perhaps your project's articles). Your project's members are likely to be more knowledgeable about your topic GAs then an outside reviewer. As a result, reviewing your project's articles would improve the quality of the review in ensuring that the article meets your project's concerns on sourcing, content, and guidelines. However, members can also review any other article in the worklist to ensure it meets the GA criteria.

If any members are interested, please visit the GA sweeps page for further details and instructions in initiating a review. If you'd like to join the process, please add your name to the running total page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles from the worklist or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. With ~1,300 articles left to review, we would appreciate any editors that could contribute in helping to uphold the quality of GAs. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 05:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Takkle

I declined the speedy deletion and prodded this one. See the talk page; most of the Google archive hits weren't interesting, but there are possibilities, and I hope we can save it. - Dank (push to talk) 14:11, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Shooting sports

We apparently have articles on Clay pigeon shooting, Skeet shooting, Sporting Clays, and Trap shooting.
Of these, List of sports shows only Clay pigeon shooting. Presumably we want to add the others?
Also, do we want to merge any of these? Or if not, can we make sure that each article mentions how its subject is distinct from the others?
This is FYI: I don't know anything about this subject and will not be doing any of this myself or monitoring this page for discussion.
Thanks. -- 201.37.230.43 (talk) 22:59, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article naming: league abbreviations

I propose that articles addressing specific seasons of a particular athletic league (e.g., 2007 NLL season) should be renamed to use the full name of the league (e.g., 2007 National Lacrosse League season). This would be consistent with both the main league articles and with the manual of style guideline on abbreviations. Powers ^T 19:34, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Stats in articles

Today I removed the stats grid from the Kobe Bryant article, citing WP:NOT#STATS, just as I did with the Ted Williams article a long time ago. My change to the Kobe Bryant article was reverted.

It is clear to me that grids of stats are NOT NECESSARY on Wikipedia because there are other sites (nba.com, mlb.com, etc.) whose job it is to keep track of stats. If we are to include stats grids for every player, how will they get updated? How often? Who will do it? Because these questions all seem to have the same answer -- wikipedia shouldn't include the stats but just point to a reliable website -- I firmly believe the grids of player stats are not relevant on WP.

Has this issue been discussed before? Is there a consensus? Shall we create one here?

To be clear, I am talking about season-by-season grids of stats. Thanks. Timneu22 (talk) 20:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't think NOTSTATS explicitly prohibits stats tables like the one in the Kobe Bryant article. It only prohibits long lists of stats with no context. IMO, Bryant's yearly numbers seem like a sensible thing to include, since those stats provide a quantitative description of his success as a player.

However, I'll agree that maintaining the stats is problematic. I was watching lots of NBA articles over the last season, and I noticed that very few stats tables were regularly updated. And when they were updated, what often happened was that people would update one specific stat (like points per game) but leave the others alone, which could make things really confusing.

I'd still like to keep the stats in the articles, but we'd probably need a bot or something to keep them updated after every game. I have no idea if something like that could be done. Zagalejo^^^ 23:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The hockey project has a policy of not updating stat tables during the season and routinely reverts any edits that add current season stats. Tables are labled as "As of the end of XXXX season." specifically to get around the some being updated and others not being updated issue. Probably should also be looked at by other sports projects. Stats are extremely relevant to wikipedia, as the people are notable for their playing career and as such how they do in their playing career needs to be included in their article. Most of your other issues are solved by my earlier comment. -Djsasso (talk) 04:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the real solution is to find a website that has a constantly-updated, embeddable grid. Then athlete articles can just use the HTML to embed it. Does such a site exist? Timneu22 (talk) 09:22, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

That would not be okay because those sites haven't ok'ed the idea. For stats that are available on another site, you cannot use them as is. Maybe the underlying numbers they don't own, but the html is theirs. And it would be wrong to use -all- of their numbers too. And sites change, too. What I think NOTSTATS means is that you go to other sites for -full- stats. But it's a big part of sports, so it's important to articles. There are lots of different kinds of encyclopedias too. We should not try to be like Britannica. Alaney2k (talk) 01:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Remember that one of the things that Wikipedia is supposed to be like is a sports almanac. Statistics form an integral part of many sports, Donald Bradman#Statistical summary springs to mind. A relatively simple grid like that on Kobe Bryant is helpful, not a hindrance, to the article. However, if you happened to list his various stats from every single game... Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!}

Where is there a policy that says Wikipedia is a sports almanac? Timneu22 (talk) 12:36, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't recall such a policy, but I do know the first pillar states that Wikipedia "incorporat[es] elements of ... almanacs". —LOL ^T/_C 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

When you omit season-by-season statistics, you omit the information as to when was a player's best year statistically in comparison, and within a full career. While I certainly agree that Ted Williams and Babe Ruth are great articles, why should we omit that so-and-so hit their best average in XXX year, or when they hit most home runs? I think that we are doing readers a disservice. Of course you can go elsewhere, but Wikipedia is not paper. Maybe a 'List of Babe Ruth seasons' article or some such idea. I trust Wikipedia more than other sites, because you get a reference, two, three. Web sites come and go, let's have Wikipedia stand on its own. Alaney2k (talk) 14:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't disagree; however wikipedia is not supposed to be a list of indiscriminate information. Even if you think it should be (and I do too). That being said, there is a discussion here on the topic right now. Timneu22 (talk) 14:38, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Player stats are not indiscriminant. They are clearly specifically about the player in question thus they are discriminating as its not random statistics. -Djsasso (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Don't mean to offend you Timneu22 but it is slightly tiring that editors continue to fail to grasp the meaning of indiscriminate. "Kobe Bryant has facial hair, a Honda Civic and two parents" is an example of indiscriminate information. "Bryant's season averages for 2002 are X, Y, and Z" is pretty much the opposite. Indiscriminate =/= "excessive". It means information without meaning, context, or logical cohesion. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 22:22, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Bracket templates

I have been editing the bracket templates in Category:Tournament bracket templates. I think the discussion should be here and not on my talk page. (There was a previous discussion of this on a user talk page and I missed it). Basically, the discussion has come down to this. I've noticed some various spellings of 'semi-finals' (applies to 'quarter-finals' equally) in the brackets titles. Semi-Finals, Semi Finals, Semifinals, Semi-finals. I started to make them all into Semi-finals as a default, on the basis of spelling conformity. This is probably the most common spelling, although the American form is Semifinals, without the hyphen. There are concerns that I am stomping on ENGVAR and most of my edits have been reverted. What are people's thoughts on this? Use the Semi-finals as a default or have two defaults, depending on region? Surely, we can reduce the spellings to two (Semifinals and Semi-finals)? Although, I do want to 'stump' for Semi-finals as my preference. Alaney2k (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd say remove all instances of "Semi Finals and "Semi-Finals" in favour of either semifinals or semi-finals. A good rule of thumb is to use the American spelling on US or US-related topics and use semi-finals on British or Brit-related content. If you are unsure which on to use you should look if there's an established form in either US or Brit. Personally I think it's a minor difference and would not be troubled by either form being used. If anything, let the involved users work out which one to use. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{WIKIPROJECT ATHLETICS NEEDS YOU!} 13:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Article requiring upgrade of status

The article 2003 Afro-Asian Games might be ready for an upgrade in class from C to B. I request an editor to see the article, and say whether the article is ready for an upgrade.

Comments and suggestions are welcome from everyone.

Ankitbhatt (talk) 12:05, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Advice regarding how to structure articles

(asked at Help desk, they suggested asking here) USA basketball is an organization responsible for national basketball teams representing the US. There is an article, USA Basketball, understandably short, because there are both men's and women's team. That page leads to a Men's page, which discusses the Olympic and FIBA teams (but ignores other teams). That page also links to a Women's page discussing some of the women's teams.

Here's the problem - the title of the Women's page is USA women's national basketball team. While all the teams within their purview are national teams, the term "national team" is also used to mean just the Olympic(and FIBA World championship) teams. There are other teams, such as the U19, Pan American, Jones Cup and World University teams. (I note that if the title simply had a "s" at the end - "national teams" - I could rewrite the opening section to note that the article is discussing all the teams, but changing the title has implications - so I'm looking for advice)

The World University Games start next week, so I would like to add the World University rosters and history somewhere.

One option is to create a separate page for each team and link all pages back to the parent USA Basketball page. Another option is to discuss all the women's team within the women's page. I prefer the latter approach (partly because the Jones Cup teams are already there), but it would require a change in the article title to something like USA Basketball women's teams. I suspect that can be done with a move, but moves create their own set of issues, so I want to get some advice from veterans.--SPhilbrickT 11:45, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

National Hockey League GAR notice

National Hockey League has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 04:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Infobox help?

Is there someone that can make Template:Infobox Motocross rider inherit from Template:Infobox Sportsperson? Currently the mxrider template is in poor shape. There aren't many pages using it, so I'll upgrade them if backwards-compatibility isn't easy/possible. tedder (talk) 00:23, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, a better idea might be to create a new generic "motorcycle racer" template that can be inherited by other templates, such as MotoGP, AMA, and various motocross series. The trick is to have some fairly generic fields for wins. Unfortunately, Wikipedia:WikiProject Motorcycling isn't terribly deep in experience, which is why I'm asking here. (it's probably worth replying at my userpage if it's been more than a few days since this posting) tedder (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

What's missing from Outline of sports?

Also, here's a relevant discussion about subject development you might find interesting.

The Transhumanist 00:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible deprecation of the "Future" templates

I have started a discussion on the possible deprecation of the "Future" templates at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates. Since this project uses such a template, I invite everyone from this WikiProject to participate in the discussion. --Conti|✉ 13:16, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

GAN backlog reduction - Sports and recreation

As you may know, we currently have 400 good article nominations, with a large number of them being in the sports and recreation section. As such, the waiting time for this is especially long, much longer than it should be. As a result of this, I am asking each sports-related WikiProject to review two or three of these nominations. If this is abided by, then the backlog should be cleared quite quickly. Some projects nominate a lot but don't review, or vice-versa, and following this should help to provide a balance and make the waiting time much smaller so that our articles can actually get reviewed! Wizardman 23:39, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Complete removal of Future events templates

Following the discussion at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Deprecating "Future" templates it was decided that "future " templates like that of future sporting events would be removed.

{{future sport|event=Olympic Games|image=Olympic_Rings.svg}}

Templates like this have now been removed from dozens of sporting articles, am i the only one who thought they were pretty useful for future sporting events? BritishWatcher (talk) 12:18, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

No, but a large majority felt they were redundant to prose. Powers ^T 14:02, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

NOTICE. Request For Comment: Changes to Naming policies which may affect WikiProject naming conventions.

Following recent changes by some editors to the Wikipedia:Naming conventions policy page, a Request For Comment, (RFC) is now being held to debate the removal of the passage specifying that individual WikiProject and other naming conventions are able to make exceptions to the standard policy of using Common Names as the titles of Wikipedia articles.

This WikiProject is being notified since it operates such a specific naming convention. Editors are invited to comment on the proposed change at this location. Xandar 01:56, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

The above "notification" is a grossly biased misrepresentation of the changes under discussion. The old version of the naming conventions policy tried to lay down binding rules; we don't work that way, so it was necessary also to make explicit exceptions. The new version articulates principles, and allows for consensus to establish how they should be applied. Thus there is no longer any need for exceptions. In fact, making exceptions is nonsense, since there are no rules to make exceptions to. These changes are good for specific conventions. Xandar is trying to induce moral panic in those who stand to gain the most from this. Xandar is only opposed to the new version because he thinks the wording, not the general thrust, weakens his position in a dispute unrelated to this RfC. Don't be fooled. Hesperian 02:45, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

No. Don't be fooled. The proposed wording change is shown at the RFC linked in my post above. The removal of the "exceptions" phrase is a very significant change. The policy never stated that it consisted of "rules" before, and it still doesn't. However it remains policy. Simply stating a personal view that titling a section "principles" changes the status of the policy page, is one not even accepted by many editors on Hesperians side. There is already an attempt to use the principle of no exceptions to the "use common name" policy to radically change the Naming conflict page, and one of the proposers of this change has indicated that the guidance on flora is also targetted. The change is in my view an attempt to impose a rigid, top-down policy on naming which ignores what wikipedia editors on the ground find most useful. Xandar 03:10, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured portal candidates/Portal:Baseball

Just thought you might want to know that I have nominated Portal:Baseball at WP:FPOC! Please stop by and weigh in! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:48, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Arena notability

Are there any guidelines on determining notability of an Arena? I'm looking at the arena for Anyang Halla and Anyang KT&G Kites. Both teams are members of the respective pro divisions in South Korea. Is it sufficient that an arena be used by one or more pro-teams?--Crossmr (talk) 03:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia)

Hello. I would like to nominate the article Sportsperson of the Year (Czechoslovakia) for a Featured list. Before doing so, I listed it for a peer review and would like to invite everybody to express their opinions. It would really help me. Thank you very much. Jan.Kamenicek (talk) 22:15, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

Help out anyone?

Hi guys, I'm hitting some dead ends on 2009 Francophone Games, this cannot be a "single author" article and i cannot catch up with all the press releases and articles alone, please help me :( Eli+ 13:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move

I have proposed that Use of performance-enhancing drugs in sport be moved back to Doping in sport. See here for more information. Sillyfolkboy (talk) (edits)^{Join WikiProject Athletics!} 18:18, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

RfC on sportspeople categories

See Wikipedia talk:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sportspeople categories. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 20:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

203.59.132.203 (talk · contribs)

203.59.132.203 (talk · contribs) has edited several nationalities/birthplaces of sportsmen, one edit of them at least being obviously wrong. Could you check his other contributions ? Éclusette (talk) 14:33, 5 December 2009 (UTC) (fr)

Invitationals

We have articles on tournaments by bracket type, such as single-elimination tournament, round-robin tournament, etc., but no articles on other aspects/categorizations. The most obvious needed one is invitational tournament with explanation of the basic concept, and some detailed sourced examples of how the invitation systems work in various different sports. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:43, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Orphan page

2009 UEM 500cc Sidecar Final is an orphan page and it's not well formatted. Can someone help Ccecotto (talk) 21:15, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

FAR Anabolic steroid

I have nominated Anabolic steroid for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets 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 "Remove" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:37, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Years in sports articles

I believe that the proliferation of birth entries in these articles from about the mid-20th century to the 1980s creates an imbalance and is contrary to the basic principle of such articles that they summarise the significant events that occurred in sport during that year and were seen to be significant at the time. For example, in 1956 in sports, the fact that Rocky Marciano retired was significant at the time; the birth of Sugar Ray Leonard was not (except to himself and his family).

1956 in sports has 21 sections about individual sports, plus one about the Olympics, one about awards and then the births and deaths sections. The biggest individual sport section seems to be figure skating with about 15 lines, which is fair enough. But the births section has about 150 lines, which is ridiculous, especially as its potential for growth could be twentyfold or more if all sports chip in. And do these births have the same significance as the 1956 Olympics or football's inaugural European Cup or the 1956 Ashes series? Hardly. A typical case is Thomas Graham (volleyball), born on 10 April 1956, whose claim to fame is that he was a member of the Canadian Olympic volleyball team which finished ninth in the 1976 Olympics. Ninth. And in what is actually a quite minor sport (although it is one I personally enjoy).

I propose to drastically reduce the size of these births sections but really I think they should be removed completely. I can see the point of a deaths section if the deceased person died or was killed before having retired, as this would have been a significant event in that sporting year: e.g., the Manchester United footballers who died in the 1958 air disaster. But a births section adds no value whatsoever.

The problem is that there is a single editor who is apparently determined to populate these articles with the birth and death dates of anyone and everyone who has taken part in the Olympics, medallist or otherwise. There must be some WP policy or guideline somewhere about introducing such excessive detail that is out of context with an article's purpose. In fact, there are at least two: WP:NOT#STATS and WP:UNDUEWEIGHT while, in WP:NOTDIRECTORY, editors are advised that articles are not a complete exposition of all possible details but rather a summary of accepted knowledge regarding the subject.

I won't do anything about it yet as I'd like to read what other people think first. --Orrelly Man (talk) 13:33, 28 March 2009 (UTC)

Hear, hear! (read!)

Thank you for your time. I don't know enough to comment on the fourth paragraph but the first three make a good account of the problem and a good suggestion or two. (1) "They should be removed completely". (2) Only "deaths section [limited to] if the deceased person died or was killed before having retired, as this would have been a significant event in that sporting year". (Let me add to the second alternative that death during or a sporting event or death of a whole team in airplane crash may make the sporting-unnotable people notable.)

Three years ago I may have been happy to "compete" with a prominent cricket historian by putting a couple of baseballist births back in the 1830s. This makes me regret a little, for the practice is clearly out of reasonable bounds now. I support the second suggestion, no Births and severely limited Deaths.

I am not entirely comfortable saying that everything in a Year in sports must be notable specifically in the year of listing. Long ago (perhaps 1856 in sports, perhaps a generation earlier?) there may be some need to say when someone was flourishing or when some development approximately occurred. That's another problem, as dates when people flourished don't end up in "Births" listings, unless some editors are really overboard. --P64 (talk) 01:21, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, P64, and I agree with your point in the final paragraph as it is often necessary in early histories to say "it was at about this time that..." I also agree with you about disasters and deaths during events, though I think I would like to see those covered in a section about the sport itself. --Orrelly Man (talk) 11:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

I have been studying the 1960s in sport and at the end I registered a complaint about this very issue of births lists on the talk page of 1960 in sports. I then followed the links to the sports project and found this discussion which states my own points almost precisely.

As a reader who rarely contributes to the site, I consider most of the 19yy in sports articles to have been ruined by an obsession with insignificant birth details. As I recorded on the 1960 talk page, at least half a dozen of the 1960 births are of people who do not even have an article! Even the birth of a world-famous sportsperson has no importance in terms of sport in the year he or she was born. In my opinion, you most certainly should remove all births sections.

I am very interested in what you have said about deaths. There is no doubt that the sudden death of a still-active sportsperson is significant and should be recorded: for example, the deaths of drivers like Ayrton Senna or of the Torino and Manchester United footballers in the two air disasters. I think I agree with the view above that these should be covered within the sport's own section and not in a separate deaths section. That given, I don't think there should be a separate deaths section because, for example, the death in 1965 of an 85 year old who flourished in Edwardian times has little if any importance to sport in 1965.

Incidentally, I am thinking of registering a membership and, if I decide to proceed, I will join this project. --86.139.109.83 (talk) 09:42, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

(quote)I think I agree with the view above that these should be covered within the sport's own section and not in a separate deaths section. That given, I don't think there should be a separate deaths section

I think I agree on this detail, too. --P64 (talk) 14:12, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

I think there is a clear enough consensus now so as I work through the articles I'll use this discussion as my authority. I'll remove all births lists, move all significant deaths (i.e., of active sportspeople) into their respective sport sections and then remove all death lists too. --Orrelly Man (talk) 09:01, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Works for me. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

All births and deaths sections, deprecated by the project, have now been removed. I'm working to improve the format, appearance and content of these articles generally and will be focused on 1851 to 1930 going forward. --Orrelly Man (talk) 07:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Since the above topic ended, someone has reintroduced a Deaths section to 2009 in sports. I want to remove it and will quote this discussion with its consensus as my authority. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 04:07, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

And now there is another IP address trying to introduce births sections which I am reverting. ----Jack | ^{talk page} 07:17, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Proposal of WikiProject:Darts

I have proposed a new WikiProject, named WikiProject:Darts. If you think the idea was good, you can support this proposal there. Armbrust (talk) 01:00, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Flag related discussion at WP:Footy

All there is a flag related discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Football#Proposed_major_change_to_Football_squad_system which may be of interest to user here Gnevin (talk) 14:53, 29 December 2009 (UTC)